Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Do The Dead Sea Scrolls Depict A Trial of Paul?
What is highly intriguing is a further theory of Professor Eisenman about Paul. He claims the Poor's writings in the DSS speak of a trial of Paul. He says James is depicted as Paul's key antagonist in a heated confrontation where Paul spoke vigorously against James. Paul's effort was viewed as an attempt to split the group. Eisenman bases this on two DSS writings. The first is the Habakkuk Pesher, a commentary on (Hab. 2:4)-a favorite verse of Paul. The DSS author interprets the verse, however, to require faithfulness for salvation. The Pesher then rejects the idea that justification is without adding works to faith.
Professor Eisenman sensibly asks us how can we credibly believe this Pesher on (Hab. 2:4) is directed at anyone else than Paul. As we shall see next, the DSS Poor are up in arms about "the spouter of Lies" who opposes the Zaddik. Are we to believe it is merely coincidence again the Ebion of the DSS just so happen to want to show Habakkuk 2:4-one of Paul's favorite proof texts-does not stand for an idea that Paul alone is known to have espoused? Eisenman concludes we are clearly witnessing deconstruction of Paul's doctrines in the DSS Ebionite materials.
It is the next document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which is the key document to identify Paul as the object of a trial by the Poor (Ebyonim ) of the DSS. This faithworks discussion of the Pkabakkuk Pesher continues in a work by The Poor entitled the Damascus Document. It says the contrary view on "works" justification is held by the "Spouter of Lies" who resists the "Zaddik." The "Spouter of Lies" seeks to have the "Congregation of the New Covenant" depart from the Law. A heated public confrontation occurs between the Zaddik and the Spouter of Lies. You can find this Damascus Documen t in any of the many compendiums of the DSS to verily this yourself.
10.Scholars other than Eisenman are beginning to realize the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written by the Ebion are potentially related to the group known as the Ebionites in Eusebius' writings. See, e.g.,the University of Pennsylvania DSS conference of October 19, 2004 which mentions the Pesharim document from Cave 1, stating: "Column 12 raises the question as to whether the DSS community referred to itself as 'the Poor.' This could be important for early Christian studies, since...the Ebionites (Hebrew for 'poor') was a name used by Jewish Christians later on." http://ccat. sas. upenn. edu/rs/rak/courses/427/minutes04.htm (last visited 2005).
Professor Eisenman claims this Damascus Document is too uncanny a reference to Paul and James to claim it reflects a pre-Christian debate. It appears Professor Eisenman has the better case on this point as well. The DSS scholars who initially dominated the field tried to maintain this Damascus Document is a pre-Christian document. They did so to serve their now discredited all-encompassing Essene theory. 11 They ignored the contrary internal evidence in the Damascus Document. This is one of the very few DSS documents that was found long before the 1950s and outside the Dead Sea area. When the Damascus Document was originally found in Egypt in the 1890s, its contents led pre-eminent historians to regard it as a Christian writing. George Margoliouth of the British Museum said in 1910 and 1911 that the Damascus Document was written around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple ( i.e ., 70 A.D.), and was the work of the "Sadducean Christians of Damascus."
-
The traditional Essene theory is that every' writing, even copies of the Bible, were all made by an Essene community living at Qumram. The new approach, based on archaeology and textual evidence, does not deny that some writings were Essene possibly, even if such a claim is purely speculative. (The word Essene never once appears in the DSS.) The real mystery is how all these writings, reflecting divergent views, all appear at Qumram. Go lb's theory is the one that best fits all the facts. It is the only explanation for divergent views in the DSS. The Essene all-encompassing theory needs serious re-evaluation.
-
G. Margoliouth, "The Sadducean Christians of Damascus," The Athenaeum (No. 4335) (Nov. 26, 1910) at 657-59; The Expositor Vol. 2 (1911) at 499-517.
Do The Dead Sea Scrolls Depict A Trial of Paul?
Margoliouth's opinion was given long before the DSS discovery at Qumran in the 1950s. It antedated by forty years the premature fixation on Essenes of 200 B.C. as the authors of the Damascus Document. This fact proves an objective assessment of the Damascus Document would lead to a different result. One would conclude objectively it is a work of Christians known as The Poor who were zealous for the Law (. Zadokites=Sadducean ).
We can also see this for ourselves. The Damascus Document identifies the community as The Poor or Ebion in Hebrew. They followed the Zaddik, a label which independent and reliable sources prove was the moniker of James. The enemy of the Poor was the Spouter of Lies , who sought to seduce the New Covenant community from following the Law. The NT evidence strongly suggests that Paul was accused of lying about his apostleship and Paul knew this. The NT evidence likewise demonstrates the Jerusalem church under James was known as The Poor. (Rom. 15:26); (Gal. 2:9-10). Early church evidence also demonstrates a group called Ebionites (which is a transliteration meaning The Poor ) were Christians who felt Paul was seducing wrongly the Christian community from following the Law.
13.The verses which are apparently veiled criticisms of Paul in the NT always accuse him of lying. (Rev. 2:2) says the ones who tell the Ephesians they are apostles but are not are When Paul contradicts Jesus on the idol meat command, 1 John 2:4 tells us: "He that saith, 1 know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." When Paul says he is a Jew, and the Ebionites say they found out Paul lied, Jesus says: "them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie." (Rev. 3:9). Paul was apparently aware of the accusation of being a liar. He defensively insists often "I lie not." (Rom. 9:1; 2Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20). That this accusation was over his apostleship is evident in this quote from (1Tim. 2:7):
"I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not)."
Professor Eisenman thus has the better case on the Christian-era aspect of the Damascus Document. Then, if he is correct on its meaning, the DSS depiction of the Poor - The Ebion -perfectly and uniquely match the Ebionites of whom Eusebius spoke.
It then follows the Ebionites must be orthodox. They are to be equated with the Jerusalem church of The Poor under James. Eusebius must have engaged in distortion of their beliefs to serve his agenda of the 300s. Eusebius's purpose is self-evident. He wanted to discredit the Ebionites because of the centrality of Paul to the validity of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Many forget that after Peter's presumed founding of the church at Rome, it was Paul who had appointed the first bishop of Rome-Linus-of the RCC. 14 Today we call this bishop of Rome the pope. However, the Ebionites claimed Paul was to be ejected from canon as inconsistent with Jesus' position on the Law. If the Ebionites were right, this means the RCC was corrupted by Paul shortly after Peter founded the Roman church. Eusebius had no choice but to attack the Ebionites regardless of their high standing in the Church's recent memory. In fact, that high standing explains why Eusebius attacked them so vigorously.
Some believe it is inconceivable Eusebius could knowingly disparage the Jerusalem Church under James as legalists. However, even in our modem era, those wed to Paul make such a blatant disparagement of the Jerusalem church. Here is a quote of a fundamentalist Christian journal The New Birth condemning freely the Jerusalem Church of the twelve apostles and James:
The gospel of the Jerusalem church became a perverted gospel once the Law Covenant was fulfilled and set aside as the governing covenant economy.
14.See page 295 supra.
And the Jerusalem church would not accept this fact, but continued stubbornly trying to keep the
Law Covenant. It will be explained in this article that trying to keep both the Law Covenant along with the New Covenant perverted the gospel of Christ and annulled both covenants. It was necessary for the Lord to take Paul out into the wilderness apart from all the others and teach him directly the pure gospel of Christ , because the gospel of the Jerusalem church was now a perverted gospel , Gal 1:11-24. 15
All Eusebius was doing is precisely what The New Birth was doing. Eusebius was putting Paul's view of the Law as the measure to test the orthodoxy of James and the Jerusalem church. Under Paul's criteria, the Jerusalem church (The Ebion ) became the heretics. Paul's words proved to Eusebius and the New Birth that the apostolic church was heretical. It is thus entirely reasonable and permissible to infer Eusebius knew he was talking about the Jerusalem church of the twelve apostles when he labelled the Ebionites as heretical legalists. This is what justified Eusebius either falsely or in a misleading manner to charge the Jerusalem Church with denying the virgin birth because its Hebrew version of Matthew lacked any account of the birth narrative.