Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Outhouse wrote (regarding the Damascus Document):

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

Do you mean you think it's too early to be used for the origin of Christianity (at least the fragments of it that were found at Qumran)? Or do you mean the later copies that were found in the Cairo Genizah? In any event, I generally take radiocarbon and paleographic dating for anything, not just the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a grain of salt. They give us a general idea, regarding which Fitzmeyer writes:

Given the situation of meager information about first-century Palestine, one realizes the importance of the Qumran texts as a reflection of the Palestinian Judaism immediately prior to and contemporary with the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and wit h the emergence of early Christianity. In general, the Qumran texts date from the end of the third century B.C. to a short time before the destruction of the community center in the summer of A.D. 68 at what is called today Khirbet Qumran. They have all been dated paloegraphically ... these paleographic datings have recently been supported in an unexpected way by radiocarbon datings ... the general confirmation that has come from it for the paleographic dating is, by and large, significant and noteworthy. It certainly puts to rest the outlandish claims made by some students of the Qumran scrolls who questioned or ignored the paleographic datings. Such a dating of the Qumran texts gives these documents a status that is privileged for the study of early Christianity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=9d6gq ... ls&f=false

Tov puts the dating issue this way in "The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context":

The paleographical dates applied to the documents range from the fourth century B.C.E to the first century C.E. for the Jericho documents, from 250 B.C.E. to 68 C.E. for the Qumran texts ... With the aid of a C-14 test, 1QIsa was dated to between 250 and 103 B.C.E (paleographical date: 125-100 B.C.E) and 11QT between 97 B.C.E. to 1 C.E. (paleographical date: late first century B.C.E. to early first century C.E.)

https://books.google.com/books?id=xM7En ... ls&f=false

So these methods give us a general range of dating, and the dating of the Damascus Document fragments from Qumran, for example, range anywhere from the late first century BCE to the early first century CE, as Blanton notes here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=rdaTp ... ng&f=false

It seems to me then that your default position is that there were two messianic sects that called themselves "the Way" and practiced "the New Covenant" in a place called Damascus, with one of them leaving no trace in the historical record. As Bauckham puts it, "Although the Qumran community and the early Christians were certainly not the only Jews to focus their hopes on the Isaianic picture of the way ... they are the only two groups we know to have applied the image of this way to their own way of life."

John2 wrote:It seems to me then that your default position is that there were two messianic sects that called themselves "the Way" and practiced "the New Covenant" in a place called Damascus, with one of them leaving no trace in the historical record. As Bauckham puts it, "Although the Qumran community and the early Christians were certainly not the only Jews to focus their hopes on the Isaianic picture of the way ... they are the only two groups we know to have applied the image of this way to their own way of life."

I wonder whether it might be possible, John, for you to helpfully assemble the main Qumran and NT texts that evince such parallels into one post or thread. I believe "sons of light" should be on the list, too, correct? It would be great to have the references and texts handy.

John2 wrote:
Do you mean you think it's too early to be used for the origin of Christianity (at least the fragments of it that were found at Qumran)? Or do you mean the later copies that were found in the Cairo Genizah?

The later text found is what is used to confirm and fill in the blanks for the few fragments that date early. Problem is as Fitzmeyer writes, these are Jewish text from Qumran.

Qumran texts as a reflection of the Palestinian Judaism

The NT is text by Hellenist from the Diaspora, which has more to do with their anthropology, then Aramaic or Qumran Judaism.

. Such a dating of the Qumran texts gives these documents a status that is privileged for the study of early Christianity.

Yes understood, but it only applies to a small area in context. Its contributions are very very limited.

John2 wrote:It seems to me then that your default position is that there were two messianic sects that called themselves "the Way" and practiced "the New Covenant" in a place called Damascus, with one of them leaving no trace in the historical record. As Bauckham puts it, "Although the Qumran community and the early Christians were certainly not the only Jews to focus their hopes on the Isaianic picture of the way ... they are the only two groups we know to have applied the image of this way to their own way of life."

That is not my position.

I tend to focus on other areas, then the Dead Sea Scrolls. I leave that for others and reference when needed.

John2 wrote:Thanks for the collated response, Michael BG. My comments were a little scattershot. My brain isn't fully on this subject at the moment and I was responding to people's comments as I came across them.

Incidentally, regarding an observation of Bauckham … the Clementine literature … place Jewish Christians in Jericho in the Judean desert near Qumran:

But our friends lifted [James] up, for they were both more numerous and more powerful than the others; but, from their fear of God, they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than they would kill others. But when the evening came the priests shut up the temple, and we returned to the house of James, and spent the night there in prayer. Then before daylight we went down to Jericho, to the number of 5000 men ... therefore, we abode in Jericho, and gave ourselves to prayer and fasting..." (Recognitions of Clement 1.71-72).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080401.htm

It's a curious detail, at least.

Recognitions of Clement is not a reliable source of information as they are often dated to the 4th century.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Michael BG wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Mark does not say that the event "ended time" in our sense of that term. There is a wealth of scholarly material establishing the meaning of Mark's terminology within the understanding of the same terms in the OT. Daniel itself speaks of the Son of Man riding on the clouds and restoring the kingdom forever and ever to the holy people. That did not happen literally. That was typical metaphor for the restoration of Judea from the Seleucids. Same in Isaiah that speaks of stars falling from heaven etc. That didn't literally happen at the fall of Babylon but it is symbolic of the fall of kingdoms.

It is a mistake for us to interpret the metaphorical conventions of ancient mid east literature literally.

This reads to me as a denial of the idea that in the first century Jews believed in a Davidic Messiah who comes to bring in the end of time. I am saying that first century Jews did not see the predictions as a metaphor, but expected a real ending of time with God’s kingdom on earth like the restoration of paradise on earth.

If we are talking about Mark's "little apocalypse" then 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.

No Jew, I suspect, was looking to Isaiah's prophecy about cosmic calamities as a sign that one day in the future Babylon would fall. That prophecy was written after the fall of Babylon. Daniel was writing at the time of the Maccabees and describing the events of his day -- with perhaps a couple of verses at the very end to point to what was beyond.

Later generations -- we are talking post 70 CE -- who lost sight of the original contexts reinterpreted these texts as something else, as pointers to the future.

Mark's prophecy that he placed in Jesus' mouth was a description of recent events that were of major concern to his readers (whether post 70 or post 135): persecutions, false messiahs, devastating war, ....

I am not talking about Mark's "little apocalypse" because we have not discussed how much if anything goes back to Jesus. I think much of it does not go back to Jesus.

What you say is true of post 70 CE is likely to be true much earlier.
I assume that after the events that are referred as happening in the apocalyptic literature those reading the text would re-interpret them and that by at least 37 BCE (or earlier) Jews would be seeing the end of time in them as I have described it, which includes belief in a Davidic Messiah.

You have not yet provided any first century (BCE or CE) Jewish texts to support your view of their interpretation of the older apocalyptic literature. There seems little point in pursuing this discussion until you are in a position to do so, (or as I have requested twice requested to post the names of particular books with the full names of the authors that set out your position).

neilgodfrey wrote:The widespread popular idea of a Davidic type messiah to restore the kingdom and overthrow Rome first appeared at the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion -- according to later rabbinic sources.

This seems to be an interpretation of the later rabbinic sources, but it is often argued that these later sources do in fact contain much older traditions and beliefs.

neilgodfrey wrote:

DCHindley wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:The widespread popular idea of a Davidic type messiah to restore the kingdom and overthrow Rome first appeared at the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion -- according to later rabbinic sources.

Oh, I don't know ...

Seems both Josephus and Tacitus refer to a widespread belief just before the Judean rebellion that a world-ruler would arise from the region of Judea. [/i].

DCH

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 our our ingrained presuppositions, I think.

I have not been arguing for one meaning of Messiah and in another thread I am arguing against such a belief.

It seems that within the work of Josephus there were these physical saviour figures. The problem is how far they were seen as a Davidic Messiah figure and if Josephus had reasons for not stating that they saw themselves in this tradition. Even if only one Dead Sea Scroll contains a Davidic Messiah figure it is evidence for this belief at least by the first Jewish War.

John2 wrote: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."

I think we don’t have any or many texts that were actually written by Hegesippus. I think we only know of his work when quoted by others especially Eusebius, who I think is a very unreliable source for anything.

I wonder when it became normal for Christians to kneel to pray. I think it is and was normal for Jews to stand to pray. Therefore we should question the historicity of the idea that a Jewish Christian like James would kneel to pray.

John2 wrote:iskander wrote;

"What made "Christianity " first noticed by the men and the women living in Palestine at the time of 'Jesus'?"

I think the DSS sect were proto-Jewish Christians, and I think their messianism is what got them noticed (at least by those in power), because it went hand in hand with their rejection of the Pharisees, Herodians, and the Temple and why they were persecuted (like Paul, who was arguably a Herodian or associated with them, had persecuted Christians when he was a Pharisee).

John, I have been thinking about your post.

I think oto ha-ish was a heretic, one like Jan Hus , as an example. And this is all what I need to know about him.
He also , probably, claimed a messianic role, but this was not rare in his time.
What do you think about this article?



" This article will first argue that the Temple and the holiday of Sukkot share a special connection, and as the Temple became a symbol of messianic hope for Jews in ancient times, the holiday of Sukkot became linked to that messianic image as well

The second section of this article will argue that individuals who claimed leadership over the Jews on the Temple site during Sukkot, individuals such as Jonathan the Maccabee, King Alexander Jannaeus, and Jesus, were viewed by the Jews around them as making a bold claim and thereby as instigators of controversy.

Finally, the third section of this article will describe the reaction of the rabbis to this appropriation of the Sukkot and Temple imagery."

http://thetorah.com/sukkot-temple-messi ... ntroversy/

Michael BG wrote: I am not talking about Mark's "little apocalypse" because we have not discussed how much if anything goes back to Jesus. I think much of it does not go back to Jesus.

I'm afraid we are in quite a muddle. I don't understand where you are coming from or what is the point you are arguing, sorry. Are you suggesting that what we read in Mark 13 is based on a real saying much earlier, from around the 30s perhaps? If so, we are definitely at cross purposes. I see no evidence for making an assumption like that -- if that is indeed where you are coming from.

Michael BG wrote:What you say is true of post 70 CE is likely to be true much earlier.
I assume that after the events that are referred as happening in the apocalyptic literature those reading the text would re-interpret them and that by at least 37 BCE (or earlier) Jews would be seeing the end of time in them as I have described it, which includes belief in a Davidic Messiah.

Again I confess I have not followed you. Are you assuming that certain situations for which we have evidence in one period attained to an earlier period as well?

Michael BG wrote:You have not yet provided any first century (BCE or CE) Jewish texts to support your view of their interpretation of the older apocalyptic literature. There seems little point in pursuing this discussion until you are in a position to do so, (or as I have requested twice requested to post the names of particular books with the full names of the authors that set out your position).

Actually I have incidentally referred to others in making tangential points but since I am not sure what it is that you are arguing I am not sure any more if anything I have offered to cite will be relevant. Sorry, but I really have lost track of what the discussion is about. I have evidently misunderstood your position from the start.

Michael BG wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:The widespread popular idea of a Davidic type messiah to restore the kingdom and overthrow Rome first appeared at the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion -- according to later rabbinic sources.

This seems to be an interpretation of the later rabbinic sources, but it is often argued that these later sources do in fact contain much older traditions and beliefs.

Information in the later sources is sometimes argued to have derived from earlier times, but in each instance a cogent argument must be made. It's not something that can be assumed. We write for our own generation of readers about things that are relevant to them and the past is either recalled or fabricated for that purpose. The passage I was referring to was very specifically addressing the events of the Bar Kochba rebellion. There is an online translation here.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Michael BG wrote:What you say is true of post 70 CE is likely to be true much earlier.
I assume that after the events that are referred as happening in the apocalyptic literature, those reading the text would re-interpret them and that, by at least 37 BCE (or earlier), Jews would be seeing the end of time in them as I have described it, which includes belief in a Davidic Messiah.

Again I confess I have not followed you. Are you assuming that certain situations for which we have evidence in one period attained to an earlier period as well?

I presume Neil meant 'pertained' [rather than 'attained] ??

What is the significance of of 37 BCE ?

MrMacSon wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:

Michael BG wrote:What you say is true of post 70 CE is likely to be true much earlier.
I assume that after the events that are referred as happening in the apocalyptic literature, those reading the text would re-interpret them and that, by at least 37 BCE (or earlier), Jews would be seeing the end of time in them as I have described it, which includes belief in a Davidic Messiah.

Again I confess I have not followed you. Are you assuming that certain situations for which we have evidence in one period attained to an earlier period as well?

I presume Neil meant 'pertained' [rather than 'attained] ??

What is the significance of 37 BCE ?

Neil stated that Jews interpreted Daniel 7:13 etc.as the restoration of a Jewish kingdom “for ever” under the Maccabees. In 37 BCE the last Hasmonean king Antigonus II Mattathias was deposed and executed by the Romans. My point is that after 37 BCE it is likely that Jews re-interpreted the text of Daniel into a future prophecy and not one relating to the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Michael BG wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:The widespread popular idea of a Davidic type messiah to restore the kingdom and overthrow Rome first appeared at the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion -- according to later rabbinic sources.

This seems to be an interpretation of the later rabbinic sources, but it is often argued that these later sources do in fact contain much older traditions and beliefs.

Information in the later sources is sometimes argued to have derived from earlier times, but in each instance a cogent argument must be made. It's not something that can be assumed. We write for our own generation of readers about things that are relevant to them and the past is either recalled or fabricated for that purpose. The passage I was referring to was very specifically addressing the events of the Bar Kochba rebellion. There is an online translation here.

I accept that each instance has to be argued.

The article that you linked to by Jona Lendering is one of several of hers on Messianic claimants – http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts00.html

She writes,

We know that both Jesus and Theudas, together with Judas' (grand)son Menahem, were called Messiahs, and this makes it extremely likely that this title was given to Judas too. An additional argument is that Judas made a bid for national independence, something that was expected from the Messiah. In about 47, Judas' sons Jacob and Simon were arrested and crucified by governor Tiberius Julius Alexander. The story is told by Flavius Josephus.

While she seems to accept the gospels with very little or any criterial examination her interpretation of these stories of Josephus regarding these people should be taken seriously.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Michael BG wrote: I am not talking about Mark's "little apocalypse" because we have not discussed how much if anything goes back to Jesus. I think much of it does not go back to Jesus.

I'm afraid we are in quite a muddle. I don't understand where you are coming from or what is the point you are arguing, sorry. Are you suggesting that what we read in Mark 13 is based on a real saying much earlier, from around the 30s perhaps? If so, we are definitely at cross purposes. I see no evidence for making an assumption like that -- if that is indeed where you are coming from.

It might be helpful to return to the original posts:

neilgodfrey wrote: The messiah idea (as in a conquering Davidic hero to take over the political rule) only emerged during the Jewish war of 66-70 itself, and up to or again in the 130s with the Second Revolt. This concept of the messiah was not part of mainstream turn of the century Jewish thought, nor of Paul's, till then.

Michael BG wrote:[However I don’t see “a Davidic world conquering figure” in the gospels. I see a figure within the Wisdom tradition in both Mark and Q.

neilgodfrey wrote:That's correct. The Gospel of Mark was rejecting the notion of those "world/Roman conquering" types of messiahs.

Michael BG wrote:I am also surprised that your blog implies that modern scholars do not see a very wide Jewish view of the Messiah especially after the work on the Dead Sea scroll.

neilgodfrey wrote: Mark 13 warns of false messiahs; Mark's Jesus admonishes Peter for holding on to a conquering-only Messiah concept; Mark's Jesus is addressing his polar opposite, a Davidic conquering messiah idea, everytime he stresses that he must, on the contrary, undergo suffering and service. He doesn't just teach suffering and service, but he teaches these in contrast to their opposites -- and the narrative tells us that the opposites are what his disciples expect in a messiah.

neilgodfrey wrote:As for the language used by Mark to speak of the coming of God or his Christ/Son of Man .... it is drawn from the Jewish scriptures, so it is reasonable to apply to it a similar interpretation as we find there.

Michael BG wrote: What you seem to be saying is that Mark’s Jesus often states he is not a military heroic Messiah, but is a Messiah of a different type. And it is in this sense that Mark is concerned with this type of Messiah. It also appears that for you this is not historical, but there was a tradition that expected a nationalist Messiah as a new king of the Jewish people as the first stage of the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth. It is possible that Jesus did have to explain he was a suffering figure and not the expected divinely imposed figure.

Michael BG wrote: I really don’t understand how you can see Mark believing that a past event (fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE) was the event that ended time and created heaven on earth.

neilgodfrey wrote: I don't see questions of historicity entering into it. … The indications in Mark are that he was writing from the perspective of having seen the destruction of Jerusalem and the chaos related to that -- chaos that included false hopes in a figure who would come to defeat the Romans. Josephus tells us that there was such an expectation at the time of the War. (We have no evidence for such a hope earlier than the War.) So Mark is comparing the Jesus he is describing with those failed would-be hopefuls.

neilgodfrey wrote: Mark does not say that the event "ended time" in our sense of that term. There is a wealth of scholarly material establishing the meaning of Mark's terminology within the understanding of the same terms in the OT.

I am saying that you can’t just dismiss everything in Mark as not being historical. Therefore when Jesus talks of the coming kingdom it is likely that this is historical. When Jesus points out he is not the Davidic messiah it is possible it is historical. The reasons for this are that in the time of Jesus some Jews expected a Davidic Messiah and some expected the coming kingdom of God, which could include the end of time. Therefore I am arguing against what I perceived as your position which is that all Jews in the time of Jesus had no expectation of a Davidic Messiah and no expectation of the coming Kingdom of God that ends time and that they read the apocalyptic literature as being written about events in the past and they did not apply them to future expectations.