The Origins of Christianity

[John2]

I thought I'd expand a little on my last post regarding the word nilvim in the Damascus Document (who are one of the three classes of people mentioned in the esoteric interpretation of Ezk. 44:15). As Cohen notes on page 122 of "The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties," this word is used in the OT to describe gentiles who convert to Judaism or attach themselves in some manner to Israel.

Isaiah 14:1 ... prophesizes that "strangers (hager) shall join (venilvah) them and shall cleave to the House of Jacob" ... these passages [he cites others before this that aren't viewable on Google books] address the eschatological age, when the earth is filled with knowledge of the Lord, and a new cosmic order is being created ... The first and only passage in the Tanakh that would seem to refer clearly to the social integration of the gentile in the historical present is Esther 9:27: "The Judeans undertook and irrevocably obligated themselves and their descendants, and all who might join them, to observe these two days in the manner prescribed and at the proper time each year." Here we have Judeans (yehudim), and gentiles who attach themselves (nilvim aleihem) to them; all alike constitute the community of those bound by the law of the Purim festival.

https://books.google.com/books?id=cvWq4 ... en&f=false

Also, now that I'm at the library and not at work I can use Eisenman's translation of the CD passage in question, which I think is better than Vermes. (It also refers to attaining eternal life and may possibly reflect the concept of the Primal Adam, which the Jewish Encyclopedia notes "is of Judeo-Christian origin ... [and] seems to have been taught in the original form of the Clementine literature").

And for them that hold fast to it, there will be Victorious Life, and all the Glory of Adam will be theirs, which God established for them by the hand of the prophet Ezekiel, saying: "The Priests and the Levites and the Sons of Zadok, who kept the service of the Temple, when the Sons of Israel strayed from me, will offer me the fat and blood." "The Priests" are the Penitents of Israel, who went out from the Land of Judah and "the Joiners" [nilvim] with them. And "the Sons of Zadok" are the Elect of Israel, called by name, who will stand up in the Last Days."

So not only does the Damascus Document refer to a singular Messiah, "the Way," and "the New Covenant" in a place called Damascus, it alters the OT to support the inclusion of gentiles, which, along with the interpretation of "priests" as penitents, is in keeping with the portrait of James in Hegesippus, who wore priestly clothes and "was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people" and that "he became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ."

[Clive]

Jesus is the Christ

So there are at least four processes happening here.

The construction of a Jesus - recollections of memories, invention of a character, mixtures

The evolution of christs and one becoming the Christ

The merging of a Jesus and a Christ ( or merging of several of each)

The assertion that "Jesus" is the "Christ"

[Clive]

JGFrazer's assertions are definitely part, possibly a core part of this particular marinade!

[Clive]

Are we not looking at various authors attempts to explain the relationships between "Jesus" and "Christ"?


And therefore another way to date documents by testing what model Jesi and christs are being used?

[John2]

Regarding the concept of being "called by name," col. 2 of the Damascus Document connects this with a singular Messiah:

“He raised for Himself men called by name … and through his Anointed [or Messiah, which is singular in Hebrew and in Schechter's translation here but is made plural by emendation in others] He made them know His Holy Spirit, and he is true, and the explanation of their names.”

So the Damascus Document is loaded with terms and concepts familiar from early Christianity, like the New Covenant; Damascus; the Way; salvation (“yeshuah”); atonement; a singular messiah making known the holy spirit; the last days; people “called by name”; and God/the Messiah and/or the Holy Spirit being “the explanation of their names” (which is not included in Vermes’ translation for some reason).

This being “called by name” and “the explanation of their names” business is interesting. James 2:7 says that Jewish Christians bore “the noble name of him to whom you belong.”

This “name” theme is also apparent throughout Acts (e.g., 2:21; 4:12; 5:41; 9:14; 10:43; 22:16; 26:9), which also frequently mentions "the Way" (9:2, 19:9, 19:23, 22:4, 24:14), and in 15:14-17 James associates the name with gentiles and the fallen tent of David mentioned in Amos 9:11: "Simon has told us how God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people to be His own. The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written: After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, so that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear My name, says the Lord who does these things."

Amos 9:11 is also mentioned in col. 7 of the Damascus Document, and in col. 8 it says, "A Book of Remembrance was written before Him for God-Fearers and for those considering His Name, until God shall reveal Salvation [yesha] and Justification to those fearing His Name," and the end of col. 8 says, "And they shall listen to the voice of the Teacher of Righteousness and not desert the Laws of Righteousness. But rather, when they hear them, they shall exult and rejoice, and their hearts will be strengthened, and they shall prevail against all the Sons of the Earth. And God will make atonement for them, and they will see His Salvation [yeshua] because they took refuge in HIs Holy Name."

[outhouse]

Jesus is the Christ

So there are at least four processes happening here.

The construction of a Jesus - recollections of memories, invention of a character, mixtures

The evolution of christs and one becoming the Christ

The merging of a Jesus and a Christ ( or merging of several of each)

The assertion that "Jesus" is the "Christ"

There are only two "bolded", the rest is your poor guessing no one else substantiates or follows.

Different communities describing differently one Christ, does not mean multiple Christ characters evolved into one. Your wrong to the point of vivid imagination.

[outhouse]

Damascus Document

To late to be used in ANY aspect for the origin of Christianity.

[MrMacSon]

Michael BG wrote:

• ""I don’t think anyone believes there was a structured church in Judea with priests and bishops by 70 CE."

Whether or not the church (or assembly) in Judea was structured with priests and bishops, at least according to Acts 6:7 it consisted of a "large number" of priests:

• "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

Acts 6 is interesting, and more so in other versions such as the ESV -

Acts 6 (ESV)
1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.

7 And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. 10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13 and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.” 15 And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

" ..a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith." - who were 'the priests' obedient to beforehand?

The Westar Acts Seminar surmised that Acts is based on the Pauline texts - there is circularity in relying on Acts (or in relying on Act to verify Paul).

As Neil Godfrey has alluded*, passages like "this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us" could be written 'after the event' ie. after the 'fall of Jerusalem'

* ..we are looking at a speech or text that was written to explain events that had happened, yet put in the mouth of a prophet as if prior to that event. That's how all Jewish apocalyptic literature worked. It was describing the past or present, not the future -- in order to give the present generation confidence that the recent and contemporary events were "under control" and had meaning. http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 629#p55629

ie. the texts were written after events, but written as if they were prophecies before the event (including giving the illusion that the church was well established in the alleged pre-70 AD time of 'Paul'.)

[MrMacSon]

Jesus is the Christ

So there are at least four processes happening here.

The construction of a Jesus - recollections of memories, invention of a character, mixtures

The evolution of christs and one becoming the Christ

The merging of a Jesus and a Christ ( or merging of several of each)

The assertion that "Jesus" is the "Christ"

I think that is a good schema.

I'd say "The evolution of 'Christs' and one becoming 'the Christ' " and "The merging of a Jesus and a Christ" likely happened around the same time.

[DCHindley]

Such is the power of presuppositions. The idea that there is only one meaning for "messiah" seems to be so deeply embedded in our thinking. I have said over and over that yes, the messianic idea of a physical saviour figure emerged at the time of the Jewish War. Yes -- agree with your point since clearly it is simply a citation of the evidence familiar to us all.

But Josephus was able to comfortably turn that prophecy towards Vespasian -- who obviously was no Davidic figure.

That's why I wrote Davidic type messiah.

Don't mean to sound testy -- but this discussion seems to have been fraught from the outset with contrary assumptions about the meanings of certain phrases and words, and simply adding what I think are explanatory phrases to those words seems to make no difference. :-/ Such are our ingrained presuppositions, I think.

You think?

I did not pick up on the significance of "Davidic type Messiah". Unfortunately, there are probably as many definitions for "Davidic messiah" as there are exegetes. I was getting the impression (from other reading) that "Davidic messiah" is almost a modern invention. I think the term "of David" was almost used interchangeably with "of royal lineage". Bar Kosiba, IIRC, was spoken of as if a Davidic messiah, but as far as I know, he was not of Davidic (= "royal") lineage.

DCH