Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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] ??

I presume he meant "obtained", in the sense: "was in force" or "held true".

Michael BG wrote:

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

As I mentioned earlier, the Clementine literature "have an arguable Jewish Christian Grundschrift, as discussed by Kelley here:" https://books.google.com/books?id=Rbtcj ... es&f=false

I did not have time to quote from it the other day and thought the link would suffice.

The current consensus about this relationship is that a Grundschrift or Basic Writing must have been the source for both the Homilies and Recognitions. Most scholars would date the Grundschrift to between 220 and 260 CE and locate it somewhere in Syria...

And here is a link to a review of a work by another proponent of the Grundschrift (mentioned in the Kelley link), F. Stanley Jones.

Like many before him, Jones argues that the source was written in Syria, possibly at the beginning of the third century. The author is identified as a Jewish Christian ... who for whatever reason wanted to bring together traditions relating to a Christianity that did not accord with the Christianity with which he was familiar.

http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/j ... y-jones-2/

Bautch focuses on the final form here but notes that:

Though differing in the reconstructions of the sources, most acknowledge that the Grundschrift, the basic writing known to the Homilist and Recognitionist, drew on other ancient sources as well. Thus the Pseudo-Clementine romance consists of at least three strata interwoven: the work of the fourth century Homilist, a Grundschrift of at least the third century, and earlier, varied texts that are utilized by the common source.

https://books.google.com/books?id=P4vtC ... ft&f=false

So the Damascus Document refers "the Way" and "the New Covenant" in a place called Damascus, expects a singular Messiah with priestly and royal aspects to come in the Last Days, believed in eternal life, cited similar OT verses (like the fallen tent of David) that are found in the NT, held the concept of "being called by name," which is also found in the NT (e.g., James 2:7 and throughout Acts), held a concept similar to the Primal Adam that is found in later Jewish Christian writings, expected to "see His Salvation" (yeshua) at the end of time, and altered the OT to support the inclusion of gentiles (or nilvim) into the movement. And these are only some of the similarities between the DSS sect and Jewish Christianity. There are more.

Regarding the meaning of nilvim (or "joiners") as gentiles, not only is this how the word understood in the OT (and in an eschatological context), this meaning is confirmed by the statement that follows a few lines later: "And with the completion of the Era of these years, there will be no more joining to the House of Judah, but rather each man will stand on his own watchtower" (CD 4:10-12).

And while Bauckham in the link I gave earlier notes that "the Qumran community and the early Christians ... are the only two groups we know to have applied the image of [the Way] to their own way of life," he avers that, "The first Christians did not practice Qumran halakhah or anything like it," and I do not agree with this.

For example, 1QS col. 5 says:

"...he shall undertake by the Covenant to separate from all the men of falsehood who walk in the way of wickedness. For they are not reckoned in His Covenant. They have neither inquired nor sought after Him concerning His laws that they might know the hidden things in which they have sinfully erred; and matters revealed they have treated with insolence ... Likewise, no man shall mix with him with regard to his work or property lest he be burdened with the guilt of his sin. He shall indeed keep away from him in all things; as it is written, Keep away from all that is false. No member of the Community shall follow them in matters of doctrine and justice, or eat or drink anything of theirs, or take anything from them except for a price; as it is written, Keep away from the man in whose nostrils is breath, for wherein is he counted? For all those not reckoned in His Covenant are to be set apart, together with all that is theirs."

And according to Paul, "When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray (Gal. 2:11-13).

This is at least something like Qumran halakhah, and also illustrates the inclusion of gentiles into Jewish Christianity ("even Barnabas was led astray").

Another example would be that both the DSS sect and Jewish Christians were pro-Torah. As 1QpHab col. 7-8 puts this (interpreting the same OT verse, Hab. 2:4, that Paul uses to support his doctrine of faith in Rom. 1:17 and Gal. 3:11 to opposite effect): "'And the Righteous shall live by his faith.' Its interpretation concerns all Doers of the Torah in the House of Judah, whom God will save from the House of Judgment because of their works and faith in the Righteous Teacher."

Vermes translates the word "works" as "suffering," but the word in Hebrew, amal, has the sense of labor/toil/work:

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5999.htm

As James 2:10-14 puts it, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it ... What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no works? Can such faith save him?"

Very good points, John, especially regarding the Antioch incident and rules of eating.

These are some of the basic things I've gotten from Eisenman.

However I would argue that Paul’s Christ is no Logos figure as he doesn’t use the term.

But Paul's Christ shares almost all the other attributes of the Logos of Philo:
Maker of the universe = Image of God = Firstborn = Son. And sacrifice of himself, forgiveness of sins (only alluded by Philo) & imitating the ways of his father (1 Cor 1:24, etc.).

Cordially, Bernard

Michael BG wrote:

MrMacSon wrote: 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.

I think this is where some of the confusion between us arises. What I wrote, or at least what I meant to convey, was that Daniel was written within the apocalyptic tradition of describing past/present events in "apocalyptic" or metaphorical language. I do not say that "the Jews" generically interpreted it this way -- if by Jews we are meaning those who came in generations after Daniel and who are the general public. I suspect most Jews were ignorant of the details of Daniel's prophecies for a start. They were scribal texts primarily.

In later times texts such as Daniel were interpreted according to the needs of the day.

John2 wrote:Michael BG wrote:

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

As I mentioned earlier, the Clementine literature "have an arguable Jewish Christian Grundschrift, as discussed by Keley here:" https://books.google.com/books?id=Rbtcj ... es&f=false

I did not have time to quote from it the other day and thought the link would suffice.

The current consensus about this relationship is that a Grundschrift or Basic Writing must have been the source for both the Homilies and Recognitions. Most scholars would date the Grundschrift to between 220 and 260 CE and locate it somewhere in Syria...

And here is a link to a review of a work by another proponent of the Grundschrift (mentioned in the Keley link), F. Stanley Jones.

Like many before him, Jones argues that the source was written in Syria, possibly at the beginning of the third century. The author is identified as a Jewish Christian ... who for whatever reason wanted to bring together traditions relating to a Christianity that did not accord with the Christianity with which he was familiar.

http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/j ... y-jones-2/

Bautch focuses on the final form here but notes that:

Though differing in the reconstructions of the sources, most acknowledge that the Grundschrift, the basic writing known to the Homilist and Recognitionist, drew on other ancient sources as well. Thus the Pseudo-Clementine romance consists of at least three strata interwoven: the work of the fourth century Homilist, a Grundschrift of at least the third century, and earlier, varied texts that are utilized by the common source.

https://books.google.com/books?id=P4vtC ... ft&f=false

The early Grundschrift is basically the material common to the Homilies and Recognitions. I don't think the passage quoted from the Recognitions has a parallel in the Homilies.

Andrew Criddle

Bernard Muller wrote: Paul's Christ shares almost all the other attributes of the Logos of Philo:

Maker of the universe = Image of God = Firstborn = Son. And sacrifice of himself, forgiveness of sins (only alluded by Philo), & imitating the ways of his father (1 Cor 1:24, etc.).

please elaborate on "forgiveness of sins (only alluded by Philo)" ...

to MrMacSon,

please elaborate on "forgiveness of sins (only alluded by Philo)" ...

"the man [the high priest] who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete [intercessor], his Son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings..." (On the life of Moses II, ch. XXVI)
The Son, as the intercessor, is associated with procuring forgiveness of sins. Also, according to Philo, the Son is the ultimate High Priest (in heaven), so also would himself procure forgiveness of sins directly.
This is only an allusion/inspiration, but I think good enough to set the author of Hebrews on track for the Sacrifice for atonement of sins.

Cordially, Bernard