John T wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:25 pm
The supreme experts Maurice Baillet and Garcia Martinez got it right.
Remember, 2 days ago you said me Geza Vermes was the best. I show you that he think like Esther Eshel and now you already move desperately to another scholars ...
The wanna be experts have to attack the vanguards if they are to replace them or better yet sell books.
Peter Schafer is top 5 scholar concerning second temple judaism and christianity. Your statement is pathetic.
Joseph Angel's view is that the author of (4Q491 b) claims that as a human he is able to travel from earth to heaven and back again at will. No such claim exists in the scrolls he referenced. His conjecture is based on pure fantasy.
And yet we have found Enoch's manuscripts in THE CAVE IV. The one where some manuscripts of the hymns of self glorification were found. And what did these Enoch scrolls contain ? His journey through heaven and space with the angels.
Pure fantasy ? You are apparently unfamiliar with second temple judaism and even your own religion.
Michael O Wise translations of the DSS are so bad that I no longer have it in my library for reasons I previously stated.
Translation : "Michael O Wise translations goes against my beliefs. I don't like it.
And don't forget that Michael O Wise didn't translate the DSS by himself. He was assisted by Cook and Abbeg.
Abegg has retracted his statement and agrees with Garcia Martinez that 4Q491c & 4Q491b should not be separated.
And Abegg thinks that it doesn't concern Michael :
- Martin G Abegg - Who ascended to heaven ?
"Manuscript III of 4Q491,
the misnamed "Song of Michael" show no contextual connection at all with 1QM".
Morton Smith, well how do I put it delicately, is suspected of forgery e.g. "The Secret Gospel of Mark".
Completely OFF TOPIC
Esther Eschel, try as I might, I can't find her justification for changing the title of 4Q491, fr. 11 from The Song of Michael and the Just to Glorification Hymn A. I hope it is not as simple as, since she translated Hymn B that gives her the right to re-title Baillet's title.
Oddly enough, she convinced the MAJORITY of scholars with his conclusion.
While I'm at it, not even Dr. Carrier is willing to dive in head first in the mud puddle. That should give you caution.
You seem to be obsessed with Carrier like all historicists
Now that I gave my honest
opinion based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, here comes the ad hominem attacks since there is no rebuttal to the problems I pointed out, at least not any that can be fact checked.
Let me doubt it. But I don't blame you.
You have an agenda and you seem very inexperienced with the DSS.