Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I left out some words from my previous citation of 1QpHab col. 8 (which I have now fixed). It actually says, "'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."

I accidently left out "from the House of Judgment," which has a parallel in James 5:8-9: "You too, be patient and strengthen your hearts, because the Lord’s coming is near. Do not complain about one another, brothers, so that you will not be judged. Look, the Judge is standing at the door!"

I also left out part of James 2:14 regarding faith and works (which I've also now fixed) that strengthens the parallel with the 1QpHab citation. He asks, "Can that kind of faith [i.e., without works] save anyone?"

Bernard Muller wrote:to MrMacSon,

Saying "there be not as yet one who is worthy to be called a son of God" suggests Jesus was not a contemporary of Philo (or, at least, not known to Philo).

That can also mean that Jesus was not yet called Son of God: Philo died in 50 AD at the latest.

The author of Hebrews (who I take as being Apollos of Alexandria) very likely was the first to call Jesus "Son of God". I think the epistle was written in 54 AD, but Apollos may have started to preach proto-Pauline Christianity not before 52 AD.
As usual, all of that is explained in my website.

I tend to think the NT texts were written later, yet give or were given the appearance they were (a) written around the period commonly inferred; (b) subtlety reflect events after 66-70AD/CE; and (c) have been written to infer they were set in the early 1st century.

Do you think Apollos is also Apelles?

Bernard Muller wrote:As usual, all of that is explained in my website.

It is quite a site, I must say.

Speaking of which... on that page on which you argue that the Pillars (= Nazarenes?) never became Christians (I do not have the link handy), I wanted to ask you: what were they, then? Why would Paul rub elbows with them and care what they think?

As a modern example from the realm of politics, there are members of the Democratic Party and members of the Green Party who rub elbows with each other all the time and care what each other thinks, but that is because they are progressives, and consciously so. In other words, they do not share the Party umbrella, but there is another umbrella with which they hold in common.

So, if Paul and the Pillars were not all Christians, so to speak, what were they in common?

Another similarity between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish Christianity is the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols. This is mentioned in Acts 15:20 and 29 and 21:25 ("You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols") and in ch. 6 of the Didache ("And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly careful; for it is the service of dead gods").

Paul also discusses this issue in 1 Cor. 8 (to opposite effect).

"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that 'An idol is nothing at all in the world' and that 'There is no God but one.' For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do."

This issue may also be discussed in the Dead Sea Scroll 4QMMT. I tend to stay away from making too much of fragmentary Scrolls that require a lot of reconstruction like this, but Vermes, Eisenman and Wise reconstruct and translate it with this sense.

"And concerning the sacrifices of Gentiles ... [we consider that] they {sacrifice} to [an idol and] that is [like] a woman fornicating with him."

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

"Concerning sacrifices by Gentiles, [we say that (in reality) they] sacrifice to the i[dol] that seduces them; (therefore it is illicit)."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrol ... d06.htm#35.

Additionally, 4QMMT is opposed to gentile sacrifice in general, which you can see in the above links, and which the Pharisees approved of and Josephus says was the issue that set off the 66-70 CE war. As he puts it, the Zealots, “persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon” (War 2.17.2).

As Hogeterp notes:

The revolutionary movement which gained the upper hand among the priestly factions of the Jerusalem Temple at the eve of the Jewish war would accept no gift or sacrifice from any foreigner according to Josephus. The Qumran text 4QMMT further expresses a negative sectarian viewpoint on the offering of Gentile sacrifice.

https://books.google.com/books?id=eXb56 ... mt&f=false

So 4QMMT is in keeping with issues that were debated in the first century CE.

to Ben,

Speaking of which... on that page on which you argue that the Pillars (= Nazarenes?) never became Christians (I do not have the link handy), I wanted to ask you: what were they, then? Why would Paul rub elbows with them and care what they think?

They were orthodox pious Jews (also rustic uneducated Galileans with limited knowledge of Judaism). They were not rubbing elbows with Paul, according to the narration of Paul about the preamble and then the so-called Council of Jerusalem. Certainly the meeting was rather cold (even if Paul pushed the envelop towards warm as much as he could) and Paul kept his distance from them. (Gal 2:7-8 is likely an interpolation)
But why Paul needed to have contact with them:
- They were important because of having been eyewitnesses of Jesus. (I know, it is not in Paul's epistles)
- They had enough influence to torpedo Paul's ministry, as far as Corinth. (James' men disconnected Paul with the Church of Antioch & Peter, and practically chased Paul out of Syria)

As a modern example from the realm of politics, there are members of the Democratic Party and members of the Green Party who rub elbows with each other all the time and care what each other thinks, but that is because they are progressives, and consciously so. In other words, they do not share the Party umbrella, but there is another umbrella with which they hold in common.

So, if Paul and the Pillars were not all Christians, so to speak, what were they in common?

a) Jesus, but differently:
- Paul was interested mostly in the post-existent one, with all kind of grand speculations, most of them starting from "Christ crucified" and then believed to have resurrected & gone to heaven, plus of course the Scriptures, 'Hebrews' and alleged visions & revelations.
- The "Nazarenes" saw Jesus as a dead man, who had been a prophet predicting (as John did) a new world order, and as only the poor Jews of the time benefiting from that kingdom of God.
(Note:
- Paul also adopted the Kingdom to come soon (very likely the main reason for Gentiles to convert) but that kingdom was in heaven, while for the Nazarenes and Jewish Christians it was on earth.
- For the beliefs of the different Jesus' groups up to 57 AD, see that table: http://historical-jesus.info/48.html)

b) Also money: the church of Jerusalem needed donation from Christians from all over in order to survive, even if it was as poor ("the polite bribe").
Church of Jerusalem >--->its influence>--->Paul >--->money>--->Church of Jerusalem
In other words, Paul needed tolerance (or silence) of the Church of Jerusalem towards his gospel & preaching and the Church of Jerusalem needed Paul's collections for sheer survival. A perfect relationship!

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Speaking of which... on that page on which you argue that the Pillars (= Nazarenes?) never became Christians (I do not have the link handy), I wanted to ask you: what were they, then? Why would Paul rub elbows with them and care what they think?

They were orthodox pious Jews (also rustic uneducated Galileans with limited knowledge of Judaism). They were not rubbing elbows with Paul, according to the narration of Paul about the preamble and then the so-called Council of Jerusalem. Certainly the meeting was rather cold (even if Paul pushed the envelop towards warm as much as he could) and Paul kept his distance from them. (Gal 2:7-8 is likely an interpolation)
But why Paul needed to have contact with them:
- They were important because of having been eyewitnesses of Jesus. (I know, it is not in Paul's epistles)
- They had enough influence to torpedo Paul's ministry, as far as Corinth. (James' men disconnected Paul with the Church of Antioch & Peter, and practically chased Paul out of Syria)

As a modern example from the realm of politics, there are members of the Democratic Party and members of the Green Party who rub elbows with each other all the time and care what each other thinks, but that is because they are progressives, and consciously so. In other words, they do not share the Party umbrella, but there is another umbrella with which they hold in common.

So, if Paul and the Pillars were not all Christians, so to speak, what were they in common?

a) Jesus, but differently:
- Paul was interested mostly in the post-existent one, with all kind of grand speculations, most of them starting from "Christ crucified" and then believed to have resurrected & gone to heaven, plus of course the Scriptures, 'Hebrews' and alleged visions & revelations.
- The "Nazarenes" saw Jesus as a dead man, who had been a prophet predicting (as John did) a new world order, and as only the poor Jews of the time benefiting from that kingdom of God.
(Note:
- Paul also adopted the Kingdom to come soon (very likely the main reason for Gentiles to convert) but that kingdom was in heaven, while for the Nazarenes and Jewish Christians it was on earth.
- For the beliefs of the different Jesus' groups up to 57 AD, see that table: http://historical-jesus.info/48.html)

b) Also money: the church of Jerusalem needed donation from Christians from all over in order to survive, even if it was as poor ("the polite bribe").
Church of Jerusalem >--->its influence>--->Paul >--->money>--->Church of Jerusalem
In other words, Paul needed tolerance (or silence) of the Church of Jerusalem towards his gospel & preaching and the Church of Jerusalem needed Paul's collections for sheer survival. A perfect relationship!

Okay, thanks for that.

Regarding the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols, it sounds like Paul is trying to have it both ways in 1 Cor. 10:

"Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

'I have the right to do anything,' you say—but not everything is beneficial. 'I have the right to do anything'—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.'

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved."

John2 wrote:Regarding the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols, it sounds like Paul is trying to have it both ways in 1 Cor. 10:

"Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

'I have the right to do anything,' you say—but not everything is beneficial. 'I have the right to do anything'—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.'

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved."

Is this not similar to how modern ideological groups handle the patronizing of businesses which support causes they are opposed to? As a rule, they will "eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience," so to speak, but, if the owner of that business makes a public point of supporting certain causes, they will now cease to patronize that establishment, "both for the sake of" the owner "and for the sake of conscience," as it were. (Think of how some liberals reacted to Chick-Fil-A openly opposing LGBT causes or how some conservatives reacted to Starbucks openly supporting those same causes.)

Ben.

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

Jones talks of sources but I could not see any dates for these sources and dates for parallel evidence for these sources. I think both Jones and Bautch refer to the Homilies and Recognitions as “romance” does this imply little historicity? Bautch also calls them Christian novels which clearly implies lack of historicity he states,

Jones is clear that the novelistic dimension of the work was an original part of the Grundschrift, in which case we have before us the first known Christian novel.

neilgodfrey wrote:

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.

I did say it was likely that I had misunderstood you. I am glad that we both can agree that Jews in the first century did interpret apocalyptic literature as about future events and were not restricted to the interpretation of the original authors.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Michael BG wrote: 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.

I have been wondering how we can have such divergent views on Jona's words. Notice that nowhere in her article does she cite any source as evidence, and if she did, we have an obligation to check to see it actually does say what she claims. Many people, even some historians, find what they want to find in the sources. Readers embrace what they want to hear and find supportive of other views they hold. Some of us learned the hard way that it always pays to ask for the sources on which any claim is made and to check them for oneself.

I think it strange that you seem to saying that Jona Lendering doesn’t quote Josephus, as she does. I understand that you do not reach the same conclusions as she does, but she builds a logical case, which you have not addressed directly.

MrMacSon wrote:

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

I think (i) the passage by Philo that you provided, particularly the references to the Father and his Son; & (ii) that 'Paul's Christ shares almost all the other attributes of the Logos of Philo'; are not passages or correlations/associations that I have seen before. They suggest that Philo's writings were a significant fore-runner to Christianity (& may have helped seed its development).

Philo’s writing are within the Wisdom tradition and most scholars would look to the Wisdom tradition for Paul’s inspiration. The case of the letter to the Hebrews is more likely to have been influenced by the Wisdom tradition and a shared philosophy with Philo that might be based in Alexandra, but scholars also see differences between the way Philo interprets this common philosophy and the way the author of Hebrews does.

Ben,

Right. I'm looking into this issue more. It looks like it goes back to Ex. 34:15: "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices." This fits with the fornication that goes with James' directive too: "...we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality..." (Acts 15:20), and then he says, "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” in 15:21.

However, I can't find any debate on this issue before the first century CE yet.