John 18:10

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus.

I looked up Malchus' name origin, and found an entry in the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** by James Hastings, 1906, via Sermonindex.net:

Malchus was a common Semitic name, though not certainly met with among the Jews proper. By both Delitzsch and Salkinson it is vocalized מָלְכו̇ם, which is no more than a transliteration. Josephus (see Niese’s index) mentions five persons who bore it under the form of Μάλχος or Μάλιχος, whence an original מָלִיךְ has been inferred (Dalman, Gram. Aram. Aramaic104). But the true Greek form seems to have been Μαλίχας (Periplus maris Erythrœi, cf. Müll. Geogr. Gr. Min. i. 272); and מלבו, pronounced מָלִבוּ, appears in three inscriptions (CIS [Note: IS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.] ii. 158, 174, 218) that may be dated with some confidence between b.c. 40 and a.d. 40. In these inscriptions the name is Nabataean...

That's right — in the First Century, whenever this Hellenized-Semitic proper name is found in Josephus' books or in archaeological inscriptions, it's always Nabataean. I am putting my Something's Fishy apkallu hat on! 🐟

• A slave named King?

• named a Nabataean name? This would be like finding a Kamehameha and trying to hold back a "Eh brah, howzit?"

• Nabataeans are the wealthiest of the already wealthy Arabians. To find a slave to a tribal, agrarian high priest with a Nabataean name that Nabataeans themselves reserved for the royal family is interesting. I can't explain that. 

So I'd like to introduce you to an ancient writing form that someone I love veeeery much introduced me to. Takhallus is originally an Arabic word meaning "transition," and representing a good transition in writing.

It is here in John 18:10 that Jesus' ordinary life ends. In the very next line, John 18:11, begins the investitures and formalities that give him kingship, mockingly or not, starting with him verbally accepting his father's cup in the presence of the Jewish High Priest.

These transitions can require a change to a regnal name, or like we see when Benoni is renamed Benjamin by his father, another ethnic register. We see Egyptian Necho and Neo-Babylonian Nebuchadnezzer re-naming Jewish kings. And we know that the Herods were not called Herod when they were little baby Herods.

The Takhallus writing form grew to represent embedding the author's pen name or their subject's name in a clever way into the last word of the story.

King Malichus II

has a few unusual attributes that researchers have not yet sorted. There's no commemorative coin for him as a child like other Nabataean heirs, for example. I'm not saying I'm certain that Jesus ascended to actual great kingship, even as Malichus II. I'm just saying that I'd take that bet. 

Nabu or Dushara or Dumuzi or Yahweh or Osiris or Dionysus or? 

As I've said earlier, it is my hypothesis that Jesus is hitting the marks on all the water purification savior traditions in the First Century civilized world. He seems to be calibrating them to Mesopotamian concepts, (the world's first written religion), in order to create a new, universal religion. I don't think he was doing this all on his own.

What Dushara, the Antiquarian Revival of Seleucid Uruk, and Bel Marduk and Nabu do seem to have in common, from reading Dr. Baker's book, is the classic Akkadian votive formula ana balāt, the "for the life of" blessing for royals, that in the West Semitic, Palmyrene, and Hatrene/Nabataean inscriptions, directly translates into the formulaic phrase ‘l blet or ‘l blyt.

I recently introduced you to the book ** you do not have permission to see this link ** written by Assyriologist Dr. Robin Baker and published by Cambridge in 2022. That is because I was recently introduced to it, and I am writing as I discover.

Dr. Baker focuses on Jesus' quite extensive similitude with Nabu (and similitude with the much earlier, Sumerian-era deified king Dumuzi) because that is his area of scholarly expertise, Mesopotamia. It's still really surprising me that the Father and Son, Lord of Love, water ablution, savior of humanity duo of Bel Marduk and Nabu became such a thing in First Century West Semitic-dialect areas.

I believe it democratized the religion. Nabu the Son could be prayed to by the common man, while Ea or Marduk the Father uses intercessors.

Nabataean Dushara (who I believe is likely related to Asar, the Sumerian-era son of Ea) was originally the deity of the Nabataean royal family, but  Theandrios (basically meaning "half-God, half-man") is in his trinity, for whom we have inscriptions by non-royals.

I think this circa First Century background of what looks like the democratization of religion might have contributed to influencing the philosophy of Jesus' movement and its popularity, at the least.

all copyright someone whose name is the last word in a Grammy-nominated album special edition because someone loves her veeeery much

Diversity and some scholars suspected this: Genizah.
This means no Qumran community because of the diversity of manuscript origins.

No, it doesn’t. It just means scrolls were collected from different groups in the community’s library at Qumran. This has long been understood 

= = = = =

Steefen:

Steefen said

Robert said
Nope, obviously not a typo. Why can't you just admit it when some of your videos are shown to be misleading or when you get something wrong? Until you can do that I'm not inclined to answer too many of your questions.

I know when I make a typo.

And you claim that an obvious error is only a typo. That's why conversations with you are so frustrating for other people here 

Second, I have admitted when a video got something wrong AND I leave a YouTube comment on that video as well as here.

What have you admitted was wrong about your second video in this thread? Where and how did it lead you to make a typo? What exactly was your "typo"?  

Robert said
Nope, obviously not a typo. Why can't you just admit it when some of your videos are shown to be misleading or when you get something wrong? Until you can do that I'm not inclined to answer too many of your questions.
  

I know when I make a typo.
Second, I have admitted when a video got something wrong AND I leave a YouTube comment on that video as well as here.
Since you have taken the attitudes "I'm wrong, sue me," and "you disagree when I say something is a typo" I encourage myself not to ask you any more questions.

Whatever you thought was misleading was only a typo that has been corrected.

You have been asked three questions and more. You haven't answered them.

Steefen said

Robert said
It is constructive to encourage the posting of good YouTube videos here and to discourage the posting of misleading YouTube videos. 

I agree. That's off-topic because the video discusses the following information.

It is not off-topic because the second video misled you into initially drawing false conclusions on the very topic of this thread.

The 2020 paper is the definitive citation for the sheep/cow Dead Sea Scroll finding you’re asking about.

I did not ask you about this, but maybe this is your AI bot speaking to you about what you asked it?

Robert said
It is constructive to encourage the posting of good YouTube videos here and to discourage the posting of misleading YouTube videos.
  

I agree. That's off-topic because the video discusses the following information.

So there are really two generations of DNA research:

The 2020 paper is the definitive citation for the sheep/cow Dead Sea Scroll finding you’re asking about.

My improvement of the draft concludes this:

Neither Jesus nor Paul can be said, on the evidence we have, to have used specifically the short or long edition of Jeremiah. However, Hebrews definitely uses the Septuagint's shorter edition of Jeremiah
in its extended quotation of Jeremiah 31:31–34 (Hebrews 8:8–12).

That is the more accurate formulation.

And I think this distinction is important for your larger argument: Hebrews gives us clear evidence that at least one early Christian author was working with the shorter/Septuagintal form of Jeremiah, whereas the evidence from Jesus and Paul is insufficient to identify which edition they used.

= = = =

Steefen:

Now THAT is constructive criticism that is useful other than Robert's categorical simplistic put-down.

As mentioned above:

The really important thing is that the author of Hebrews 8 actually quotes Jeremiah 31:31–34 at length.

And this is where we get a much stronger textual clue.

The author of Hebrews follows the Septuagint form of Jeremiah. The Catholic NAB's textual note explicitly says:

“In citing Jer the author follows the Septuagint.”

So:

Hebrews gives us very strong evidence of someone using the Greek/shorter textual tradition of Jeremiah.

= = =

Hebrews was not written by Paul.

1. The Source of the Gospel: In ** you do not have permission to see this link **]
2. Writing Style: Hebrews is written in some of the most elegant, polished, and rhetorically advanced Greek in the entire New Testament. Paul's undisputed letters use a much more urgent, direct, and conversational style. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
3. Missing Salutation: Paul signed all 13 of his traditional letters with his name and an initial greeting. Hebrews completely skips a standard introduction and reads more like a recorded sermon than a traditional letter. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

@Robert,
What are the important discrepancies between how Jesus and Paul used short and long Jeremiah? Let's see what you have to add to this.

Here is an answer:

2. Jesus and Jeremiah 31 — much more interesting

The New Covenant passage is Jeremiah 31:31–34 in the MT, corresponding to Jeremiah 38:31–34 in the LXX, because the chapter numbering differs.

Both editions contain the New Covenant prophecy.

The important difference is therefore not that one Jeremiah has the New Covenant and the other doesn't.

Rather, the wording and theological context differ somewhat, while the basic prophecy is present in both.

Jeremiah says that God will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah, unlike the covenant made at the Exodus, and that God's law will be written on their hearts.

This becomes especially important when we look at Jesus' Last Supper:

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

That is conceptually extremely close to Jeremiah 31.

But here's an important correction to your original statement:

We cannot say that Jesus explicitly “quoted Jeremiah 31:31–34.”

The Gospel tradition presents Jesus as alluding to/appropriating the New Covenant concept, not giving us a verbatim quotation of Jeremiah.

3. Paul and Jeremiah 9:23–24

This is one of the places where your question gets particularly interesting.

Paul says:

“Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

in both 1 Corinthians 1:31 and 2 Corinthians 10:17. The passages are explicitly connected to Jeremiah 9:23–24.

But Paul doesn't reproduce the whole Jeremiah passage.

Jeremiah says:

Don't boast in wisdom, might or wealth;
let the person who boasts boast in knowing the LORD.

Paul extracts the central proposition:

“Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

Does Paul's wording prove he used the Septuagint?

No.

And this is important.

The Greek Septuagint wording and Paul's Greek are close enough that Paul could be drawing on the Greek tradition, but this particular quotation is too short and formulaic to establish confidently which textual edition of Jeremiah Paul had before him.

In other words:

Paul's Jeremiah 9:24 quotation does not give us good evidence that Paul preferred the short Jeremiah.

4. Paul's “New Covenant” language is different

You mentioned:

2 Corinthians 3:6 — “who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant”

This is certainly Jeremiah 31 conceptual territory, but again, Paul isn't quoting Jeremiah 31:31–34 verbatim there.

The really important thing is that the author of Hebrews 8 actually quotes Jeremiah 31:31–34 at length.

And this is where we get a much stronger textual clue.

The author of Hebrews follows the Septuagint form of Jeremiah. The Catholic NAB's textual note explicitly says:

“In citing Jer the author follows the Septuagint.”

So:

Hebrews gives us very strong evidence of someone using the Greek/shorter textual tradition of Jeremiah.

Paul's 2 Corinthians 3 is more of an allusion to the New Covenant concept than a direct textual citation.

5. This gives us an important distinction

I'd divide your examples this way:

And that last line is very significant.

6. But there is another major point about Jesus

Jesus' use of Jeremiah 7 is actually more powerful when you read the entire context.

Jeremiah 7 isn't merely saying:

“Don't sell things in the Temple.”

Jeremiah's argument is much more radical:

Don't trust the Temple itself to protect you while you violate God's covenant.

Jeremiah tells the people to reform their behavior, stop oppression and violence, stop exploiting the vulnerable—and then says:

“Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the LORD...’”

The Temple is not immune from divine judgment.

And immediately afterward Jeremiah warns that God can do to this house what he did to Shiloh.

That makes Jesus' Temple action much more ominous than simply protesting commercial activity.

He takes Jeremiah's Temple prophecy and reenacts it.

That's why the saying is so important historically.

7. And this connects directly with your Qumran question

Now we have something potentially substantial to investigate.

The Qumran community had a profound conflict with the Jerusalem Temple establishment.

Jeremiah 7 is exactly the sort of prophetic text that could be used to challenge the legitimacy of a corrupt Temple establishment.

And Jesus independently performs a prophetic action in the Temple using Jeremiah 7:11.

But there is no evidence that Jesus obtained this interpretation from Qumran.

What we can say historically is:

Jesus, Qumran, and other Second Temple Jewish groups were operating within a world in which Jeremiah was being interpreted as a living critique of the Jerusalem Temple and its leadership.

And the existence of the short and long editions of Jeremiah makes the picture even more interesting: the people of this period were not necessarily reading exactly the same textual form of Jeremiah.

One correction to keep in mind

I would not currently argue:

“Jesus used the short Jeremiah while Paul used the long Jeremiah.”

The evidence doesn't support that neat division.

A much stronger conclusion is:

Jesus' use of Jeremiah 7 and his New Covenant language cannot by themselves identify which textual edition of Jeremiah he used. Paul's short quotations from Jeremiah likewise don't establish which edition he knew. But Hebrews' extended quotation of Jeremiah 31 clearly follows the Septuagintal/short-edition tradition.

And that distinction is important if you're trying to establish whether early Christianity inherited particular textual forms of Jeremiah rather than merely borrowing Jeremiah's ideas.

What's important to me is Jeremiah Chapter 7, v 11, the misuse of the Temple.

Did the rebels during the Jewish Civil War a short time before AD73 misuse the Temple.

My answer would be, yes.

@Robert, you have anything to add to this?