The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by DCHindley »

If anyone has been wondering what I meant when I talk about Judean-authored Sibylline Oracles that depict things that could just as easily viewed as relating to victory or defeat in war, here is the list:

In Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 1, translator J J Collins dates this Jewish section [3.652-656] to 163-145 BCE

OPE Sibylline Oracle 3:652 And then from the sunrise God will send a king,
653 who will give every land relief from the bane of war:
654 some he will slay and to others he will consecrate faithful vows.
655 Nor will he do all these things by his own will,
656 but in obedience to the good ordinances of the mighty God.

OPG Sibylline Oracle 3:652 καὶ τότ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἠελίοιο θεὸς πέμψει βασιλῆα,
653 ὃς πᾶσαν γαῖαν παύσει πολέμοιο κακοῖο,
654 οὓς μὲν ἄρα κτείνας, οἷς δ᾽ ὅρκια πιστὰ τελέσσας.
655 οὐδέ γε ταῖς ἰδίαις βουλαῖς τάδε πάντα ποιήσει,
656 ἀλλὰ θεοῦ μεγάλοιο πιθήσας δόγμασιν ἐσθλοῖς.

Translator J J Collins dates this Jewish section [2.174-176] to the time of Augustus, or 30-1 BCE.

OPE Sibylline Oracle 2:174 But they afterwards will over men exceeding mighty rule,
175 Elect and faithful Hebrews, and enslave them
176 as before, since their power never will fail.

OPG Sibylline Oracle 2:174 ὕστερον αὖ ἄρξουσιν ὑπερμενέων ἀνθρώπων
175 ἐκλεκτοὶ πιστοὶ Ἑβραῖοι καταδουλώσαντες
176 αὐτοὺς ὡς τὸ πάροιθεν, ἐπεὶ κράτος οὔποτε λείψει.

Translator J J Collins dates this Jewish section [4:115-127] to ca. 80 CE.

OPE Sibylline Oracle 4:115 To Solyma too the evil blast of war shall come
116 from Italy, and shall lay in ruins God's great temple,
117 whenever, confident in their folly, they shall cast godliness to the winds
118 and commit hateful murders before the temple.

119 And then from Italy a great king, like a fugitive slave,
120 shall flee unseen, unheard of, over the passage of the Euphrates;
121 when he shall dare even the hateful pollution of a mother's murder,
122 and many other things beside, venturing so far with wicked hand.
123 And many for the throne of Rome shall dye the ground with their blood,
124 when he has run away beyond the Parthian land.

125 And a Roman leader shall come to Syria, who shall burn down Solyma's temple with fire,
126 and therewith slay many men,
127 and shall waste the great land of the Jews with its broad way.

OPG Sibylline Oracle 4:115 ἥξει καὶ Σολύμοισι κακὴ πολέμοιο θύελλα
116 Ἰταλόθεν, νηὸν δὲ θεοῦ μέγαν ἐξαλαπάξει,
117 ἡνίκα ἄν ἀφροσύνῃσι πεποιθότες εὐσεβίην μέν
118 ῥίψωσιν στυγεροὺς δὲ φόνους τελέωσι πρὸ νηοῦ·

119 καὶ τότ᾽ ἀπ᾽ Ἰταλίης βασιλεὺς μέγας οἷά τε δράστης
120 φεύξετ᾽ ἄφαντος ἄπυστος ὑπὲρ πόρον Εὐφρήταο,
121 ὁππότε δὴ μητρῷον ἄγος στυγεροῖο φόνοιο
122 τλήσεται ἄλλα τε πολλά, κακῇ σὺν χειρὶ πιθήσας.
123 πολλοὶ δ᾽ ἀμφὶ θρόνῳ Ῥώμης πέδον αἱμάξουσιν
124 κείνου ἀποδρήσαντος ὑπὲρ Παρθηίδα γαῖαν.

125 εἰς Συρίην δ᾽ ἥξει Ῥώμης πρόμος, ὃς πυρὶ νηόν
126 συμφλέξας Σολύμων, πολλοὺς δ᾽ ἅμα ἀνδροφονήσας
127 Ἰουδαίων ὀλέσει μεγάλην χθόνα εὐρυάγυιαν.

I think that 4:115-127 is probably too late: and the correspondence is just too good to be true. While 3:652-656 is likely quite early, it is also vague as hell and could be interpreted in any old (general) way. Now 2:174-176 is "just right," date wise, and the ruler can just as easily be interpreted as powerful Judeans who subject others to them, or to Judeans who are themselves subjected to other powerful men. So, I think this makes this passage the one that constituted the "ambiguous oracle."

Ben, I will gladly tackle to-morrow the 'ambiguous oracle' examples you posted to-day.

DCH (suddenly hungry for a hamburger)
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by archibald »

Personally, speaking as an amateur generally and as someone who has not studied the DSS in detail, I would opine that the suggestion that "original, Jewish 'Christianity' " was in some way (note my deliberate vagueness) related to the DSS seems essentially plausible. The suggestion (did Eisenmann go this far?) that the DSS refers specifically to actual early, Jewish 'Christian' figures seems less plausible, though not, imho, ruled out. I say all that without taking a strong position on any of it.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:03 pmBen, I will gladly tackle to-morrow the 'ambiguous oracle' examples you posted to-day.

DCH (suddenly hungry for a hamburger)
How many people would "get" this reference? :lol: :wtf:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by lsayre »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:51 am
DCHindley wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:03 pmBen, I will gladly tackle to-morrow the 'ambiguous oracle' examples you posted to-day.

DCH (suddenly hungry for a hamburger)
How many people would "get" this reference? :lol: :wtf:
I will gladly pay you Tuesday...
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by Jax »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:51 am
DCHindley wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:03 pmBen, I will gladly tackle to-morrow the 'ambiguous oracle' examples you posted to-day.

DCH (suddenly hungry for a hamburger)
How many people would "get" this reference? :lol: :wtf:
Image
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by Jax »

archibald wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:48 am Personally, speaking as an amateur generally and as someone who has not studied the DSS in detail, I would opine that the suggestion that "original, Jewish 'Christianity' " was in some way (note my deliberate vagueness) related to the DSS seems essentially plausible. The suggestion (did Eisenmann go this far?) that the DSS refers specifically to actual early, Jewish 'Christian' figures seems less plausible, though not, imho, ruled out. I say all that without taking a strong position on any of it.
If even a hint of early Christian figures were referred to in the DSS, trust me, you would have heard all about it.

There is nothing.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by archibald »

Jax wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:55 am If even a hint of early Christian figures were referred to in the DSS, trust me, you would have heard all about it.

There is nothing.
Ok, but I believe I have heard it said?

Trust you? seriously? :D
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by John2 »

I'm starting to wonder if (other) Fourth Philosophers thought the Messiah was divine. I'm already persuaded by Boyarin that Jewish Christians thought that Jesus was divine (based on Daniel), and since I already suspect that Daniel similarly inspired the Fourth Philosophy (as Ben has been arguing for), I'm wondering if (other) Fourth Philosophers thought of the Messiah as being divine. If other elements of Christianity aren't unique (inspired by Daniel; rejection of the oral Torah of the Pharisees; messianism/resurrection of the dead; a philosophy of enduring suffering; practicing a "new covenant"), maybe a divine Messiah isn't either.

It didn't occur to me to suspect this until I noticed something curious that Paul says Rom. 9:3-5:
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised!
But apparently this is a controversial verse. As a comment on the biblehub says:
These words are a well-known subject for controversy. Trinitarian and English interpreters, as a rule, take them with the punctuation of the Authorised version, as referring to Christ. Socinian interpreters, with some of the most eminent among the Germans, put a full stop after “came,” and make the remainder of the verse a doxology addressed to God, “Blessed for ever be God, who is over all.” Both ways are possible. The question is, Which is the most natural and probable?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/9-5.htm
I don't know Greek so I can't comment on how this verse should be punctuated and understood, so any feedback is welcome. But the impression I'm getting from several commentaries and most of the translations I'm seeing is that it refers to the Messiah as being divine.

http://biblehub.com/romans/9-5.htm

Carraway, for example, goes over the various opinions and argues in Christ is God Over All: Romans 9:5 in the Context of Romans 9-11 that:
It is my proposal that in the Christological passages in Romans 9-11, Paul speaks of Christ in a manner that suggests the correct reading of 9:5b is that he asserted that Christ is God over all, that is, he is the God of Israel.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bx3UA ... od&f=false
I've always wondered why Josephus says that Fourth Philosophers believed "God is to be their only ruler and lord" and that no one could "make them call any man lord" (Ant. 18.1.6) while at the same time they believed that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" (War 6.5.4). But if they thought the Messiah was divine then this would make sense.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:43 pmIt didn't occur to me to suspect this until I noticed something curious that Paul says Rom. 9:3-5:
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised!
But apparently this is a controversial verse. As a comment on the biblehub says:
These words are a well-known subject for controversy. Trinitarian and English interpreters, as a rule, take them with the punctuation of the Authorised version, as referring to Christ. Socinian interpreters, with some of the most eminent among the Germans, put a full stop after “came,” and make the remainder of the verse a doxology addressed to God, “Blessed for ever be God, who is over all.” Both ways are possible. The question is, Which is the most natural and probable?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/9-5.htm
I don't know Greek so I can't comment on how this verse should be punctuated and understood, so any feedback is welcome.
The verse is perfectly ambiguous on that score. Frank J. Matera writes in his commentary on Romans:

If a period is placed after “Messiah” (“from whom comes, in terms of human descent according to the flesh, the Messiah”), then the following phrase becomes a benediction (“God who is over all be forever blessed. Amen”). But if one places a comma after Christ, then theos (God) functions as a predicate of “the Messiah.”

Both translations have their supporters. For example, Dunn, Fitzmyer, and D. Moo argue that Paul predicates theos of Christ, whereas Brendan Byrne and Peter Stuhlmacher maintain that Paul is interjecting a benediction here.

Here is the Greek, punctuated both ways:

Romans 9.5 (yea): 5 ...ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

Romans 9.5 (nay): 5 ...ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

That this would be the only time in the "genuinely" Pauline corpus wherein Paul calls Jesus "God" makes me highly suspicious of that reading.

But it is not ungrammatical at all to take it that way.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity

Post by John2 »

This idea reminds me of 4Q246. As this blogger writes:
The main question of 4Q246 (Aramaic Apocalypse) is the personage designated the “Son of God.” Who is the “Son of God”? Is this a positive figure or a negative figure? J. T. Milik insists that the “Son of God” refers to a Seleucid king, referring Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Milik 1992, 383). Florentino Garcia Martinez suggests that it is an angelic savior as Michael, Melchizedek, and the Prince of Light (Martinez 1992, 162-79). Most scholars view the figure as a messianic redeemer who will overthrow God’s enemies and establish the kingdom of God’s people (Cross 1996, 1-13). But Joseph A. Fitzmyer argues that the reference of the Son of God is not a messiah, but a coming Jewish ruler, perhaps a member of the Hasmonean dynasty (Fitzmyer 1993, 173-74). According to the scholars, therefore, the title “Son of God” would be either a heavenly figure or a human being.

Martin Hengel suggests that the figure is similar to “the one like a Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13-14 (Hengel 1976, 45), and argues that the titles may be interpreted collectively “of the Jewish people.” I also argue that the author of 4Q246 was influenced by Daniel 7. The two texts reveal such an extensive degree of verbal, thematic, and structural correspondence. The most striking parallels between the two texts are the two phrases שלטנה שלטן עלם (“whose dominion is an everlasting dominion” [Dan 7:14; cf. 4Q246 2:9]) and מלכותה מלכות עלם (“his/its kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom” [Dan 7:27; cf. 4Q246 2:5]). Karl A. Kuhn argues that the verb דוש (crush) supplements these two verbal correspondences (Dan 7:23; 4Q246 2:3) in terms of the thematic parallels (Kuhn 2007, 28). In addition to these parallels, Kuhn suggests that the two texts present a transition of the dominion from the beasts/provinces to an individual figure/the people of God.

https://otstory.wordpress.com/2008/02/2 ... pocalypse/
And Mueller notes in The Expression Son of Man and the Development of Christology that:
John J. Collins has pointed to 4Q246 as evidence of an individual messianic interpretation of the man-like figure in Dan. 7:13. This hypothesis has been met with both approval and disapproval.

https://books.google.com/books?id=3r_oB ... 46&f=false
And Zimmermann notes in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
What all these texts share -Daniel 7, 4Q246 and the later interpretations of 4Q246- is the apocalyptic tradition of the establishment of a divine kingdom, and event that centers around a single figure who, in ever new accentuations, vanquishes all enemies and participates in the world judgment. Here 4Q246 is situated closer to Daniel 7 than 4 Ezra 13 and the Similitudes of the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, as is principally demonstrated by the close links existing between the people of God and the son of man/son of God. The text authorship should therefore, in all likelihood, be situated at no great distance from Daniel 7 ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=-j4YA ... 46&f=false
John Collins and Adela Collins discuss the arguments for seeing this son of God as either a negative or positive figure in King and Messiah as Son of God and note that "probably the majority [of scholars], hold that he is a positive, messianic figure."

https://books.google.com/books?id=3hRQF ... od&f=false

And Evans notes (also in Qumran-Messianism) that:
Fitzmyer has shown the importance of this text for comparison with Luke 1:32-35. Several phrases in the Lukan angelic announcement parallel the statements in 4Q246 ... By themselves, these parallels are suggestive, but what makes them especially significant is that they also parallel quite closely Nathan's oracle in 2 Samuel 7 ... The triple parallels, involving 2 Samuel 7, Luke 1, and 4Q246, suggest that what we have here is messianic terminology.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-j4YA ... 46&f=false
And Collins notes in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls that 2 Sam. 7 is cited in 4Q174 and discusses another DSS, 1QSa, which has always seemed curious to me and only more so now.
Regardless of the interpretation of the "Son of God" text, there is other evidence for the view that the Davidic messiah could be regarded as son of God at Qumran. The clearest evidence is provided by the Florilegium (4Q174), which interprets 2 Sam 7:14 as follows:

The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever]. I [will be] his father and he shall be my son. He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of days.

The Branch of David is called "the Messiah of Righteousness" in 2Q252, the Commentary on Genesis. It is a messianic title based on Jeremiah 23 and 33. This text provides unambiguous evidence for reference to the Messiah as "Son of God," although the phrase may be understood in an honorific rather than a metaphysical sense.

A more problematic instance is provided by 1QSa. Geza Vermes translates the disputed passage "when God engenders" the messiah, reading the Hebrew verb yolid. This reading was championed by most of the original team of editors, who saw the fragment in the mid-fifties. It was subsequently rejected by most scholars, including Vermes, in favor of other readings, such as yolik, "causes to come." Now Vermes claims that yolid is confirmed by computer enhancement, and this is the reading presupposed in all the current major translations of the Scrolls. Nonetheless, the reading is still disputed by other competent paleographers, such as Emile Puech. The reading must be considered uncertain. It should be emphasized, however, that it is by no means a matter of Christian exegesis. (Vermes is Jewish.) In fact it would correspond rather nicely to what we have seen in the Psalms.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2393T ... ah&f=false


You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply