Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

In addition to the prohibition of niece marriage (which was practiced by Herod and Antipas, and not, to my knowledge, any Hasmonean), the DSS also prohibited taking a second wife while the first one was still alive, and connects these concepts to the law in Dt. 17:17 that forbids rulers from having multiple wives:

They ... shall be caught in fornication twice by taking a second wife while the first is alive, whereas the principle of creation is, 'Male and female created He them.' Also, those who entered the Ark went in two by two. And concerning the prince it is written, 'He shall not multiply wives to himself'" (CD cols. 4 and 5).

Compare this with what Rocca says in Herod's Judea in the link I provided above:

"Herod's first wife was Doris, whom he married in 47 BCE and divorced prior to 38 CE ... She was recalled to the court in 14 BCE ... Herod's second wife was Miriamme the Hasmonean, whom Herod married in 38 BCE ... The subsequent eight consorts were wives ... Josephus is quite specific in stating that the last Hasmonean rulers each had only one wife. The same also applies to all of Herod's sons. Antipas, for example, divorced a Nabataean princess in order to marry ... Herodias" (pg. 76).

I think this is compelling "internal data."

Regarding the opposition to Gentile sacrifice mentioned in the DSS and that Josephus says set off the 66-70 CE war, Josephus also mentions someone in the 40's named Simon:

"There was a certain man of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem, who appeared to be very accurate in the knowledge of the law. His name was Simon. This man got together an assembly, while the king [Agrippa] was absent at Cesarea, and had the insolence to accuse him as not living holily, and that he might justly be excluded out of the temple, since it belonged only to native Jews" (Ant. 19.7.4).

(To his credit, Agrippa treated Simon nicely and bought him off with gifts, but the point that this ethos existed in the first century CE remains.)

And concern for the pollution of the Temple is also expressed in Acts with respect to Paul's association with Gentiles:

"Some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, shouting, 'Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place'” (21:27-28).

The issues of Gentile sacrifice, taking multiple wives and niece marriage (along with "riches," an element attributed to the Wicked Priest and the "lasts priests of Jerusalem" in the DSS, to Herodians and the literal last priests of Jerusalem in Josephus, and railed against generally in the Letter of James) is connected in the DSS with the issues of fornication and pollution of the Temple, expressed by the concept of the "three nets of Belial" in the Damascus Document before it discusses the particular aspects of niece marriage and rulers taking multiple wives:

"These are the three nets of Belial with which Levi son of Jacob said that he catches Israel by setting them up as three kinds of righteousness. The first is riches, the second is fornication, and the third is profanation of the Temple. Whoever escapes the first is caught in the second, and whoever saves himself from the second is caught in the third" (CD col. 4)

Eisenman sees an echo of two of these nets in Revelation, based on the similarity of the concepts and the "B-L" roots of Belial and Balaam/Balak:

"Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality" (Rev. 2:14).

Two of these elements are also similar to James' proclamation to the Gentiles in Acts:

"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood" (15:20).

That these issues have a basis in the reality of the early Church (if not the DSS) is confirmed by Paul, who discusses fornication and food sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor. 5-8 before comparing his status with the other apostles and mentioning Cephas and the brothers of the Lord in 1 Cor. 9.

Even if the DSS could be dated with absolute certainty to before the first century CE, the issues of pollution of the Temple and fornication (specifically niece marriage and taking multiple wives) and riches are particularly relevant to Herodians and discussed in early Church writings.

Even if the DSS could be dated with absolute certainty to before the first century CE

They can

the issues of pollution of the Temple and fornication (specifically niece marriage and taking multiple wives) and riches are particularly relevant to Herodians and discussed in early Church writings.

Of course that matters but again this reflects the general direction of Eisenman's research after the carbondating (strange again that anyone would have an interest in saving Eisenman's theories beside Eisenman). The issue can in fact be explained in other - and IMO better ways than dragging in the Herodians. The Pharisees seem more likely to me to be the one's the Damascus Document (4:20–5:11) and other fragments (4Q269 4 i 3, 6Q15 1:1-315) have in mind in their attack against polygamy. I just think it comes down to a question of what is more likely given that the documents are from the 1 century BCE and older rather than 1 century CE.

John2 wrote:
<snip>
Even if the DSS could be dated with absolute certainty to before the first century CE, the issues of pollution of the Temple and fornication (specifically niece marriage and taking multiple wives) and riches are particularly relevant to Herodians and discussed in early Church writings.

From my limited knowledge of the DSS - I find no reason not to think that Herodian elements were not of interest to the writers of the DSS. The world did not end in 30 b.c.e. with the execution of Hyrcanus (ToR re Doudna). With the end of the internal fighting within the Hasmonean family, it would be the turn of the Herodians to get the 'treatment' from the DSS authors.....

Could be wrong on this though.....

Stephan wrote:

"The issue can in fact be explained in other - and IMO better ways than dragging in the Herodians. The Pharisees seem more likely to me to be the one's the Damascus Document (4:20–5:11) and other fragments (4Q269 4 i 3, 6Q15 1:1-315) have in mind in their attack against polygamy."

I agree with the general idea that the Pharisees were enemies of the DSS sect and that the expression Seekers After Smooth Things is an attack on their oral laws. But there is evidence that the Herodians and Pharisees often acted in cahoots, such as the Pharisee leaders Pollio and Sameas urging people to open the gates of Jerusalem to Herod and Herod installing one of them as head of the Sanhedrin after he had killed everyone else, the Mishnah saying that they considered King Agrippa to be their "brother" even though he wasn't fully Jewish, and the NT presenting them as conspiring to kill Jesus together (which I've already given citations to on another thread on this forum).

So the two groups are not necessarily inseparable.

And the prohibitions against niece marriage and multiple wives in the Damascus Document revolve around or are directly tied to a law that pertains to kings (Dt. 17:17).

The two groups may not be necessarily inseparable nevertheless a stronger case can be made for the group being Pharisees especially in light of the Qumran literature and the surviving rabbinic texts. That's why a broad spectrum of scholars tend to read the texts as such. Moreover the gospels tend to interpret these same issues (polygamy etc) in vaguely similar ways to the DSS. Since it has been suggested that the DSS 'anticipate' James (and hence the early Christian community) I find it particularly difficult to believe that the Herodians were the enemies of the early Christians. Yes to be certain Luke in particular can be argued to support this. But as one who accepts the idea that Josephus has been incorporated into the Lukan corpus it would not be surprising to me that the editor here 'favored' the Pharisees and thus Paul has been made into a member of this sect etc.

As I come from the Marcionite POV I don't take any of the pro-Pharisaic opinions of the Lukan corpus (and the corrupt Catholic canon in general) very seriously. I find the core message of Christianity compatible with the older Sadducean and older traditions generally (Dustan) especially with respect to only the ten commandments from Sinai as being God given (and thus having especial sanctity). While I can't make the argument that DSS are reflective of this historical position I nevertheless see the Pharisees as the enemies of early Christianity and more plausible identification of the DSS texts as Sadducean (and thus the Pharisees identified as the enemy group). The shared hostility of both groups against the Pharisees doesn't necessarily support the argument of any strong relationship between the two groups. I tend to see Christianity developing from the Dustan (= Dositheans) as per Hippolytus and the Pseudo-Clementines and the vague similarities between the DSS and early Christianity result from their being a wide spectrum of sectarian groups before the rise of Phariseeism and their sharing a basic (vague) worldview against the Pharisees.

Stephan,

I was thinking of Mark 3:6:

"Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus";

and Mark 12:13:

"They sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words."

But I will take what you've said into consideration and I'm glad that we are talking with one another.

Eisenman's theory has influenced my perspective on Christian origins, but I'm not committed to it, and I joined the forum to get some different points of view. I'm not a Christian, and I'm only interested in Christian origins for the mental stimulation, so I don't mind wherever the chips may fall.

re carbon-dating - It is possible document materials were written on or re-used long after the material was made ie. the writings are not as old as the material

"Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus";

and Mark 12:13:

"They sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words."

No evidence to suggest any of this was as present in the Marcionite text. Cmp Mark 3:6 with Luke:

But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.

and Matthew:

But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

and for the second quote Luke 20:20f;

So they [the scribes and the chief priests] watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor. 21They questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. 22“Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 23But He detected their trickery and said to them, 24“Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar’s.” 25And He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 26And they were unable to catch Him in a saying in the presence of the people; and being amazed at His answer, they became silent.

^ is there any evidence that the Marcionites knew or referred to any of the Gospels or fore-runners to them?

Its complete nonsense - invented by late second century know nothings like Irenaeus - that the Pharisees and 'Herodians' were aligned in any way at any time. I am not convinced the specific 'Latinized' form Ηρωδιανοι was older than the middle of the second century. Probably a quirk of the editor of the Catholic canon.