Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

As an aside, the idea that Jesus came 49 years before the destruction - in my mind at least - argues on behalf of a gospel 'story' that existed before 70 CE. Jubilees and sabbatical years are things abandoned by Jews in the period after the temple and priesthood disappeared. That doesn't mean of course that someone writing after the destruction couldn't have 'remembered' this seven year pattern. Of course not. But clearly the story developed or took over messianic expectations related to sabbatical years and Jubilees. To me at least not only the pattern (i.e. that the messiah would appear after a certain number of jubilees) wasn't all that was taken into the new era after the destruction of the temple. The story existed before the gospel was written too.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:37 pm But there are no other surviving Palestinian Jewish documents from the end second commonwealth period. If in the year 3400 CE the only movie that survived from our time was an Adam Sandler flick and then someone dug up Lawrence of Arabia, future scholars would writing the uncanny similarities between Happy Gilmore and Lawrence of Arabia.

So let us imagine that the other Jewish groups of the time, had we caches of their documents, were just as close to and constitutive of Christianity as the Dead Sea scrolls are; in other words, the Dead Sea scrolls represent, not just a sect, but rather something closer to the whole of Judaism. In such a case, it would be every bit as vital to study them in connection with early Christianity. (And, if one of those other groups happened to be even a better fit with early Christianity, then so be it! My point is not that Qumran is the final frontier for Christian origins; my point is that one cannot, in our current state of knowledge, ignore Qumran and still stand a chance of explaining Christianity. I hope something even closer comes along; that would be great.)

Also, your post narrowed the field down to Palestinian Jewish documents, but there are theories often floated on this forum involving Greco-Roman mystery cults, groups from the Jewish Diaspora, and mythic Mediterranean or Near Eastern religions as possible founts for Christianity; and I am saying that none of those sources, however well or poorly known they are to us, matches the Dead Sea scrolls (and the pseudepigrapha) for their explanatory power.

I guess what I am saying is if the DSS are mostly Sadducean what's the applicability? Christianity is Jewish?

BTW I have always admired your patience. The cynic in me wonders whether your interactions with Giuseppe have some ulterior motive, like you're writing a book on idiots

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:28 pm I guess what I am saying is if the DSS are mostly Sadducean what's the applicability?

The applicability does not change. It simply means that the Sadducees were not what we thought they were.

That's one perspective. But what early Christian texts do you think match up the best with the DSS?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:56 pm That's one perspective. But what early Christian texts do you think match up the best with the DSS?

The epistles of Paul, the Didache, and the synoptic gospels probably come in first place. But to single out individual texts risks missing the point, which is that the Dead Sea scrolls contain the seeds for the most pervasive, constitutive aspects of earliest Christianity: to wit, its Messianic focus, its conviction that the end is nigh, and the style of its scriptural interpretation. These aspects cut across nearly the entire New Testament and most of the Apostolic Fathers. And many of the Gnostic texts (and parts of the gospel of John) can be read as reactions against some or all of these aspects. (Realized eschatology, for example, can be read as a reaction to the disappointment of unrealized hopes.)

I don't mean to continue a debate which I originally behaved deplorably but don't you agree that at least some of these texts come from different Christian communities? To that end, I think we should qualify your initial statement to the closest fit for each:

The epistles of Paul (authentic epistles) = Philo of Alexandria not the DSS cf. especially H. CHADWICK, 'St. Paul and Philo of Alexandria', BJRL 48 (1966) 286-30
the Didache = DSS
the gospels = it depends if Secret Mark is acknowledged to be authentic or not

To me that saws the balance in half. Secret Mark - or if you prefer more broadly - Clement's Alexandrian community's gospel is more Philonic than it is 'Qumranic.' Agree or disagree? I think the issue here is an assumption of monolithic 'Christian origins' for all communities. That the Marcionites argued that the New Testament was 'Judaized' clearly extends to the Pauline epistles. Where there are interpolations they inevitably are 'Judaized' interpolations or interpolations which make Paul sound or adhere to pro-Jewish, pro-Jerusalem, pro-Pentateuch, pro-prophetic conceptions.

As I have said before Irenaeus/Tertullian consistently argue against the mystery religion origin for Christianity. This is evidenced in Against Heresies, Against Marcion, Prescription Against the Heresies among other Irenaean works. The argument must be clearly delineated to at least consider an alternative model for Christian origins.

At it's core the idea from 'the heresies' seems to go something like this. 'The apostle' identified as Paul and the author of both the ur-gospel and 'Apostolic' writings by the heresies somehow inferred that he had written a 'secret gospel' based on certain passages especially 1 Corinthians 2:8ff. Looking at this section of Corinthians the idea seems to be that Paul submitted one gospel to everyone and reserved a secret gospel for the elect. This dovetails well with Clement's understanding of Mark writing one gospel according to Peter and another 'secret' gospel with his own mystery-based religion added to that 'simple' gospel of faith. Paul of course is not Mark. That is a difficulty. But the parallels are real and not easily dismissed.

It seems to suggest to me at least that 'the apostle' whether called Paul or Mark founded a mystery religion at Alexandria where - among other things - Clement says "he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries." The same idea is present in Refutations alternative understanding of Marcion's use of the gospel of Mark where certain 'mystical' sayings of Empedocles are 'added' to canonical Mark.

I would argue that given the context of Clement of Alexandria as one who used both the secret gospel and the mysteries referenced in the discussion of its authorship that Clement's reliance on Philo and his discussion of certain gospel passages shows an uncanny interplay - thus explaining the Philonic origins of this specific (and admittedly secondary) development within Christianity. Of course if secret Mark was more original than canonical Mark and Clement simply developed the story as a way of explaining and justifying its existence then Christianity beginning as a mystery religion also has possibilities.

And remember something which is often ignored. When the Oniads left with Ptolemy THERE WENT THE ORIGINAL priesthood. Authenticity went to Egypt. Heresy stayed back. This is often forgotten.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:35 am I don't mean to continue a debate which I originally behaved deplorably but don't you agree that at least some of these texts come from different Christian communities? To that end, I think we should qualify your initial statement to the closest fit for each:

The epistles of Paul (authentic epistles) = Philo of Alexandria not the DSS cf. especially H. CHADWICK, 'St. Paul and Philo of Alexandria', BJRL 48 (1966) 286-30
the Didache = DSS
the gospels = it depends if Secret Mark is acknowledged to be authentic or not

To me that saws the balance in half. Secret Mark - or if you prefer more broadly - Clement's Alexandrian community's gospel is more Philonic than it is 'Qumranic.' Agree or disagree?

I had more typed up, but decided against posting it yet, since it touches upon too many things that I have yet to lay out very fully. Instead, let me just briefly lay out my response, without much explanation, with regard to those three texts/traditions listed above:

1. You and I agree on the Didache.
2. I think that Paul actually represents a mixture of elements, some of which go back to things represented by what we find at Qumran and in the Didache, others of which are more like the mystery cults or what we find in Philo. But what is foundational in Paul goes back to Palestinian Jewish Christianity. But this result does depend upon how I approach the Marcionite text of Paul, who represents, among those listed, the text/tradition most conducive to notions of Christianity having less constitutively in common with Qumran than with other possible influences, depending on how one reconstructs the originals.
3. I think that the synoptic gospels go back far more to something like what we find at Qumran, regardless of whether Secret Mark is in the mix or not. This is because we have so little to go on in the Mar Saba letter: just two passages not found in our canonical gospel, and neither passage substantively alters the possible connections to Qumran. My impression, though, is that you have more complex ideas about what may have been in Secret Mark than simply what we find in the Mar Saba letter, ideas that I may not be in line with.

There is so much which remains to be written (by me, anyway) on all of this, so the above is not really much of an argument on its own. It is just a summary of where I am right now.

And it should be noted that Eusebius must have a source for his Essenes = the monasteries established by Mark. Seems to dovetail with Clement's testimony of THE church of St. Mark in Alexandria and the mysteries therein. If the Alexandrian Essenes are related to Palestinian Essenes perhaps there is common contact with the DSS. Then again the texts maybe Sadducean. Perhaps there is commonality between both communities. A lot of perhapses