The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

My guess is that later orthodox Christians (Polycrates, Epiphanius) understood (or misunderstood?) Jewish Christian sources (like Hegesippus) about Naziritism to mean that James and maybe this John guy were literal priests. But I don't think Hegesippus goes that far in James' case. My impression from him is that James was a lifelong Nazirite and thus priest-like and consequently (either physically or ritualistically) attached to the Temple 24/7.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

This would be in keeping with the vows and sacrifices that James mentions in Acts 21:23-26 (which appear to be related to Naziritism, as Westfall notes below).
There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved ... The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
https://books.google.com/books?id=AV1NA ... ow&f=false
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

I wonder if this Jewish Christian attachment to the Temple after the death of Jesus undercuts the idea that Jesus was an atoning sacrifice, or at least one that ended the Temple sacrifices for all time (though there were some post-70 CE Jewish Christians who thought this).

Maybe this is why there is no mention of this atonement doctrine in Hegesippus (beyond the reference to Jesus being called "the crucified one" by the scribes and Pharisees) or any reference to Jesus' death in the Letter of James (unless it's in James 5:6). But Paul says that he preaches "Christ crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23) and "resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2) and "May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6:14). Maybe the "full significance" of the crucifixion was more Paul's thing.

As far as Hegesippus and the Letter of James are concerned, what seems to matter is Jesus' return and judgment at the End of Days.
Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him, ‘What is the gate of Jesus?’ and he replied that he was the Saviour. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works.
The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: ‘Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’

And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’ And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,' these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, ‘We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.’ And they cried out, saying, ‘Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.’
And when they [the grandsons of Jude, who were farmers] were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.
So Hegesippus is consistent about this. And I know Ben and spin disagree, but this seems in keeping with James 5:7-9 to me.
Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by spin »

John2 wrote:spin wrote:
We know now that the Habakkuk Pesher—which would have been one of the few texts Teicher had available to him—carbondates to the first century BCE, a fact that kills all the christianizing wackoes, Eisenman, Theiring, etc.
I'm just curious about Teicher, is all.

Regarding carbon dating in general and the DSS, I take into account, like Magness, that "every date returned by the lab has a plus/minus range":
A type of radiocarbon dating called accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) has the advantage of being the only "scientific" method listed here (in other words, the date is provided by a laboratory). However, it has the disadvantage that every date returned by the lab has a plus/minus range (this is a margin of statistical error). There is a 67 percent chance that the date provided by the lab falls within the plus/minus range ... Conversion of these dates to calendar years requires calibration because of past fluctuations in the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Calibration can increase the range of a radiocarbon date. For these reasons, radiocarbon dating is most useful in cases where there are no other methods of dating, such as prehistoric sites in Europe or Native American sites in the United States. It is less useful at a site like Qumran, where we have other, more accurate methods of dating available. On the other hand, radiocarbon dating has been used effectively on some of the scrolls and linens from the caves around Qumran. In this case, radiocarbon dating is useful because these objects do not have a stratigraphic context (that is, they come from caves instead of from a series of dated layers at an archaeological site). Radiocarbon dating confirmed the second century B.C.E to first century CE date that paleographers ... had already suggested for the scrolls (a date consistent with the pottery types found with the scrolls in the caves).

https://books.google.com/books?id=NnpvX ... ge&f=false
Magness shouldn't use 1-sigma date ranges. They only have a confidence level of ~68%.
John2 wrote:And as noted in the Dead Sea Scrolls In Context (2011):
The lower calibrated radiocarbon ages of the Community Rule (1QS) and Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) around the turn of the millennium and the Common Era, however, could even indicate a date towards the end of the Qumran settlement and the First Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE).

https://books.google.com/books?id=xM7En ... ng&f=false
So I see carbon dating as useful but not necessarily definitive. In the big picture then, I think any first century BCE to first century CE scenario that makes sense of what the pesharim say is fair. I enjoyed talking with you about yours here a few years ago, for example, and even started a thread to flesh it out more.
There are always people trying to squirm out of falsification. Pesher Habakkuk is carbondated 160-148 or 111 BCE-2 CE (with 2-sigma confidence ~95%). The curve calibrating C14 with tree-rings is quite irregular, so that a carbon date could cut across a number of spikes, providing discontinuous date ranges. The accuracy of carbondating only becomes problematic due to contamination, when for example scrolls get cleaned with carbon-based products. This almost always makes a sample seem younger than it is. (The first scrolls were discovered before C14 dating had emerged and it took quite a while till it was able to supply narrow datings with high accuracy. The scholars working on the scrolls had no thought to using the method in any significant way. Willard Libby tested a large piece of cloth in 1950 which produced a huge date range, so scholars were unlikely to regard it as useful at that time, so they had no qualms brushing carbon products such as leather cleaner on their scrolls. They weren't going to risk large samples for the newfangled method.The method has been greatly improved on since then and Libby got a Nobel Prize for his efforts.)

Those people who waffle on with things like "The lower calibrated radiocarbon ages of the Community Rule (1QS) and Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) around the turn of the millennium and the Common Era, however, could even indicate a date towards the end of the Qumran settlement and the First Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE)" are people who know little about carbondating and are talking through their hats, yes, scrolls scholars can talk through their hats, especially when handling information outside their competence. Beside tree-rings, carbondating has also been calibrated with ice-cores, so that known-dated materials have been checked at least three ways. There is little doubt regarding the confidence of this method. Gone are the days when religious nutters doused a sample with cooking oil to produce unreasonable dates. The science behind C14 dating is quite strong. When things go unexpectedly, samples can be re-procured and tested to see if the original was aberrant. Arguments against carbondating reliability are on a par with those against moon landings, evolution and global warming. The only real problem is that people need to understand the methodology and learn to trust the tested science behind it, but usually can't be bothered, so they sweep it aside with conspiratorial skepticism.

There is a bi-monthly scholarly journal called Radiocarbon in which scholars from all over the world deal with issues of and results from carbondating. Check it out at a decent university library to see that this is not a mickey mouse concern and that people trying to get around the results are usually not to be trusted on the subject.

Trust the carbondating. It can only err on the side of being too young, through contamination. One doesn't try to get dates that are younger to suit one's theories. Unless you have a reasoned problem with C14, I suggest you take its results as strongly binding dating indications.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Thanks for all that, spin. I could certainly use more information about carbon dating. What I've gathered about it so far has been confusing to sort through and I appreciate your help on that. One of my concerns is with variables, like the "past fluctuations in the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere" that Magness mentioned. While I've been looking at various books online that discuss carbon dating, I want to cite this webpage that addresses the issue of variables that I'm seeing in these books because it's easier for me to cut and paste from it than to type out what I'm seeing in these books. I realize it is a religious (and possibly "wacko") website, but this particular page seems to summarize well enough what I've been reading about variables elsewhere.
Carbon dating, or radiocarbon dating, like any other laboratory testing technique, can be extremely reliable, so long as all of the variables involved are controlled and understood. Several factors affect radiocarbon test results, not all of which are easy to control objectively. For this reason, it’s preferable to date objects using multiple methods, rather than relying on one single test. Carbon dating is reliable within certain parameters but certainly not infallible.

When testing an object using radiocarbon dating, several factors have to be considered:

First, carbon dating only works on matter that was once alive, and it only determines the approximate date of death for that sample. For example, a steel spearhead cannot be carbon dated, so archaeologists might perform testing on the wooden shaft it was attached to. This provides good information, but it only indicates how long ago that piece of wood was cut from a living tree. Radiocarbon dating can’t tell the difference between wood that was cut and immediately used for the spear, and wood that was cut years before being re-used for that purpose. Nor can it tell if a much older spearhead was attached to a brand-new shaft.
The other major factor affecting the results of carbon dating is gauging the original proportion of carbon-14 itself. Carbon dating is based on the loss of carbon-14, so, even if the present amount in a specimen can be detected accurately, we must still know how much carbon-14 the organism started with. Scientists must assume how much carbon-14 was in the organism when it died. Complicating matters is the fact that Earth’s carbon-14 concentrations change drastically based on various factors. As samples get older, errors are magnified, and assumptions can render carbon dating all but useless.

For example, variations in greenhouse effects and solar radiation change how much carbon-14 a living organism is exposed to, which drastically changes the “starting point” from which a radiocarbon dating test is based. Likewise, different living things absorb or reject carbon-14 at different rates. Two plants that died at the same moment, but which naturally contained different levels of radiocarbon, could be dated to drastically different times. Modern effects such as fossil fuel burning and nuclear testing have also changed atmospheric carbon-14 levels and in turn change the “starting point” for a radiocarbon test. All in all, setting the parameters of the carbon-14 test is more of an art than a science.

https://www.gotquestions.org/carbon-dating.html
Flint discusses carbon dating and the DSS and has tables of the 1 and 2 sigma tests (pg. 33-34; one copy of the Damascus Document has a 2 sigma date of 44 BCE to 129 CE and the Community Rule has a 2 sigma date of 344 to 323 BCE or 203 BCE to 122 CE) and sums up the situation on page 35 that these tests "confirm the view of most scholars that the Qumran scrolls are ancient and were written or copied in the last few centuries B.C.E. and the first century C.E. ... radiocarbon analyses supplies the number of years between the death of the plant or animal and the present time, which is not necessarily the date of the text. However, this is a minor obstacle, since the gap between the animal's death and the leather being used for a writing surface most likely was not a large one."

https://books.google.com/books?id=3uHHk ... ls&f=false

"Not necessarily," "most likely"; in other words, maybe, maybe not. And my impression remains that carbon dating gives a good approximation but is not definitive. But even the range for the Habakkuk Pesher falls a little bit into the first century CE, and I am not alone in viewing the pesharim as the last writings of the DSS community. As Grossman, for example, notes:
Scholars tend to view the pesharim as relatively late compositions in the community's history, and the pesher manuscript witnesses are among the later scrolls texts.

https://books.google.com/books?id=quDpw ... ng&f=false


I think it is worth noting again (I recall talking with you about it here a few years ago) that all the pesharim were found in single copies, which is a factor for this view. Flint's table shows that the Psalms Pesher (and yes, I'm familiar with the cleaning oil issue on this one) has a 2 sigma date of 3 CE to 126 CE.

So what I see are ranges, approximations, and while the Habakkuk Pesher is dated as having an older range than 4Q266 and 4Q171 (which also refer to the Teacher of Righteousness), I think it would make sense if it actually is older because I see it as being the last pesher and it was apparently written in a time of war when it may not have been possible to produce a new scroll, e.g., col. 2-3:
Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim [who are] quick and valiant in war, causing many to perish. [All the world shall fall] under the dominion of the Kittim, and the [wicked ...] they shall not believe in the laws of [God ...] [Who march through the breadth of the earth to take possession of dwellings which are not their own] ... they shall march across the plain, smiting and plundering the cities of the earth. For it is as He said, To take possession of dwellings which are not their own. They are fearsome and terrible; their justice and grandeur proceed from themselves.
Or col. 4:
Interpreted, this concerns the commanders of the Kittim who despise the fortresses of the peoples and laugh at them in derision. To capture them, they encircle them with a mighty host, and out of fear and terror they deliver themselves into their hands. They destroy them because of the sins of their inhabitants.
So these are some of the issues I have about variables, but I am certainly interested in learning more and take your feedback very seriously.
Last edited by John2 on Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:58 pm, edited 5 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

In any event, I don't think the DSS are necessarily needed for the subject of this thread. I brought them up here mainly because, since I do suspect for various reasons that some of the DSS could be Jewish Christian (or proto-Jewish Christian), I'm thinking that maybe the relocation of the Damascus Document community from "out of the land of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus" could have something to do with the presence of Jewish Christians in this area. But as far as the subject of this thread goes, I could be happy with Hegesippus alone.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by spin »

John2 wrote:Flint discusses carbon dating and the DSS...
It makes little sense to me to go to Peter Flint as a source for information about carbondating. He is a text scholar whose main area of competence is manuscript analysis of Danielic texts. He has not written any dedicated papers of C14. The major reference on C14 is Gregory Doudna, "Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis", in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, eds. Fllint & VanderKam, Vol.1 1998. It deals with all the scrolls tested up to 1998, gives a strong basis for one to understand the problems of C14, and works from a scientific approach to the subject. A few pages of abusive reference to C14 from a partisan commentator just will not do.
John2 wrote:"... radiocarbon analyses supplies the number of years between the death of the plant or animal and the present time, which is not necessarily the date of the text. However, this is a minor obstacle, since the gap between the animal's death and the leather being used for a writing surface most likely was not a large one."
Your bolding is bias restraining reading. The preparation of parchment is a long arduous process, making it very costly. The longer the parchment is left unused the longer the investment is unfulfilled. The basic approach of trying to separate the time of parchment from scroll production is the fudge that Atwill and Eisenman tried some years back to breathe hope into falsified theories, when they co-authored a paper against C14 dating. It ultimately involves an ad hoc appeal to ignorance... "we just don't know... so therefore it could be correct, although we have no means to demonstrate one way or another."
John2 wrote:"Not necessarily," "most likely"; in other words, maybe, maybe not.
A selective choice of tendentious opinions are not worth very much at all.
John2 wrote:And my impression remains that carbon dating gives a good approximation but is not definitive.
So we'll use it when it suits us, but repudiate it when inconvenient. The christianizing analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls died with the C14 analysis.
John2 wrote:But even the range for the Habakkuk Pesher falls a little bit into the first century CE,
Two years.
John2 wrote:and I am not alone in viewing the pesharim as the last writings of the DSS community.

It always good knowing you're not alone in whatever your endeavor is.
John2 wrote:I think it is worth noting again (I recall talking with you about it here a few years ago) that all the pesharim were found in single copies, which is a factor for this view.
And you'll remember I pointed copying artefacts in one of the pesharim, so single copies are not an indication of much.
John2 wrote:Flint's table shows that the Psalms Pesher (and yes, I'm familiar with the cleaning oil issue on this one) has a 2 sigma date of 3 CE to 126 CE.
Though interestingly pPs is the outlier, while pHab is quite centered in its dating. You don't usually use an outlier to pull something away from the trend. Contamination is the most likely explanation of the date range of pPs, given that Allegro talks of his cleaning methods. Consider 4Q267 (4QDb), a fragment of the Damascus document: it has a dating similar to pHab (198-[98]-3 BCE).
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John T »

1. I have been over the flaws and inaccuracies of C14 dating conducted on the DSS before and do not see the need to rehash it again. Be as that may, even with the flaws in C14 testing, clearly, at least some of the scrolls were written during the time of Jesus.

2. The charge that the Essenes had no influence on early Christianity, i.e. messiah beliefs (e.g. Lawrence H. Schiffman) has also been proven false.

3. The charge that the Pella flight was a hoax made up by Eusebius, lacks merit. Although, Eusebius did not properly cite all his sources regarding the Pella flight in: Ecclesiastical History, that doesn't mean he had no source and simply made it up.

4. By the time of the destruction of temple in 70 A.D. the Jewish-Christianity family, a.k.a, Ebionites had migrated throughout most of the Roman empire.

5. Although they may have been small in numbers, the Ebionites survived the Jewish revolt by fleeing to neighboring and/or far flung communities, e.g., Pella, Alexandria, Edessa, and most likely some even returned to Judea after the revolt.

Perhaps it is time to move on and evaluate the similarity of beliefs of the Essenes and Jesus and why the Roman empire worked so hard to suppress it.


Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by spin »

John T wrote:1. I have been over the flaws and inaccuracies of C14 dating conducted on the DSS before and do not see the need to rehash it again. Be as that may, even with the flaws in C14 testing, clearly, at least some of the scrolls were written during the time of Jesus.
A lot of people have attempted to trivialize C14 dating. They usually end up mumbling about nothing.
John T wrote:2. The charge that the Essenes had no influence on early Christianity, i.e. messiah beliefs (e.g. Lawrence H. Schiffman) has also been proven false.
This is pure nonsense. What the Essenes believed is not related to the Dead Sea Scrolls. What influence the Essenes had on other strands of Judaic beliefs is unknown.
John T wrote:3. The charge that the Pella flight was a hoax made up by Eusebius, lacks merit. Although, Eusebius did not properly cite all his sources regarding the Pella flight in: Ecclesiastical History, that doesn't mean he had no source and simply made it up.
It's just simply ahistorical in the sense that there is no contemporary or near contemporary evidence for it. And we cannot accept what Eusebius reported on the matter as he was not a witness of the era.
John T wrote:4. By the time of the destruction of temple in 70 A.D. the Jewish-Christianity family, a.k.a, Ebionites had migrated throughout most of the Roman empire.
Another datum that has no evidence to support it. Were there any Jewish-Christianity in the sense of Judean christianity prior to 70 CE? Paul is the closest hope of evidence and he does not evince believers in Jesus in Judea, just Christ/messiah believers.
John T wrote:5. Although they may have been small in numbers, the Ebionites survived the Jewish revolt by fleeing to neighboring and/or far flung communities, e.g., Pella, Alexandria, Edessa, and most likely some even returned to Judea after the revolt.
We don't know the origin of the Pella tradition. Building theories on wisps of tantalizing reports from later tradition is unlikely to yield anything other than happy fantasies.

Five out of five dead ends.
John T wrote:Perhaps it is time to move on and evaluate the similarity of beliefs of the Essenes and Jesus and why the Roman empire worked so hard to suppress it.
Good luck on that. Beside the questionable report of Josephus on the Essenes and the minimal material from Philo, there is nothing more tangible about the Essenes. The Essene theory regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls has got no further than the initial proposal in the 1950s. It was taken up by the scholars under de Vaux as a dogma which anyone who wanted to work on the scrolls had to abide by. It is totally unable to account for the priestly content in the scrolls, so there is no useful material from which to give background to the Essenes for one to extract similarities with early christianity.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John T »

Spin is entitled to his opinion of denial but he is not entitled to deny the facts.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do exist and they have been translated into English and the doctrine of the expected messiah is well documented.
The gospel of Mark does exist and has been translated into English and the doctrine of the expected messiah is well documented.

The twisted logic of spin is: If ancient historians, Josephus, et al, of the 1st century write as spin would have them write then it is true but if they do not, well...they are all a bunch of liars.

Wet, lather, rinse, repeat. :D
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Post Reply