The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

[spin]

I give it a high probability that when Paul claimed scripture had prophesied the resurrection of Christ that the scripture he was referring to was from the Essenes.

You have no "scripture" from the Essenes. There is just the unsubstantiated theory that the Essenes were somehow involved with the DSS. P.R. Davies showed that there was no single sectarian viewpoint to be extracted from the scrolls, for there were different views to be found. There is nothing direct to connect the Essenes to the scrolls and the pride of place given to the sons of Zadok in the community strictly argues against an Essene connection along with the temple materials from the DSS including temple rosters and a list of temple treasures (Copper Scroll). It is ridiculous to think that people excluded from the temple maintained priestly rosters. The people who advocated the Essene theory have never got past the advocacy stage and many scholars these days tactfully refer to "the sect" or even duck the issue completely.

@Spin,
Please start a new thread and present evidence for your theory about how the DSS got placed into the caves 'willy nilly' and how you know the Essenes had nothing to do with writing them. I really want to know what you base your 'willy nilly' theory on.

I don't need to present anything about the Essenes. I, unlike you, didn't state the affirmative case: you know the drivel about Essene scriptures. So, sorry, chum, I've done my bit and shown you through the contents of the scrolls that you cannot assume Essenes. When you jabber on about Essenes now, you can know that you are talking nonsense until you can demonstrate that the Essenes has something to do with the writing of the DSS. Good luck with that. Even the most zealous Essene theorists have failed.

[Solo]

2 Cor 4:8-9 We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

Any idea why I bolded "perplexed" in the verses ?

So it's argument by bolding? Bolding does not persuade me of your interpretation or application of the passage.

I am not interpreting anything, Neil. "Baffled" and "perplexed" are synonyms whether you admit it or not.

How do you conclude that the lashes were the reward for his theological arguments?

The reference is to the passage in 2 Corinthians 11 where Paul uses the incidents to "boast" of his sufferings for Christ. I believe I have made a reasonable conclusion.

No doubt this is what you believe. It is an inference you are making. Given what we know of Judaism of the period it is quite incredible that Paul should be lashed for engaging in debates about the nature of the messiah. See Morton Smith's "The Reason for the Persecution of Paul and the Obscurity of Acts".

Change it to "reasonable inference". He was most likely lashed for reasons you yourself pointed out, i.e. preaching in defiance of the Law that a man hanged on a tree was a Saviour.

So you agree with N.T. Wright's interpretation, yes?

Yes, the point has been made by a number of scholars.

Not sure if you read carefully the point Wright was making but if you agree with Wright then you are agreeing that there was no problem for Jews to believe in a dying or slain messiah.

No, actually, I was agreeing with what you presented N.T. Wright as saying and I am quoting you : "N.T. Wright (fwiw) argues it was not the idea of a dying messiah that was offensive (it was known to second temple jews) but the manner of death, being hung on a tree and therefore being a curse, that was the offence." If Paul was publicly proclaiming as he does in Romans 8, that Jesus Christ was lawfully executed, and that the law was compromised by the flesh and thus not good enough to keep Jews from sin and death, but faith in an executed criminal could....then yes, most Jews would be offended. The civilized ones would go for the lash to teach the eviyl about weakness of the flesh. The hotheads would be picking up stones. The messianists would be sending him to preach this theology to the goyiim.

What do we mean by "messianic sectarian Judaism" and what is the evidence that such a thing existed in the Second Temple era?

I think it is safe to conclude that the "seven sects" that Hegesippus mentions in connection with James the Just (Eusebius, H.E. 2.18) were messianic in nature. So were the Qumran sectaries. Unlike the Jewish temple mainstream, these cults were scouring the Scripture for signs that the coming of the Messiah was imminent.

I think we are retrojecting later concepts of the messiah into much of what we read about the Second Temple era. We are doing scholarship backwards and coming up with skewed conclusions.

I think we might be falling into the trap of thinking that because we are smart everyone else must be stupid.

Thanks, Neil.

Best, Jiri

[neilgodfrey]

So you agree with N.T. Wright's interpretation, yes?

Yes, the point has been made by a number of scholars.

Not sure if you read carefully the point Wright was making but if you agree with Wright then you are agreeing that there was no problem for Jews to believe in a dying or slain messiah.

No, actually, I was agreeing with what you presented N.T. Wright as saying and I am quoting you : "N.T. Wright (fwiw) argues it was not the idea of a dying messiah that was offensive (it was known to second temple jews) but the manner of death, being hung on a tree and therefore being a curse, that was the offence." If Paul was publicly proclaiming as he does in Romans 8, that Jesus Christ was lawfully executed, and that the law was compromised by the flesh and thus not good enough to keep Jews from sin and death, but faith in an executed criminal could....then yes, most Jews would be offended. The civilized ones would go for the lash to teach the eviyl about weakness of the flesh. The hotheads would be picking up stones. The messianists would be sending him to preach this theology to the goyiim.

Well that quotation looks exactly like it's saying what I said it says. Wright is saying that it was not the idea of a dying messiah that was offensive but the fact that his manner of death made him a curse according to Deuteronomy.

That's not anything to do with being executed as a criminal -- it all about the pronouncement of a curse for one hanging from a tree. It's all about the Deuteronomic law.

The idea that the Jews interpreted Paul's teaching as requiring faith in an executed criminal is gratuitous. If he was really thought to have taught that he'd hardly be whipped but ridiculed as an idiot.

We have pretty good reasons from Daniel 7 (and especially from the reactions of later rabbis to certain ideas among their brethren) to believe that some Jews did accept that a messiah would be slain by an enemy king as a martyr. And we know martyr blood was deemed to have an atoning value for the sins of the nation. As you yourself have said, the ideas available within Judaism are far richer than many have understood -- thanks to the narrow interests of Christian-led scholarship.

Given what we know of Second Temple Judaism is it realistic to think Paul was whipped for such beliefs anyway?

[andrewcriddle]

This claim has now largely been withdrawn
See for example Hazon Gabriel

Andrew Criddle

Could you give a full citation for that, Andrew?

Nevermind, i think you are referring to Henze, p. 115.

I was referring to Hazon Gabriel edited by Henze pps 127-128.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

@Andrew,
Thanks for the link but I am already well aware that the stone is still very controversial.
"An American team of experts using high resolution scanning technologies tried — but failed — to detect more of the faded writing.... [However] "All agree that the passage describes an apocalyptic vision of an attack on Jerusalem in which God appears with angels on chariots to save the city. The central angelic character is Gabriel, the first angel to appear in the Hebrew Bible. "I am Gabriel," the writing declares."...Read more at: http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot. ... 8l9g0DwpK8

This language is very consistent with what Jesus and James the Just proclaimed as well as what is contained in the DSS. See The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek (IIQ13).

Because of that, I give it a high probability that when Paul claimed scripture had prophesied the resurrection of Christ that the scripture he was referring to was from the Essenes.

The issue is not the general nature of the text. The issue is the specific question as to whether the text explicitly refers to resurrection. It now appears widely accepted that it does not.

Andrew Criddle

[John T]

Andrew posted: "The issue is not the general nature of the text. The issue is the specific question as to whether the text explicitly refers to resurrection. It now appears widely accepted that it does not."

Actually, the general nature of the text is part of the issue since no one can say 100% for sure, exactly what the faint lettering is.
By taking into account the general nature of the text, the resurrection line makes the most sense. albeit unverified.

Respectfully,
John T

[John T]

Spin posted: "I don't need to present anything about the Essenes....I've done my bit and shown you through the contents of the scrolls that you cannot assume Essenes."

*******************

If you can't provide any evidence for your "willy-nilly' theory then you haven't proven anything. You have a strange way of using facts; either make them up and/or ignore the inconvenient ones.

[spin]

Spin posted: "I don't need to present anything about the Essenes....I've done my bit and shown you through the contents of the scrolls that you cannot assume Essenes."

*******************

If you can't provide any evidence for your "willy-nilly' theory then you haven't proven anything. You have a strange way of using facts; either make them up and/or ignore the inconvenient ones.

You're simply changing the subject. You crapped on about Essene scriptures ("the scripture he was referring to was from the Essenes") and you have been caught talking nonsense. Perhaps you would like to withdraw the claim, as you cannot defend it.

As to my «"willy-nilly" theory», you so desperately seek to change the subject onto, just start another thread, correctly citing what you are whinging about. You'll just end up in the same silly position as you are about "Essene scriptures".

[John T]

@Spin,

I respectfully want to learn how you came about the "willy-nilly" theory and who else in academia supports it. Do you have any links that I can look at?

I have read the Community Rules and it is clear to me, they were a community that physically separated themselves from the city of Jerusalem. They had their own compound where they studied and lived: "Each man shall sit in his place: the Priests shall sit first, and the elders second, and all the rest of the people according to their rank."...1Qs VI, 5. They kept lists of property turned over by new converts and kept lists of all members based on their rank of understanding of the rules and observance of the Law. Hence, the obvious conclusion that they wrote most of the documents/scrolls found at Qumran since they were so different from the mainstream.

Perhaps this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam. If so, please give the page number where I can get up to speed.

Thanks in advance,

John T

[Solo]

Given what we know of Second Temple Judaism is it realistic to think Paul was whipped for such beliefs anyway?

Well, evidently you don't think so and I do. I think we will need to leave it at that. Thanks again, Neil.

Best,
Jiri