Stephan Huller wrote: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
So, I take it you are admitting (in a round about/sheepish way) the Qumran community, i.e. Essenes, faithfully expected/wrote about the coming Messiah?
How about you Peter?
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
No actually I am not saying that. Your quote actually speaks of "the Lord" doing all that from Isa 61. Look for yourself. It is decidedly odd which is why I asked if you thought the Essenes had some sort of doctrine of incarnation because without that they apply Isaiah 61 to a divine visitation, not the messiah, not a human being of the flesh
"Your [John T's] quote actually speaks of "the Lord" doing all that from Isa 61."
Is. 61:1 actually says:
"The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me 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."
So "he" (the Lord) sent "me" ("Isaiah") to proclaim and do these things. And he ("Isaiah") was anointed (mashach) to do this, and the rest of the chapter describes things that elsewhere are said will happen in the Messianic Age. So while "Isaiah" is not "the Messiah," it's understandable that this was seen as a messianic proof text.
I misunderstood your reference to John T's quote. I thought you were referring to Is. 61 and not John T's quote from 4Q521. So I see what you mean about the latter referring to "the Lord" doing these things. However, both Is. 61 and 4Q521 associate these things with "the Lord" and have a messianic ambience, since fragment 1 of 4Q521, which contains John T's quote, begins with "[... The Hea]vens and the earth will obey His Messiah."
That's one way of interpreting it. But I don't read Isa 61 that way nor did the rabbis. The mekhilta apply the passage to Moses's humility entering the deep darkness. Others make the same connection with humility too. But no one interprets the material after the manner of the gospel(s) and the Qumran material = that 'the Lord' is performing the deeds described.
As always, I don't think we can ever really know with any confidence. But the hypothesis is tantalising. I would say he was probably Essene-like - something of a Jewish fundamentalist who thought the ruling Temple cult had become corrupt and that God was soon to intervene to smite worldly powers.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
toejam wrote:As always, I don't think we can ever really know with any confidence. But the hypothesis is tantalising. I would say he was probably Essene-like - something of a Jewish fundamentalist who thought the ruling Temple cult had become corrupt and that God was soon to intervene to smite worldly powers.
That is exactly the viewpoint of both Essene and Jesus.
The Dead Sea Scroll literature has plenty of dots to connect to John the Baptist and the Jesus movement if only we are willing to draw a line between them.
The more dots we connect the clearer the picture is.
This post was edited.
Last edited by John T on Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:40 am, edited 3 times in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Dead Sea Scrolls expert, Geza Vermes, was open to the theory that the early Christian community had a direct casual connection with the Essenes and copied certain organizational rules of the Essenes but were not part of the Essene community.
"If so, it is likely that the young and inexperienced [Christian] church modelled itself on the by then well-tried Essene society."..Geza Vermes, "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English", pg 22.
This post was edited.
John T
Last edited by John T on Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
But you see John T you are already going back to the comfort of citing random 'parallels' without addressing the central issue I brought up over the course of two threads you've set up. You've said:
Jesus was an Essene (phrased in the form of a question)
But you haven't yet defined what an 'Essene' is as a terminology. What does the term 'Essene' mean? Before you do this the rest is meaningless. One could have stumbled across Samaritan and Jewish material demonstrate 'parallels' and assume that one was the other when massive differences exist between the two.
I asked you how you reconcile the Qumran material referencing 'the Lord' as fulfilling the things mentioned in Isa 61. The plain meaning of the text suggests that a human being perhaps endowed with the 'Holy Spirit' carried this out. But there is no evidence for baptism with the Holy Spirit among the Essenes or the Qumran texts. There are just too many holes that need filling and you simply want to race to the finish line because you personally want to 'believe' (for 'spiritual' reasons) in a Jesus belonging to a known sect (the Essenes) and connected to known literary fragments (Qumran). But you haven't connected the dots and each one of the stops along the way are controversial.
1. there is no evidence that Jesus belonged to the Essenes.
2. there is very little evidence that the Essenes were the sect which wrote the Qumran material (it is a controversial and contested assertion).
To connect the dots that Jesus was an Essene the sect which wrote the Qumran material is then a dubious assertion and doing it by way of Eisenman's thesis sinks the ship completely. The theory has been effectively disproved (i.e. the Qumran texts are not about James). So there is a lot of work to be done and I am more than willing to go along the way with you discussing each proposition you bring forward. But you have to stop acting as if you possess a 'slam dunk' and everyone should just 'believe' in your proposition. My 'faith' doesn't require I believe that 'Jesus was an Essene the sect which wrote the Qumran material.' I find any theory interesting. I like the process of considering theories. But please don't jump to conclusions which aren't supported by real evidence.
Stephan Huller wrote:No actually I am not saying that. Your quote actually speaks of "the Lord" doing all that from Isa 61. Look for yourself. It is decidedly odd which is why I asked if you thought the Essenes had some sort of doctrine of incarnation because without that they apply Isaiah 61 to a divine visitation, not the messiah, not a human being of the flesh
Essenes expected the Angel of Truth to heal the lepers.
"And as for the visitation of all who walk in this spirit, it shall be healing,"...The Community Rule 4:6
Note* The last two posts of mine were edited.
I was trying to answer too many points at the same time and to avoid confusion I decided to try to unpack them separately.
Please forgive the confusion and ask again if my edit seems misleading.
Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
