Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Simply, by pointing out that the story of Jesus couldn't be re-written under a different temporal reference, since it is said explicitly that the disciples "left" 'John the Baptist' (= Qumran) and they joined "Jesus" (the new ideology).

Whether John the Baptist had been at or with Qumran at some time is a debated question. If so, he may have left it. In other words, saying "John the Baptist = Qumran" may be misleading or overstated.

At contrary, the modern trend to separate John the Baptist from Qumran betrayes only the fear by some pseudo-scholars (but real Christian apologists) that John the Baptist becomes absorbed in Qumran so much that he is reduced to be the mere symbolical icon of Qumran.

John the Baptist and Qumran have some similarities and have some differences.
If you, Giuseppe, wish to deny that statement, there may be some more appropriate
way.
[added later:]
A range of views on John the Baptist are available in this 2021 conference:
http://enochseminar.org/online-2021

My strong suspicion that what I have written above is true (apologetical agenda behind the separation between Qumran and John the Baptist), derives from the knowledge of the best case against the historicity of John the Baptist, based precisely on his being a mere symbol of Qumran, and nothing else.

Stones, as the English proverb runs, are never thrown but at the fruit-laden tree.

"....precisely....and nothing else."

Such dogma.

Ha Giuseppe, you never cease to amaze me. How on earth did you happen to read Pierre Krijbolder, it's pretty niche. I think much of his ideas are pretty speculative but he makes some very interesting observations, including the one you've posted.

Indeed the Krijbolder's point is that he denies this claim:

• the early Christians read Isaiah 53:7
  
  He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter
  
  ...and only after they compared Jesus (already identified by them with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53) with the slaughtered lamb (see the part in bold).

At contrary, Krijbolder claims that the reversal happens:

• the early Christians read the part in bold in Isaiah 53:7
  
  He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter
  
  ...and only after they invented the figure of a man to pose as the slaughtered lamb.

The difference is giant, since the Krijbolder's scenario implies that the lack of a slaughtered lamb forced the Christians to invent Jesus posing as the slaughtered lamb.

It was a historical accident, the situation when early Essene heretics, under persecution, were obliged to use bread in the place of a slaughtered lamb, to celebrate the Passover. Hence they discovered Isaiah 53:7.