THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND James and Paul

WolfgangvonUSA

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND
THE THREE PERSONALITIES


1. The Teacher of Righteousness
2. The Wicked Priest

3. The Liar



THE COMMUNITY OF ESSENES…



Before the birth of Jesus Christ there lived a secluded Jewish sect, on the shores of the Dead Sea in Palestine. The sect lived an ascetic communal life. The adherents were known as the Essenes. They referred to themselves as the ‘Sons of Light’. They placed great emphasis for the coming of an 'anointed one' - a Messiah, in their Holy Land. Essenes were known for wearing white garments and practicing the art of body healing. Some scholars are of the opinion that a man sitting near the empty tomb of Jesus “wearing a white robe” (Mark 16:5), or two men “in dazzling apparel” (Luke 24:4), or “two angels in white” in the spiritualized forth Gospel of John, belonged to this sect. It is also suggested that an unknown man who requested Pilate for the body of Jesus and took it with him could be a healer from this group.

Notwithstanding the veracity of such opinions, writers of the chronicles and scholars do agree that the greatest known discovery of manuscripts in our times - the Dead Sea Scrolls, belonged to the community of Essenes. The recovered manuscripts reflect the dualistic theology (the on going struggle between the forces of Light and of Darkness), upheld by the Essenes. No doubt, it is one of the most exiting archeological finds. These Scrolls contain Books from the Old Testaments that were written more than a thousand years before the oldest known text of the Torah. These documents (the biblical texts and the commentaries) were written during one of the most crucial period of the Jewish history. These were the times of turbulence for the Jews of the Holy Land. The anointed one was relentlessly persecuted by the Pharisees. The Romans tried this man and issued a death sentence although he posed no threat to their might and glory. Jews thought they had silenced the voice of Messiah but their acts gave rise to a new sect of Judaism called – Christianity. The voice Jesus became immortal.

Envisaging a foreign threat the Essenes living on the shores of the Dead Sea hid the jars containing their precious manuscripts in the mountain Caves, located in a valley known as Qumran. In all about 400 manuscripts have been discovered from the caves, surrounding the Dead Sea. The scholars have dated these manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ranging from 10 B.C. to 68 A.D. The Scrolls have proved valuable tools in the reconstruction of history of the advent of early Christianity. It records the power struggle between a righteous, an evil and a liar, the hint of this conflict is to be found in the Book of Acts .

From the jars discovered at Qumran (Cave Number 1) scholars have discovered an important commentary on the Book of Habakkuk (‘Habakkuk Pesher’). The commentary records the defiling of the God’s sanctuary (cf. Acts 21: 28-29), and details of a historical dispute between the leaders of the early Christians (cf. Acts 21:17-26). In addition to the ‘Habakkuk Commentary’ the reference to this individual who was being accused of falsity and preaching his own doctrine is also found in the commentary to the Psalm 37 within the Qumran texts.


THE DEAD SEA SCROLL DECEPTION….

Below are the excerpts from the above book. It is a book that tells you;
"WHY A HANDFUL OF RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS CONSPIRED TO SUPPRESS THE REVOLUTIONARY CONTENTS OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS."
"From the Acts of the Apostles, from Josephus and from early Christian historians, there emerges a coherent, if still incomplete, portrait of James,’ the Lord’s brother’. He appears as an exemplar of ‘righteousness’ – so much so that ‘the Just’, or ‘the Righteous’, is appended as a sobriquet to his name. He is the acknowledged leader of a ‘sectarian’ religious community whose members are ‘zealous for the Law’. He must contend with two quite separate and distinct adversaries. One of these is Paul, an outsider who, having first persecuted the community, then converts and is admitted into it, only to turn renegade, prevaricate and quarrel with his superiors, hijack the image of Jesus and begin preaching his own doctrine – a doctrine which draws on that of the community, but distorts it. James’s second adversary is from outside the community – the high priest Ananas, head of the Sadducee priesthood. Ananas is a notoriously corrupt and widely hated man. He has also betrayed both the God and the people of Israel by collaborating with the Roman administration and their Herodian puppet-kings. James publicly challenges Ananas and eventually meets his death at the hands of Ananas’ minions; but Ananas will shortly be assassinated in turn. All of this takes place against a backdrop of increasing social and political unrest and the impending invasion of a foreign army.

With this scenario in mind, Eisenman turned to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and particularly the ‘Habakkuk Commentary’. When the fragmentary details of the Qumran texts had been assembled into a coherent sequence, what emerged was something extraordinarily similar to the chronicle of Acts, Josephus and early Christian historians. The scrolls told their own story, at the centre of which was a single protagonist, the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’- an exemplar of the same virtues associated with James. Like James, the ‘Teacher’ was the acknowledged leader of a ‘sectarian’ religious community whose members were ‘zealous for the Law’. And like James, the ‘Teacher’ had to contend with two quite separate and distinct adversaries. One of these was dubbed the ‘Liar’ an outsider who was admitted to the community, then turned renegade, quarrelled with the ‘Teacher’ and hijacked part of the community’s doctrine and membership. According to the ‘Habakkuk Commentary’, the ‘Liar’ ‘did not listen to the word received by the Teacher of the Righteousness from the mouth of God’.22 Instead, he appealed to ‘the unfaithful of the New Covenant in that they have not believed in the Covenant of God and have profaned His holy name’.23 The text states explicitly that ‘the Liar . . . flouted the Law in the midst of their whole congregation’.24 He ‘led many astray’ and raised ‘a congregation on deceit’.25 He himself is said to be ‘pregnant with [works] of deceit’.26 These, of course, are precisely the transgressions of which Paul is accused in Acts – transgressions which lead, at the end of Acts, to the attempt on his life. And Eisenman stresses Paul’s striking hypersensitivity to charges of prevarication and perjury.27 In 1 Timothy 2:7, for example, he asserts indignantly, as if defending himself, that ‘I am telling the truth and not lie’. In II Corinthians 11:31, he swears that: ‘The God and Father of the Lord Jesus . . . knows that I am not lying.’ These are but two instances; Paul’s letters reveal an almost obsessive desire to exculpate himself from implied accusations of falsity." (Pp. 194-195, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, Summit Books, New York, N.Y., 1991, ISBN: 0671734547)

Notes and References to the above:
  • 22 The Habakkuk Commentary, II, 2 (Vermes, p. 284).
  • 23 Ibid., II, 3-4 (Vermes, p. 284).
  • 24 Ibid., V. 11-12 (Vermes, p. 285).
  • 25 Ibid., X, 9-10 (Vermes, p. 288).
  • 26 Ibid., X, 11-12 (Vermes, p. 288).
  • 27 For a comprehensive review of Paul’s sensitivity to the charges of lying, see Eisenman, op. cit., p. 39, n. 24.
Recommended for further reading; books by Dr. Robert H. Eisenman:
‘Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran’ (1983, E. J. Brill of Leiden, Holland)
‘James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher’ (1986, E. J. Brill of Leiden, Holland)
[font=timesnewroman,times,serif]Robert Eisenman is Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University, Long Beach. He is is consultant for the Huntington Library in the struggle to free the Scrolls.


[font=timesnewroman,times,serif]Also suggested for reading:[/font]

[font=timesnewroman,times,serif]The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for over 35 Years
[/font][font=timesnewroman,times,serif][size=-1]Robert H. Eisenman and Michael O. Wise[/size][/font][font=timesnewroman,times,serif]
[/font]

[font=timesnewroman,times,serif]Compiled by scholars Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, these fifty documents cast a startling light on events in Palestine at the dawn of Christianity. They portray not a family of peaceful Essenes but a fiercely militant religious sect whose members awaited an apocalyptic Day of Vengeance. The authors speak of a messiah and the resurrection of the dead. They allude not only to doctrines we now recognize as Christian but also to the precursors of Islam and Jewish Kabbalism. Providing precise transliterations into modern Hebrew characters and English translations, and accompanied by detailed commentaries, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered represents a quantum leap in our knowledge of 1the ancient origins of modern faith.[/font][font=timesnewroman,times,serif]
[/font][/font]
 
WolfgangvonUSA said:
. . . (Pp. 194-195, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, Summit Books, New York, N.Y., 1991, ISBN: 0671734547) . . .

Would that be the same Baigent and Leigh who wrote the work of speculative fiction and part absolute fabrication called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"?
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
Would that be the same Baigent and Leigh who wrote the work of speculative fiction and part absolute fabrication called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"?
Oh, lordy, no... !
 
WolfgangvonUSA said:
[font=timesnewroman,times,serif]The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered:The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for over 35 Years
[font=timesnewroman,times,serif]Robert H. Eisenman and Michael O. Wise[/font]

[/font]Compiled by scholars Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, these fifty documents cast a startling light on events in Palestine at the dawn of Christianity. They portray not a family of peaceful Essenes but a fiercely militant religious sect whose members awaited an apocalyptic Day of Vengeance. The authors speak of a messiah and the resurrection of the dead. They allude not only to doctrines we now recognize as Christian but also to the precursors of Islam and Jewish Kabbalism. Providing precise transliterations into modern Hebrew characters and English translations, and accompanied by detailed commentaries, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered represents a quantum leap in our knowledge of 1the ancient origins of modern faith.
I thought this book contains translations of non-biblical texts from cave 4. It seems Eisenman and Wise didn't exactly agree about their significance.

Nag Hammadi Library appears to be lately more interesting than the Dead Sea Scrolls for the specialists.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
Would that be the same Baigent and Leigh who wrote the work of speculative fiction and part absolute fabrication called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"?
Did Isaac Asimov write science-fiction as well as pure science? So what if this other book is speculative. That is simply irrelevant to the current book that is being discussed..

Judge this book on its content and its verifiable references to the Dead Sea Scrolls. And yes some of the Qumran scrolls are extra-biblical, but so are the works of Josephus, Philo, Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius, etc.

And since you seem to believe the Bible is inerrant, are your referring to the Masoretic text or the LXX? Since they are different, how can they both be inerrant? And just remember that most NT quotes of the OT come from the LXX.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
Would that be the same Baigent and Leigh who wrote the work of speculative fiction and part absolute fabrication called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"?
Oops - my bad - I thought we were discussing the sensationalist "Bloodline of the Grail" by Laurence Gardner, which is pretty dire.
 
I said:
Oops - my bad - I thought we were discussing the sensationalist "Bloodline of the Grail" by Laurence Gardner, which is pretty dire.
Not much difference. Same basic thesis, same absence of actual evidence to support it.
 
WolfgangvonUSA said:
Did Isaac Asimov write science-fiction as well as pure science? So what if this other book is speculative. That is simply irrelevant to the current book that is being discussed..
It's entirely relevant. It means that nobody should take a statement from those authors without checking both the sources and counterarguments for themselves. It is always important to know who wrote a piece of text - any why.

WolfgangvonUSA said:
And since you seem to believe the Bible is inerrant, are your referring to the Masoretic text or the LXX?
What are you talking about? You think I believe the bible is inerrant?! Where did you get that idea? My most recent original thread was about how we don't even know who wrote it.

WolfgangvonUSA said:
Since they are different, how can they both be inerrant? And just remember that most NT quotes of the OT come from the LXX.
I agree. The New Testament is full of errors and internal contradictions and incorrect statements based specifically on problems in the Septuagint.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
It's entirely relevant. It means that nobody should take a statement from those authors without checking both the sources and counterarguments for themselves. It is always important to know who wrote a piece of text - any why.


What are you talking about? You think I believe the bible is inerrant?! Where did you get that idea? My most recent original thread was about how we don't even know who wrote it.


I agree. The New Testament is full of errors and internal contradictions and incorrect statements based specifically on problems in the Septuagint.
If you are put off by Baigent's other book, then go directly to the studies of Robert Eisenman, as Baigent is basically writing his Dead Sea Scroll book as an extended review of Eisenman's work.

Robert Eisenman is Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University, Long Beach. He is is consultant for the Huntington Library in the struggle to free the Scrolls.

Eisenman wrote a 1000 page book called "James, Brother of Jesus" as well as other articles such as "Paul as Herodian" and ‘James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher' and 'Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran'.

As to the notion that the bible is inerrant, perhaps that was something JIM said or implied. I do not believe that the bible is inerrant in its present form, and I am NOT therefore compelled to accept the works of Paul as inerrant or divinely inspired. At best, I would consider Paul to be a psychiatric case, at worst, the AntiChrist. As I have previously documented, a multitude of prominent figures and/or historians also share my belief that Paul's teachings were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus as revealed in the gospls.

For example, Thomas Jefferson said "Paul was the first corrupter of the gospels" and he published "The Jefferson Bible" which omits Paul's letters altogether.
 
WolfgangvonUSA said:
If you are put off by Baigent's other book, then go directly to the studies of Robert Eisenman, as Baigent is basically writing his Dead Sea Scroll book as an extended review of Eisenman's work.
Robert Eisenman is Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University, Long Beach. He is is consultant for the Huntington Library in the struggle to free the Scrolls.

Eisenman wrote a 1000 page book called "James, Brother of Jesus" as well as other articles such as "Paul as Herodian" and ‘James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher' and 'Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran'.

Eisenman's theory that James is the "Teacher of Righteousness" in the Habakkuk Pesher has all but been proven wrong. Carbon 14 dating of the Habakkuk Pesher in 1994 at one of the finest facilities in the world (http://www.physics.arizona.edu/physics/public/dead-sea.html) shows it's creation before 43 B.C.E., which would make it impossible to be a veiled observation about the conflict between James and Paul since neither of them had been born yet when it was written. Eisenman's books were written prior to the C-14 tests in Arizona.

Tellingly, Eisenman doesn't say much about this theory anymore, but is often heard whining about the Radiocarbon dating - an area that is definitely not within his expertise.
 
Also, Eisenman's hypothesis (much like Baigent's and Leigh's in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail") is largely speculation. There are no external sources to verify any of the correlations he sees in Habakkuk Pesher to James/Paul. It's not unlike trying to find Quatrains in Nostradamus to fit current historical details. If the original writing is vague enough, it could be used to fit just about anything.
 
I've found a link on this subject. I don't know how reliable is the info on it, but there is a translation of the entire Pesher. The scrolls have many lacunas and this offers space for a lot of interpretation.

But here you have the link and you can see by yourself :

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/habdir.htm
 
Originally posted by
WolfgangvonUSA
Robert Eisenman is Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University, Long Beach. He is is consultant for the Huntington Library in the struggle to free the Scrolls.


Excuse me for interrupting, but, concerning Eisenman's credentials, it reminds me of something my father and a number of my former instructors have said about the PhD (which is a requirement for the title of professor): "Piled higher and Deeper" (emphasis is mine.)

Originally posted by Abogado del Diablo
It's entirely relevant. It means that nobody should take a statement from those authors without checking both the sources and counterarguments for themselves. It is always important to know who wrote a piece of text - any why.
Bravo, AdD. The same holds true with all texts, not just texts from a particular author or set of authors.

Originally posted by Abrogado del Diablo
Eisenman's theory that James is the "Teacher of Righteousness" in the Habakkuk Pesher has all but been proven wrong. Carbon 14 dating of the Habakkuk Pesher in 1994 at one of the finest facilities in the world (http://www.physics.arizona.edu/phys...c/dead-sea.html) shows it's creation before 43 B.C.E., which would make it impossible to be a veiled observation about the conflict between James and Paul since neither of them had been born yet when it was written. Eisenman's books were written prior to the C-14 tests in Arizona.

Tellingly, Eisenman doesn't say much about this theory anymore, but is often heard whining about the Radiocarbon dating - an area that is definitely not within his expertise.
Reminds me of a particular professor I had who would throw a hissy fit whenever somebody called his take on certain things into question (I was in his bad book quite frequently concerning both Norse and Celtic mythology, especially Irish pronunciation. :rolleyes: I spent most of the after-class time explaining to the rest of the class that I wasn't an expert, but if they wanted to listen to an actual expert, I was more than willing to ask my Irish Gaelic instructor to let us talk with him.)

Originally posted by Abrogado del Diablo
It's not unlike trying to find Quatrains in Nostradamus to fit current historical details. If the original writing is vague enough, it could be used to fit just about anything.
Just that? Next time anybody looks at the horoscopes, do a virtual dissection the same way the Amazing Randi has done since the early 1970s (I think he still has a huge check ready for anybody who can prove psychic phenomena exists through using scientific method.)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
 
Isn't it interesting how the interpretation of carbon dating for the Shroud of Turin keeps changing, especially when somebody realized the church in which the shroud was stored had a fire which significantly affected carbon dioxide levels and thereby the results. Every few years this and other issues seems to flip flop for any number of unanticipated reasons, and I would not be the least bit surprised to see this controversy to ebb and flow as well.

But if anybody is interested in Eisenman's response to this carbon dating, just read pages 80 to 90 in his book, "James, Brother of Jesus", published in 1997, in which he provides evidence that causes the carbon dating to remain inconclusive. And speaking for myself, I am not convinced that any carbon dating technique is really capable of distinguishing between time periods within the space of 50 to 100 years that long ago.

But even if this newest carbon dating is correct, Eisenman's contention of a conflict between James and Paul certainly does not rest entirely upon the dating of any Dead Sea Scroll, as there is ample evidence of this from a host of ancient historians, including Josephus, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, et al. His book spans more than a thousand pages and only a small fraction is devoted to the dating of the Qumran scrolls.

In his article, "Paul as Herodian", Eisenman writes:


"In recent work, I not only argued for the precedence that must be given to literary and historical evidence over archaeological and palaeographic evidence of the kind which exists for Qumran, but also attempted to concretize the basic political (and by consequence religious) orientation of Qumran as anti-Herodian. The last allows us to arrive at a proper textual and historical dating of Qumran documents and has important ramifications for Gospel research. Underestimating it, I believe, is one of the most serious defects of Qumran research. I have also redefined "Pharisees" generically in terms of "seeking accommodation with foreigners" for two reasons: first, to take into account important self-professed "Pharisees" like Paul and Josephus, and second, to relate such persons and others to Qumran circumlocutions like "Seekers after Smooth Things." By this I mean that we should not simply call Pharisees those whom the Talmud or Josephus might so identify, but those so identifiable because of an accommodating attitude towards foreign rule and some of its important ramifications, e.g., acceptance of gifts or sacrifices on behalf of foreigners in the Temple, Herodian or foreign appointment of high priests, etc."

For the full article go to http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

Regardless of the dating of the scrolls, the "accommodating attitude towards foreign rule" among the Herodians and Pharisees would continue to be a factor in the first century CE as well as the first centtury BCE, and this is a factor that distinguished the Herodians and the Pharisee Paul from Jesus and James and those who were zealous for the Law, in the best Maccabean tradition of the true Israelites prior to the Idumean infiltration of the House of Judah
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
On a side note, I always thought that the Shroud of Turin was the absolute silliest "holy relic" in all of Christendom until I read about the "Holy Prepuce" (the foreskin of Jesus - I kid you not!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
There's also a great joke about foreskins involving a Jewish doctor and a Rabbi.

The doctor saves foreskins to make change purses.

When going on an airline trip, just rub the purse and it becomes a suitcase!
 
Here are some excepts from a scholarly review of Eisenman's book.

The full text is located athttp://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html

Robert Eiseman's JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS:
A Higher-Critical Evaluation

Robert M. Price
Drew University




Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Viking Penguin, 1997,
blueline.gif


[size=+1]I[/size]N his recent publications The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (with Michael Wise) and The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians Robert Eisenman has been threatening/promising to redraw the map of Christian origins and now, by God, he has done it. The breadth and detail of Eisenman's investigation are breathtaking, as are its implications. In James the Brother of Jesus he tells the long-lost tale of formative "prehistoric" Christianity as it emerged from the crucible of revolutionary Palestine and from the internecine hostilities between Pauline and Ebionite Christianities. I call it "prehistoric" because Eisenman reconstructs the events lying before and beneath our canonical histories of early Christianity. His enterprise is in this sense akin to that of Burton Mack, that other great delver into the subterrene depths of religious pre-history. Like Mack, Eisenman discovers a "Christianity" (or perhaps a proto-Christianity, or even a pre-Christianity) for which Jesus had not yet attained centrality. Only whereas Mack sees the initial germ of the new religion as a variant of Cynicism, Eisenman rejuvenates, even vindicates, Renan's old claim that Christianity began as "an Essenism."

In the process Eisenman also vindicates another dictum of Renan, namely that to write the history of a faith, one must needs have belonged to it but belong to it no more. While one still carries the burden of representing the Christian religion it appears to be almost impossible to kick free of the apologetic bias. In dealing with Paul, this means that even critical scholars cannot help presupposing that Paul's message, theology, whatever, must be basically true. Even if one must practice a little sachkritische surgery here and there, e.g., as to the role of women, Paul is still the church's one foundation. At the very least this implicitly Paulinist bias results in what Bruce Malina and others call a docetic approach to the text, an according of priority to the theological abstractions as if they were really the engine of the train and not its epiphenomenal, rhetorical caboose. Even the bold and brilliant E. P. Sanders, who admits, in Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, that Paul's arguments are usually a mass of inconsistent rationalizations, still grants priority to the conversion experience which he assumes underlies them. Francis Watson gets closer to ground zero in Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, seeing sociological realities as the tectonic plates upon which Paul's theology slides. But it is left to Eisenman to disengage himself completely from the Pauline cheer-leading team and look at things from the other side.

To anticipate the thrust of the book as a whole, let it be said that Eisenman first draws a portrait of the early community of James as a nationalistic, messianic, priestly, and xenophobic sect of ultra-legal pietism, something most of us would deem fanaticism. As Schweitzer said of the historical Jesus, this is an embarrassment and a disappointment to those who expect the original gospel to look refreshingly modernistic. Eisenman shows how "Jewish Christianity" was part and parcel of the sectarian milieu which included Essenes, Zealots, Nazoreans, Nazirites, Ebionites, Elchasites, Sabeans, Mandaeans, etc., and that these categories were no more than ideal types, by no means actually segregated one from the other like exotic beasts in adjacent, well-marked cages in the theological zoo. Over against this sort of "Lubavitcher Christianity," Eisenman depicts Pauline Christianity (plus its Hellenistic cousins Johannine, Markan, Lukan, etc., Christianities) as being root and branch a compromising, assimilating, Herodianizing apostasy from Judaism. Greek Christianity gives the Torah, and Jewish identity, the bum's rush, just like those allegorizing antinomians Philo argued against, just like Josephus. The Pauline Christ, a spiritual redeemer with an invisible kingdom, is of a piece with the christening of Vespasian as the messiah by Josephus.



FIRST, Eisenman considers a much wider range of historical sources than most think they need to. He plumbs, as we have come to expect, the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, the Apostolic Constitutions, Eusebius, the two James Apocalypses from Nag Hammadi, even the Western Text of Acts and the Slavonic Josephus. And Eisenman takes Josephus much more seriously as a source for Luke's Acts than anyone ever has before. All these our author carefully sifts, taking nothing uncritically. Where he differs from most previous scholars is in taking these materials seriously at all as new sources of information, the odd clue here or there, about James and Paul. As Richard Pervo (Profit With Delight) has begun to show, the traditional neglect of these sources and others related to them (e.g., the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles) by supposedly critical scholars is more a matter of canon apologetics than of historical method. Why do New Testament scholars agree that Luke's Acts are legendary and fictitious in large measure—and go right on taking the story at face value? Eisenman, on the other hand, realizes that Luke and the Pseudoclementine literature are on more or less a par. Each must be treated with great reserve, yet with the optimism that, like the Oxyrhynchus alligators, somewhere amid all the stuffing one may at last discover a vital bit of information.

Second, Eisenman has developed a keen sense for the "name game" played in the sources. Most of us have sometime scratched our heads over the tantalizing confusions latent in the strange redundancy of similar names in the New Testament accounts. How can Mary have had a sister named Mary? Is there a difference between Joseph Barsabbas Justus, Judas Barsabbas Justus, Jesus Justus, Titius Justus, and James the Just? Whence all the Jameses and Judases? Who are Simon the Zealot and Judas the Zealot (who appears in some NT manuscripts and other early Christian documents)? Is Clopas the same as Cleophas? What's going on with Jesus ben-Ananias, Jesus Barabbas, Elymas bar-Jesus, and Jesus Justus? What does Boanerges really mean? Is Nathaniel a nickname for someone else we know of? And so on, and so on. Most of us puzzle over these oddities for a moment—and then move on. After all, how important can they be, anyway? Eisenman does not move on till he has figured it out.

We read that a young man named Saul was playing coat checker for the executioners of Stephen and, his taste for blood whetted, immediately began to foment persecution in Jerusalem and Damascus. This has been drawn, again, from the lore of James as well as Josephus. The clothing motif was suggested by the final blow to James' head with a fuller's club, while just after his own account of James' death, Josephus tells of the rioting started by a Herodian named Saulus in Jerusalem!

-------------------

The suicide of Judas Iscariot (originally "the Sicarius") represents a mixing of elements that make more sense in their presumably earlier setting in the life of James and Jude. The suicide element (as well as the drawing of lots in the adjacent context in Acts 1) comes from the drawing of lots to begin the suicides of the Sicarii at Masada. The falling headlong comes from James' being pushed from the pinnacle of the temple, while the gushing out of his bowels reflects the dashing out of James' brains by the evil launderer. Like James, Acts' Judas is buried where he fell.

----------------------

Equally shocking to some will be Eisenman's suggestion that Josephus' Herodian Saulus, active during the siege of Jerusalem, was none other than Saul of Tarsus! As Hyam Maccoby recently reminded us (in The Mythmaker), our conventional assumption that Paul died by Nero's command rests only on sketchy and manifestly legendary material in 1 Clement (an anonymous digest of hortatory lumber of unknown date) and the Acts of Paul. We don't really know what may have happened to him. Similarly, Eisenman comes close to identifying Simon Peter with Simeon bar-Cleophas who is said, like Simon Peter, to have been crucified, but much later than Nero's reign. (Actually, Eisenman does think finally that there was a Peter distinct from the Pillar Cephas, that traditions concerning the two have been confused because of the similarity between the names. But one wonders if that is consistent with Eisenman's methodology elsewhere.)

[size=+1]A[/size]NOTHER point on which Maccoby and Eisenman coincide is their willingness to take seriously the Ebionite charge that Paul was never a real Jew to begin with. Maccoby shows quite extensively in his Paul and Hellenism that the Pauline Epistles give precious little evidence of having been written by a Jew, what with their anti-Semitic outbursts, their Mystery Religion affinities, their Gnosticizing exegesis, and their utterly non-Jewish view of the Torah as a burden. Eisenman enhances his case by adducing the evidence for Paul's Herodian background, something we really do not have to read too far between the lines to see, given his Roman citizenship, his kinship to one Herodion and to the household of Aristobulus. If this is what the Ebionites meant, that Paul was as little a Jew as Herod the Great despite his pretense, then we have a scenario more natural than that which the Ebionite charge might otherwise imply: the idea of Paul as some sort of Greek pagan entering Judaism superficially and from without. As Eisenman notes, Paul protests that he is a Hebrew, an Israelite, even a Benjaminite, but he avoids calling himself a Jew! And Eisenman suggests that, given the strange fact that "Bela" appears both as a chief clan of Benjamin and as the first Edomite king, "Benjaminite" may have been a kind of Herodian euphemism for their oblique relation to Judaism.



For the full review, go tohttp://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html
 
Back
Top