Was Jesus an Essene?

[Stephan Huller]

Let us imagine for a moment that there are these people named 'John' defending a theory universally (except for Eisenman himself) acknowledged to be disproved by C 14. Of what value is their contribution when they push aside scientific evidence (like their master) and continue to argue for an implausible hypothesis. I would like to see either one of these 'novices' explain why it is not enough to accept the radiocarbon results, why we should take the word of an imaginative scholar over what should be the final word given by the twice repeated scientific analysis of the physical fragments themselves.

[Stephan Huller]

It is noteworthy that the approach of the Johns aligns perfectly with Eisenman's - ignore the C 14. If we take the parallels further an accredited scholar of course could not pursue the embarrassing disregard for science and zealous devotion for his theories that are embodied in John 1 and John 2. How convenient for him to have attracted such zealous buffoonery in this forum.

[John2]

Stephan,

It was nice to talk with you for awhile about what the DSS say. You were willing to indulge that for longer than I thought you would before mentioning the issue of carbon dating, and I appreciate it.

Otherwise, I likewise can't prove that I am not Eisenman (or John T), but I'm not so the whole thing is surreal to me.

[Stephan Huller]

So why do you disregard C 14 in favor of Eisenman theories? If you could provide me with one plausible explanation for this I will let it go. I don't pursue this because I don't like Eisenman. To the contrary I enjoyed his company very much. My interest in these matter is inevitably psychological. I don't see a shred of original thought emerging from you. So it is not a case where YOUR ideas depend on invalidating the C 14 evidence but someone else. This is what I keep scratching my head over. If it was just a matter of 'liking' Eisenman's theories I would expect the person to modify what he or she 'liked' about theories in light of the C 14 test - i.e. either by moving Jesus's dates to within the range of the testing or coming up with something new? Being so slavishly devoted to a 'cool idea' when 'science' - today's final word on truthfulness - says 'no way, can't work' just goes against everything I know about human nature.

For instance there are brilliant scholars I know who can't get beyond their personal 'faith' in this or that about God, the Bible etc. But that's selfish and explainable within my broad sense of human selfishness. I can't make sense of such zealous devotion for a novelty like Eisenman's theory. As I said it's a psychological problem not a personal grudge against Eisenman.

Maybe by the end of this conversation you will teach me something about the associative power of human selfishness which I wasn't aware of before.

[John T]

So why do you disregard C 14 in favor of Eisenman theories? If you could provide me with one plausible explanation for this I will let it go. I don't pursue this because I don't like Eisenman. To the contrary I enjoyed his company very much. My interest in these matter is inevitably psychological. I don't see a shred of original thought emerging from you. So it is not a case where YOUR ideas depend on invalidating the C 14 evidence but someone else. This is what I keep scratching my head over. If it was just a matter of 'liking' Eisenman's theories I would expect the person to modify what he or she 'liked' about theories in light of the C 14 test - i.e. either by moving Jesus's dates to within the range of the testing or coming up with something new? Being so slavishly devoted to a 'cool idea' when 'science' - today's final word on truthfulness - says 'no way, can't work' just goes against everything I know about human nature.

For instance there are brilliant scholars I know who can't get beyond their personal 'faith' in this or that about God, the Bible etc. But that's selfish and explainable within my broad sense of human selfishness. I can't make sense of such zealous devotion for a novelty like Eisenman's theory. As I said it's a psychological problem not a personal grudge against Eisenman.

Maybe by the end of this conversation you will teach me something about the associative power of human selfishness which I wasn't aware of before.

The carbon dating problems are well documented. Even if accurate, the margin of error is so wide that some of the scrolls could have easily been written in the 1st century A.D.

Yet, people like Huller and Spin simply chalked up the supporting radio carbon as outliers.

Furthermore, testing has been done on objects found at Qumran that links the community to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Ink from the scrolls has been tested and found to be made from water from the Dead Sea and bromine from the area.
Pottery jars used to store the scrolls were tested and proven beyond doubt that they were made at Qumran.

The use of modern testing has forced some skeptics that once adamantly doubted the Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls to admit that at least 1/3 of them were indeed written at Qumran.

The theory of Yizahan Hirshfeld that the scrolls were smuggled out from the Temple library is no longer main-stream.

I find it ironic that venomous opponents of Eisenman 20 years ago are now on record agreeing with much of what he said.

So, since it has been verified by modern science that some of the scrolls were indeed produced at Qumran and that the Essenes were the sectarian group that occupied Qumran, what do you say we move onto the O.P. question: Was Jesus an Essene?

John T

[John T]

Here is a footnote from wiki on just how faulty radiocarbon testing can be.

"When 4Q258 (#24) was tested at Tucson its result was so anomalous (129-255 or 303-318 CE) that the laboratory was asked to retest another sample from the same document. The second test (#21) yielded a result (50 BCE-130 CE) that was deemed more satisfactory."...wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dat ... ea_Scrolls

In other words, if at first you don't get the results you want, try, try again until it matches up with what you want and once you get the results you want there is no need to test any further.

*****

Here are a just a few of the scrolls from cave #1 that could have easily been written at the time of Jesus and/or his brother James the Just.

1QS Community Rule: 203 BCE-122 CE
1QApGen Genesis Apocryphon: 89 BCE-118 CE
1QH Thanksgiving Scroll: 47 BCE-118 CE

If all the scrolls were radiocarbon dated, one should not be surprised to find that hundreds of them would be dated in the 1st century A.D.

But hey, what do I know?

John T

[John T]

Stephan,

Look, I'm not John T and I don't know who he is or anything about him other than what he has posted on this forum. And I'm not sure I understand his take on Eisenman or knowledge of the details of the DSS and Jewish history so far, but it seems harmless enough if we both like to talk about Eisenman. And the fact that he joined the forum around the same time as me is curious but also something that I have no control over (like your perception or suspicions of me). I too have been wondering where John T has gone while you and I have been talking, but that's about the extent of the thought I have given to his identity or what it has to do with me.

Dittos, I don't know who John2 is but I respect him for keeping an open mind to the facts, Huller, not so much.
Inconvenient truths about the historical Jesus trouble Huller, ever so deeply.

As far the Eisenman theory that Paul is the "Liar" and James the Just the "Teacher of Righteousness"...well, I find it interesting but not convincing. Still, the more laboratory testing that is done on items from the Qumran dig, the more I think that the Essenes were the first Christians and that Esienman is justified in postulating from that theory.

Also, I do find James D. Tabor's theory on the Jesus Dynasty very probable.

John T

P.S. Sometimes I think Huller is Lawrence Schiffman's pitbull, all bark but no bite.

[semiopen]

From a little research, it seems Stephan is more correct than the Johns.

[wiki]Talk:Robert_Eisenman[/wiki]

The main wiki on Eisenman fails to deal with any controversy.

Eisenman's theories are rejected by mainstream scholarship and embraced by New Agers. That's Eisenman in a nutshell.

This includes two Christian links which seem very uncomplimentary about Eisenman's ideas.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DEADSEA.HTM

http://christianthinktank.com/iceman.html

Both of these make convincing arguments that Eisenman's theories are not good enough to be controversial.

Regarding the discussion here, It seems the Johns are making vague appeals for open-mindedness where the facts don't seem to merit it. Stephan's speculation about the Johns is way more credible.

My guess is that

Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism by Gabriele Boccaccini

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Essene-Hyp ... op?ie=UTF8

might be a more realistic way of looking at the possible ties between the Essenes and Christianity.

[Secret Alias]

I have always found it odd that there could be two die hard believers in Eisenman's theories after the C14 data (x 2) invalidated its claims. Now we have two John Does accusing me of being a pitbull of Eisenman's traditional rival. Who else could be arranging this choreographed circus? If scholars of discredited theories can hide behind sock puppets I might as well do the same.

[John T]

From a little research, it seems Stephan is more correct than the Johns.

[wiki]Talk:Robert_Eisenman[/wiki]

The main wiki on Eisenman fails to deal with any controversy.

Eisenman's theories are rejected by mainstream scholarship and embraced by New Agers. That's Eisenman in a nutshell.

This includes two Christian links which seem very uncomplimentary about Eisenman's ideas.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DEADSEA.HTM

http://christianthinktank.com/iceman.html

Both of these make convincing arguments that Eisenman's theories are not good enough to be controversial.

Regarding the discussion here, It seems the Johns are making vague appeals for open-mindedness where the facts don't seem to merit it. Stephan's speculation about the Johns is way more credible.

My guess is that

Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism by Gabriele Boccaccini

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Essene-Hyp ... op?ie=UTF8

might be a more realistic way of looking at the possible ties between the Essenes and Christianity.

Little research?

You must have spent more than a little time to find the links you provided. Most of your links where written back in the 1990's. I wonder how many pages deep into a Google search you had to go before you found them? Now how about doing a little research and find out if your obscure and/or unknown authors from the 1990's still hold those same views?