Was Jesus an Essene?

[John T]

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.

You must be the sock-puppet of Huller.
Makes sense, since you can't argue the merit as to why some Dead Sea Scrolls were radio-carbon dated to the 1st century A.D. you stoop to ad hominem attacks against Eisenman instead of admitting you were wrong once again.

Yep, sounds like a Huller sock-puppet to me.

[Secret Alias]

Of course I am the sock puppet. I made the clear at the outset unlike some people ...

[Secret Alias]

"why some Dead Sea Scrolls were radio-carbon dated to the 1st century A.D."

Who could pretend to be this fucking stupid at a forum which regularly deals with the relative lateness of manuscripts? We have fourteenth century manuscripts of Josephus. WTF does that have to do with when Josephus lived? It is incredible that you continue to pretend that the carbon dating has no bearing on the validity of Eisenman's theories. I'd like to meet the person who isn't Eisenman who can possibly feel that way.

[Secret Alias]

Again I ask why does it have to be 'Jesus = Essene' on Eisenman's terms? This is what is so baffling. Why can't you skate past the whole issue of carbon dating by saying - yes, the Essenes were older than Jesus. Yes, the Essenes had a history before the apostles. No, I don't think the stuff Eisenman wrote about works any longer in light of the carbon dating BUT Jesus was nevertheless an Essene because of these reasons 1, 2, 3 etc.

The fact that the two of you continue to promulgate this Essene hypothesis wrapped up in the dirty rag which is Eisenman's theory makes it clear to everyone at the forum that your interest isn't really to argue for 'Jesus = the Essenes' but demonstrate that Eisenman's theories still have 'relevance'

[John T]

Again I ask why does it have to be 'Jesus = Essene' on Eisenman's terms? This is what is so baffling. Why can't you skate past the whole issue of carbon dating by saying - yes, the Essenes were older than Jesus. Yes, the Essenes had a history before the apostles. No, I don't think the stuff Eisenman wrote about works any longer in light of the carbon dating BUT Jesus was nevertheless an Essene because of these reasons 1, 2, 3 etc.

The fact that the two of you continue to promulgate this Essene hypothesis wrapped up in the dirty rag which is Eisenman's theory makes it clear to everyone at the forum that your interest isn't really to argue for 'Jesus = the Essenes' but demonstrate that Eisenman's theories still have 'relevance'

Once again you failed to address the O.P.
If you want to continue your hate rant on Eisenman please start your own O.P. where you can go on and on about how much you hate him.
Otherwise, please stick to the O.P.

Thanks in advance.

John T

[Secret Alias]

I have no desire to loop a discredited theory about the origins of the DSS into a discussion of how the Christian god might have been related to the Qumran community. However if the name 'Eisenman' or Eisenman's theories are referenced it stands to reason that the fact that these theories have been definitively proven to be wrong must also be mentioned.

[John T]

the members that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, i.e. Essene.

It would be more fun to argue over the probability that Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Because, like, we might make some progress on that front.

Where's spin when you need him?

Yes, I agree and I really want to that but as you know Huller won't let it happen. Such is his hatred for Eisenman.

I think I really have some good stuff from highly respected (non-Eisenman) scholars that the Essenes did write the Dead Sea Scrolls and would like to discuss it in a civilized manner but as you know; it is hard to give a lecture when someone in the audience does nothing but shoot off his shotgun mouth so as to prevent anyone from hearing the merits.

[John T]

"why some Dead Sea Scrolls were radio-carbon dated to the 1st century A.D."

Who could pretend to be this fucking stupid at a forum which regularly deals with the relative lateness of manuscripts? We have fourteenth century manuscripts of Josephus. WTF does that have to do with when Josephus lived? It is incredible that you continue to pretend that the carbon dating has no bearing on the validity of Eisenman's theories. I'd like to meet the person who isn't Eisenman who can possibly feel that way.

The ignorance of your statement proves you have no business even commenting on this subject. You should sit still with your mouth closed and perhaps learn something.

[Secret Alias]

This is the most deceptive series of posts in the history of the forum. You and your twin are the ones who keeps operating in the 'argument by assertion' method and I've been challenging you too every step along the way. I asked you to stop referencing Eisenman in order for us to continuing having a productive discussion. The theory doesn't work. You keep throwing in these other red herrings like 'I hate Eisenman.' I keep assuring that is not the case at all. I like him very much. He's a cool guy but his theory is garbage now.

Instead of asserting your authority (and my ignorance) why not stick to developing arguments without the aid of Eisenman. Indeed this claim to superior authority on the part of John T is itself a strange thing because as I remember John T was always the one asserting his ignorance at the beginning of his 'life' here at the forum. Perhaps that was John2 or perhaps the same man controlling both these puppets is letting his actual authority slip.

Strange to hear John T pontificate about his 'authority' over the DSS. Never heard that before.

So now as an 'authority' on the DSS 'John T' why don't you explain what relevance some of the documents at Qumran and other sites happen to be dated after the Common Era. Of what relevance is any of this to the discussion if they are copies (as they are likely to be) of an original exemplar that no longer survives.

[John T]

Here are some links to what I consider fair and balanced arguments on who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/w ... oid&page=1

Here is an excellent 45 video (2010) by National Geographic titled: "Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls".

https://youtu.be/4rN79yvpi1k

*****************************

Dr. Robert Cargill, archaeologist UCLA sums it up pretty well for me. "The $64 million dollar question everyone wants to know is who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls."

******************************

Because there are so many caves, (some as far away as two miles from Qumran) and so many different scrolls (over 800), it is very unlikely that only one religious group wrote them all. However, I firmly believe like Cargill that in the near future with more precise DNA and radio-carbon dating techniques, we will know precisely what year each scroll was written. That is not to be confused with the year that the original documents were composed.

The original theory (by Dominican monk Roland de Vaux) was that the scrolls in the caves located next to the Qumran settlement were written by a sectarian sect called Essenes, who occupied the site from around 200 B.C. until the Romans destroyed the area around 68 A.D. Admittedly, no one has found the word "Essene" written anywhere in the scrolls. However, based on historians from the 1st century, Josephus and Pliny the Elder who described a community of pious/sectarian Jews living on the shores of the Dead Sea, the Essene, the name "Essene" that Roland de Vaux postulated stuck. To argue the etymology of the word Essene is moot. The larger point is: Did the people at the Qumran site write the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Since de Vaux, many scholars have stepped forward to challenge the Essene theory, claiming that the scrolls were not written at Qumran. Roland de Vaux's replacement, Fr. Jean Baptiste-Humbert claimed that the Qumran site was too small to hold such a large community as described by Josephus even though the Qumran was found to have 16 large cistern pools and hundreds of pottery dishes. Another skeptic, Yuval Peleg, Archelologist Israel Antiquities Authority, claims there was only one ritual bath and the other pools were for capturing clay to make pottery. Since ritual bathing of the Essenes would require more than one ritual pool for bathing, the Essenes could not have occupied Qumran. Other claims include Qumran being a Roman fort, villa, perfume factory and tannery.

But what do the artifacts found in the caves actually reveal when placed under the microscope of modern forensic technology?

After testing clay pottery, analyzing the ink from the scrolls as well as radio-carbon dating items found in the caves, test results prove that at least 1/3 of the scrolls were written at Qumran.
Dr. Jan Gunneweg was once a skeptic on the Essene theory but after doing his own testing of clay jars, he no longer doubts it.

Professor Jodi Magness, archaeologist UNC at Chapel Hill who after years of study and digging at the Qumran site concluded; After comparisons and parallels we should identify the Qumran sect as the Essenes who wrote and deposited some of the scrolls in the caves.

As far as skeptics like Peleg: "Peleg’s view has won few adherents. “It’s more interpretation than data,” says Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who shares de Vaux’s view that the site was a religious community. She says that some archaeologists—by refusing to acknowledge evidence that residents of Qumran hid the scrolls—are inclined to leap to conclusions since their research relies solely on the ambiguous, physical remains at the site."...Smithsonian Magazine January 2010.

So, with modern science firmly establishing that Qumran was the place used to make clay jars to hold (some but not all) the scrolls that were written by the sectarian group known as the Essene and hidden by them in the caves around 68 A.D. can we now ask the question: Was Jesus an Essene?

Robert Eisenman has done much research and strongly believes Jesus' brother, James the Just was part of the Qumran community. He even goes so far as to say James was buried at Qumran. If so, I would like to take it a step further and ask why wouldn't Jesus also be an Essene?

But no, we can't have that discussion because Golb's sock-puppet troll has to throw sand in the gears.