Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 07:52 PM

Right DCH

The first number is the forty ninth year the second the Jubilee. The Jubilee is also the first year of the next forty nine.

The Samaritans only count from the spring, the way the Pentateuch specifies.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 07:55 PM

The chapter in Isaiah abut the year of Favor is 61. The reference back to the Torah is Lv 25 and Dt 32. One of these would have been the reading before the reading from Isaiah when Jesus preached presumably, and the other would have been the reading at about the same time. Notice the mention of the new order of priesthood in Isaiah. This part is quoted twice in Revelations. The new order of priesthood started at the Pentecost after the Ascension.

The concept of the Jubilee Year that is unique and is the year of Favor starting the time of Favor is developed in some Qumran texts. The Samaritan concept of the return of the Time of Favor is central. The point that it is to start in a Jubilee Year is so self-evident that it is not explicitly mentioned, but it is always there.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 07:58 PM

The coming of the Jubilee Year is announced with the special blowing of the shofar on the Day of Atonement on the 10/7/49. However, it is mentioned in the liturgy of the first day 1/7/49 which is the start of the period leading up to the Day of Atonement. If it is a 6th year, the coming 7th year is mentioned. We have examples of this liturgy going back many centuries. This part is there in the very oldest mss.

That means that the COMMEMORATION of a Jubilee year lasts EXACTLY a year and a half.

I have also had a look at a Karaite source. To my great surprise, the Karaites agree with the Rabbanites on the Jubilee. Both maintain the first of the seventh is a New Year for certain purposes. The Rabbanites say Creation was on the first of the seventh. Note that this means there is no necessary connection with the date of the crossing of the Jordan. Actually the Rabbanites maintain that counting started after the passage of 14 years from Entry, with the first shemittah being in year 21 of entry.

The Jubilee is not in the lists of disagreements between Pharisees and Sadducees. If there had been disagreement it would have come up.

The reference to the Samaritan commentary on the Torah is unpublished. Refer to Boid's book Principles of Samaritan Halachah for details of the mss. He used two, in Berlin and Uppsala. The writing of commentaries is cumulative over the centuries, so there is no invention in this commentary, only systematization.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 08:45 PM

Tertullian argues the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative is about Herod and John the Baptist:

Quote:

For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally fits in with the mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been condemned by him for his impious marriage. It sets forth in bold outline the end of both of them, the “torments” of Herod and the “comfort” of John, that even now Herod might hear that warning: “They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next life for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets [Agains Marcion 4:34]

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 08:51 PM

More confusion. Celsus's Jewish source identifies 'Herod the tetrarch' as the one who slaughtered infants:

Quote:

After these matters this Jew of Celsus, instead of the Magi mentioned in the Gospel, says that “Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch (Ἡρώδῃ τῷ τετράρχῃ τοῦτο δεδηλωκέναι); and that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about the same time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among the others; and that he was led to do this through fear that, if Jesus lived to a sufficient age, he would obtain the throne.” [Contra Celsum 1.58]

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 10:12 PM

It is amazing to see how many of the ideas that were originally in the writings of Justin get recycled in later writers. Take this statement in Tertullian's Against Marcion:

Quote:

And so the Lord hath stood on His trial.” And he placed His people on their trial. The Lord Himself comes to a trial with “the elders and rulers of the people,” as Isaiah predicted. And then He fulfilled all that had been written of His passion. At that time “the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain things; the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ.” The heathen were Pilate and the Romans; the people were the tribes of Israel; the kings were represented in Herod, and the rulers in the chief priests. When, indeed, He was sent to Herod gratuitously by Pilate, the words of Hosea were accomplished, for he had prophesied of Christ: “And they shall carry Him bound as a present to the king.” Herod was “exceeding glad” when he saw Jesus, but he heard not a word from Him. For, “as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth,” because “the Lord had given to Him a disciplined tongue, that he might know how and when it behoved Him to speak”—even that “tongue which clove to His jaws,” as the Psalm said it should, through His not speaking.

Every single statement here is a retread from Justin's Dialogue. Seriously. Now the way scholarship treats this realization is to go off on some tangent noting the 'great influence' that Justin and Irenaeus had on later writers. But this is complete garbage. It is a distraction from the actual truth which is that there is no historical reality. The entire basis for Christian interpretation of the gospel is a scriptural 'cheat sheet.'

In other words, Tertullian knows fuck all about Herod, which Herod was the Herod of the slaughter of the infants, which Herod was the Herod who presided over the Passion, whether there were two Herods or one or three. Instead he received an 'instruction list' which sought out history in scripture. That's all. This is what convinced Tertullian and his followers and all Catholic Christians.

So when we turn around and try to reconstruct history using people like Tertullian, Hippolytus and the like we can't just turn around and imply that these are one or two or ten independent witnesses. No they collectively represent one witness - the 'scriptural cheat sheet' that dropped from the sky or was culled by Irenaeus from Justin's writings. That 'Herod' is Herod the Great here and Herod Antipas there isn't 'proven' to anyone - it is simply believed, scatted from a manipulated gospel text. That the gospel narrative is said to have occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius happened the same way.

Look at what Clement says about Luke's 'translation' of the Epistle to the Hebrews. He says in effect - the Epistle to the Hebrews sounds like the translators own gospel and his Acts of the Apostle. But how can this letter written by Paul - i.e. SOMEONE ELSE - end up sounding like the guy who translated it. Hmmm. Let's think about this for a moment. And then Luke is the only gospel which identifies 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius' as the year of the beginning of Jesus's ministry.

Gee. I wonder if that is suspicious given that Luke's greatest advocate is Irenaeus and he also is the one who tacks on 'crucified under Pilate' every chance he gets. Irenaeus advocated and determined every aspect of the faith. Things just didn't 'happen' that way.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 10:51 PM

On the pairing of Psalm 2 and Isaiah 3:13 - 14. Already in Acts 4:25–28, Ps 2:1 is applied to the opposition of Herod and Pontius Pilate against Jesus. The same application with respect to Psalm 2 is found in Justin 1 Apol. 40; Irenaeus Epid. 74; Melito Pasc. 62; Tertullian Marc. 4.42.2 (with Isa 3:13–14); Tertullian Res. 20 (with Isa 3:13 - 14), Pseudo-Epiphanius Test. 4.12. Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa Testimony Against the Jews Chapter 6 (Isa 3:12–14; Ps 2:1; Lam 4:20). To go through all these examples is monotonous. The bottom line is that scripture is woven into the gospel narrative as we now have it. I am not sure they were originally applied to Herod the Tetrarch.

stephan huller · 02-28-2013, 01:59 PM

And here's the next stage in the understanding. Why was Pilate so important for Irenaeus? Why the emphasis of being 'crucified under Pilate' in his creed and all creeds that followed? Why was Pilate necessary?

I thought of this while driving today to work. If you just have a narrative where Herod is the 'kings' from the Psalm, the 'rulers' are the priests and the Jews round out the adversaries of Jesus - there are no reliable witnesses to the crucifixion. Yes, theoretically Herod was a citizen of the Empire. But when you think about it all you have is the witness of barbarians - people whose testimony for the most part wouldn't be legally valid.

The witness of Pilate is critical for an educated, elite pagan audience - the very kind Irenaeus cared about - because it is now alleged that a Roman official, even the representative of the Roman administration, held a conversation with this 'Jesus' who is alleged to have been god. This completely changes the complexion of the religious paradigm from a 'superstition' promoted among a bunch of barbarians (who were viewed as being inherently inferior to those of Roman and Greek culture) into one that might have legs to be social acceptable.

'Crucified under Pilate' opens the door to the Acts of Pilate and the Gospel of Pilate and validated the claims made in the original gospel. Would any reputable member of society take seriously the claims of a bunch of Jews about the recent visitation of a god to their backwater society? The answer - no.

I think this helps us understand who the Carpocratians were. They were undoubtedly connected with Irenaeus's Roman tradition for they too appealed to Pilate's witness "they also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them." (AH 1.25.1)

stephan huller · 02-28-2013, 03:04 PM

Interesting also is that - as far as I can see - Celsus's early second century Jewish witness makes two interesting references. First he identifies 'Herod the tetrarch' as the king who tried to kill the infants. This may well be a reference to Herod the Great because 30 years before 12 BCE Herod is identified by Josephus repeatedly (Jewish Wars 14) as a tetrarch. In no scenario can Herod the Tetrarch of the first century CE be the king while Jesus was a child. Origen does not call him out on the 'mistake' either (as he is prone to do).

Also Celsus's Jew never mentions Pilate.

stephan huller · 03-01-2013, 12:07 AM

I have been able to find an uncanny pattern of mistaking basic historical details about the lives of 'Herod' and 'Pilate.' Here is yet another from the curious work called 5 Maccabees which "survives in Arabic, but was probably composed in Hebrew, judging from numerous Hebraisms. As no trace of a Hebrew text exists, some scholars (e.g. Zunz, Heinrich Graetz and Samuel Davidson) consider the work to have been in Arabic from Hebrew memoirs." It is a parallel source to Josephus but often provides different details than our surviving text. Wikipedia adds:

Quote:

The author probably was a Jew living some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The books bears some relationship to the history of Josippon.

The work is certainly not Christian but for some reason 'Pilate' is identified as being the Roman official alive at the time Herod the Great killed his sons:

Quote:

But that which Herod did came to no happy result, nor were the hearts of his sons united in agreement. For Antipater wanted every thing to be put into his hands, as his father had formerly appointed : and to his brothers it did not seem at all fair that he should be thought equal to them. Now Antipater was endued with perseverance, and all bad and feigned friendship ; but not so his two brothers : Antipater therefore set spies on his brothers, who should bring him tidings of them : he also planted others who should carry false reports of them to Pilate. But when Antipater was in presence of the king, and heard any one relating such things of his brothers, he repelled the charge from them, declaring that the authors were unworthy of credit, and entreating the king not to believe the reports. Which Antipater did, that he might not inspire the king with any doubt or suspicion of himself. From hence the king entertained no doubt that he was well-inclined towards his brothers, and wished them no harm. [5 Maccabees 59]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2013, 07:52 PM	#61
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Right DCH The first number is the forty ninth year the second the Jubilee. The Jubilee is also the first year of the next forty nine. The Samaritans only count from the spring, the way the Pentateuch specifies.

02-27-2013, 07:55 PM	#62
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The chapter in Isaiah abut the year of Favor is 61. The reference back to the Torah is Lv 25 and Dt 32. One of these would have been the reading before the reading from Isaiah when Jesus preached presumably, and the other would have been the reading at about the same time. Notice the mention of the new order of priesthood in Isaiah. This part is quoted twice in Revelations. The new order of priesthood started at the Pentecost after the Ascension. The concept of the Jubilee Year that is unique and is the year of Favor starting the time of Favor is developed in some Qumran texts. The Samaritan concept of the return of the Time of Favor is central. The point that it is to start in a Jubilee Year is so self-evident that it is not explicitly mentioned, but it is always there.

02-27-2013, 07:58 PM	#63
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The coming of the Jubilee Year is announced with the special blowing of the shofar on the Day of Atonement on the 10/7/49. However, it is mentioned in the liturgy of the first day 1/7/49 which is the start of the period leading up to the Day of Atonement. If it is a 6th year, the coming 7th year is mentioned. We have examples of this liturgy going back many centuries. This part is there in the very oldest mss. That means that the COMMEMORATION of a Jubilee year lasts EXACTLY a year and a half. I have also had a look at a Karaite source. To my great surprise, the Karaites agree with the Rabbanites on the Jubilee. Both maintain the first of the seventh is a New Year for certain purposes. The Rabbanites say Creation was on the first of the seventh. Note that this means there is no necessary connection with the date of the crossing of the Jordan. Actually the Rabbanites maintain that counting started after the passage of 14 years from Entry, with the first shemittah being in year 21 of entry. The Jubilee is not in the lists of disagreements between Pharisees and Sadducees. If there had been disagreement it would have come up. The reference to the Samaritan commentary on the Torah is unpublished. Refer to Boid's book Principles of Samaritan Halachah for details of the mss. He used two, in Berlin and Uppsala. The writing of commentaries is cumulative over the centuries, so there is no invention in this commentary, only systematization.

02-27-2013, 10:51 PM	#67
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	On the pairing of Psalm 2 and Isaiah 3:13 - 14. Already in Acts 4:25–28, Ps 2:1 is applied to the opposition of Herod and Pontius Pilate against Jesus. The same application with respect to Psalm 2 is found in Justin 1 Apol. 40; Irenaeus Epid. 74; Melito Pasc. 62; Tertullian Marc. 4.42.2 (with Isa 3:13–14); Tertullian Res. 20 (with Isa 3:13 - 14), Pseudo-Epiphanius Test. 4.12. Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa Testimony Against the Jews Chapter 6 (Isa 3:12–14; Ps 2:1; Lam 4:20). To go through all these examples is monotonous. The bottom line is that scripture is woven into the gospel narrative as we now have it. I am not sure they were originally applied to Herod the Tetrarch.

02-28-2013, 01:59 PM	#68
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And here's the next stage in the understanding. Why was Pilate so important for Irenaeus? Why the emphasis of being 'crucified under Pilate' in his creed and all creeds that followed? Why was Pilate necessary? I thought of this while driving today to work. If you just have a narrative where Herod is the 'kings' from the Psalm, the 'rulers' are the priests and the Jews round out the adversaries of Jesus - there are no reliable witnesses to the crucifixion. Yes, theoretically Herod was a citizen of the Empire. But when you think about it all you have is the witness of barbarians - people whose testimony for the most part wouldn't be legally valid. The witness of Pilate is critical for an educated, elite pagan audience - the very kind Irenaeus cared about - because it is now alleged that a Roman official, even the representative of the Roman administration, held a conversation with this 'Jesus' who is alleged to have been god. This completely changes the complexion of the religious paradigm from a 'superstition' promoted among a bunch of barbarians (who were viewed as being inherently inferior to those of Roman and Greek culture) into one that might have legs to be social acceptable. 'Crucified under Pilate' opens the door to the Acts of Pilate and the Gospel of Pilate and validated the claims made in the original gospel. Would any reputable member of society take seriously the claims of a bunch of Jews about the recent visitation of a god to their backwater society? The answer - no. I think this helps us understand who the Carpocratians were. They were undoubtedly connected with Irenaeus's Roman tradition for they too appealed to Pilate's witness "they also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them." (AH 1.25.1)

02-28-2013, 03:04 PM	#69
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Interesting also is that - as far as I can see - Celsus's early second century Jewish witness makes two interesting references. First he identifies 'Herod the tetrarch' as the king who tried to kill the infants. This may well be a reference to Herod the Great because 30 years before 12 BCE Herod is identified by Josephus repeatedly (Jewish Wars 14) as a tetrarch. In no scenario can Herod the Tetrarch of the first century CE be the king while Jesus was a child. Origen does not call him out on the 'mistake' either (as he is prone to do). Also Celsus's Jew never mentions Pilate.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.