I would welcome a list of specialists in Qumranic studies who follow the Huller model.
Well I mean there is a significant difference. The first is that Eisenman is an accredited scholar and I am not. He's gotten a degree and taught and deserves to have his ideas seriously considered. My ideas in general are ignored and the fact that I am ignored is probably justified.
Now if we start with Eisenman as deservedly considered and me as deservedly ignored that reflects the first difference between us. But this leads to another important distinction - his theories have been seriously considered and up until the carbon dating there were likely a number of people in the field who were attracted by the possibilities it offered. But now it is almost universally acknowledged until some new evidence emerges - his theories don't work, can't work and won't be taken seriously.
Indeed Eisenman has had his day in the sun - his ideas were seriously considered - and now have been decisively rejected. Very few ideas put forward by 'real scholars' end up flatly not being possible. This is one of the few.
Stephan Huller wrote:
t Eisenman is an accredited scholar and I am not. He's gotten a degree and taught and deserves to have his ideas seriously considered. My ideas in general are ignored and the fact that I am ignored is probably justified.
... But now it is almost universally acknowledged until some new evidence emerges - his theories don't work, can't work and won't be taken seriously.
Very few ideas put forward by 'real scholars' end up flatly not being possible. This is one of the few.
Ideas are key, including new ideas about old ideas. Go for it.
I would welcome a list of specialists in Qumranic studies who follow the Huller model.
Well I mean there is a significant difference. The first is that Eisenman is an accredited scholar and I am not. He's gotten a degree and taught and deserves to have his ideas seriously considered. My ideas in general are ignored and the fact that I am ignored is probably justified.
Now if we start with Eisenman as deservedly considered and me as deservedly ignored that reflects the first difference between us. But this leads to another important distinction - his theories have been seriously considered and up until the carbon dating there were likely a number of people in the field who were attracted by the possibilities it offered. But now it is almost universally acknowledged until some new evidence emerges - his theories don't work, can't work and won't be taken seriously.
Indeed Eisenman has had his day in the sun - his ideas were seriously considered - and now have been decisively rejected. Very few ideas put forward by 'real scholars' end up flatly not being possible. This is one of the few.
Yes, go for it, I don't care that you don't have a degree, all I care is that you present facts to support the Huller method, whatever that is.
But try not to spin into another hate rant on Eisenman.
What evidence do you have that Jesus could not have been an Essene?
Is it because you don't think Essenes ever existed?
If so, how do you explain:
"and when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trial of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three:-The fist is that of the Pharisees and the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you;"...The Life of Flavius Josephus, (10).
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
I actually suspect there is a relationship. I just don't think Eisenman's model is the answer. The link exists in the writings of the Church Fathers. It shouldn't depend on Eisenman and carbon dating
When did this become a question of whether Jesus 'could not' have been an Essene?
I mean a reasonable man might first ask if we know anything about what Jesus (the Jesus) actually were.
There is no direct statement that ' Jesus was an Essene ' so we would have to start by building a picture of the other, non Essenic qualities that could be attributed to Jesus (and which may or may not suggest his Essenism).
Are you up for treating your question seriously, then, John T? Or do you just enjoy the forum game around it?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
John T wrote:"And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been [He..] for He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor."...(4Q521) A Messianic Apocalypse.
"Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them." ... Matthew 11:4-5.
My understanding, (correct me if I'm wrong Peter) is that the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls) had independent scrolls containing attributes/deeds of the coming messiah. Now, compare and contrast the above, and it appears Jesus claimed to have meet at least some of the check list items for messiah.
How could Jesus know about about the check list unless he was an Essene or told about it by an Essene?
What do you make of that?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Alright so this seems to be your 'ultimate proof.' Let's look at this:
"And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been [...] for He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor."...(4Q521) A Messianic Apocalypse.
"Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them." ... Matthew 11:4-5.
Let's ask right off the bat - do you really think that the Qumran community expected one of their own to be the Lord or that god would appear out of the sky, 'land' as it were on earth and do these things? Or do you think there is evidence for some sort of Christian-type 'incarnation'?
Second of all the material in both derives from Isaiah 61 which we know was very important for the community in terms of some sort of theophany/messianic expectation:
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
At the beginning of the gospel Jesus either (a) reads from the scroll of Isaiah (Luke) or (b) declares in his own voice that the 'year of favor' predicted in Isaiah has been fulfilled (gospel of Clement of Alexandria). I am not so sure that the agreement between the gospel and the Qumran community IN ITSELF is proof of any direct relationship. Both were interested in Isaiah 61. This may demonstrate a direction relationship - i.e. that the Christians developed their interest in Isaiah 61. It's possible. It needs something more than just this parallel.
I for one think that the reason why the Christian book is called the gospel is because of the expectation of Isaiah 61. Isaiah 52:7 is also where we get the title of 'evangelist =' מבשר
