So (apparently) did the Teacher of Righteousness, as Kim, for example, notes.Interesting.
But......James was openly preaching near the temple (Eisenmann thinks)?
Also, 'Paul' would not have been 'establishment'?
The Dead Sea Scrolls community attacked the Wicked Priest as having taken over the Jerusalem Temple wrongfully in kicking out the Teacher of Righteousness.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XvreA ... em&f=false
And Paul would certainly have been part of the establishment since he had been a Pharisee (Php. 3:5), who are arguably the ones the DSS sect were opposed to, as VanderKam, for example, notes:
According to Josephus, even the Sadducees, who did not believe in the oral Torah of the Pharisees, were "able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates ... they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them" (Ant. 18.1.4) and "have not the populace obsequious to them" like the Pharisees did (Ant. 13.10.6)."Seekers of smooth things" is the name the Scrolls community gave to their opponents, who are almost certainly the Pharisees ... it is likely that the word for smooth things (halaqot) is a word play for the Pharisaic term halakhot (laws).
https://books.google.com/books?id=i2i5h ... ot&f=false
I suppose not, but there is at least a Messiah (or the expectation of a Messiah) in the DSS, particularly in the Damascus Document where it is always a singular Messiah. And I've always been intrigued by the ending of the Damascus Document, which says that when the Messiah comes in the Last Days, "God will forgive them and they shall see His salvation because they took refuge in His holy Name," with the Hebrew for "His salvation" being "yeshuato," i.e., "His yeshua," which of course is Jesus' name; plus the reference to "seeing" this yeshua is interesting given all the talk in the NT about "seeing" Jesus/the Son of Man (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:1, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?").Yes, but is there another way of looking at it, that the 'fully formed template' did not require there to actually be a Jesus?