aa5874

But, why would Eusebius fabricate the Essenes in Philo, Pliny, Josephus writing far more details about the Essenes than even Jesus of the NT?

The entire NT Canon is fundamentally about Jesus but only a few lines of forgery can be found in Josephus, none in Philo or Pliny.

Nothing in the NT Canon is about the Essenes but you want me to believe that Philo invented the Essenes for Jesus WHOM he wrote nothing about. Then Pliny invented the Essenes for Jesus whom he wrote nothing about, and then Josephus who claimed Vespasian was the Messianic ruler invented the Essenes in three books

The existence or non-existence of Essenes does not even help to confirm the existence of Jesus. Not one Essenes who you think was invented mentioned Jesus in Philo, Pliny or Josephus..

Just only in "Wars of the Jews" 2.8-2-13, there are about 160 lines using around 2800 words dedicated to the Essenes with their doctrine and lifestyle but in "Antiquitiess of the Jews" 18.3.3 ONLY 8 lines and 144 words are dedicated to Jesus.

What a wasted invention! They all could have just used the words JESUS or Christians instead of Essenes in Wars of the Jews 2.8.2-13.

The description of the Essenes' doctrine and lifestyle in Josephus' Wars of the Jews 2.8 would have been PERFECT for Jesus and his followers.

You cannot show that the Essenes was a literal invention when you cannot show that Philo invented the Essenes, and you cannot show that Pliny used Philo to locate the Essenes in Judea and you cannot show that all the information about the Essenes in Josephus came from Philo and Pliny.

All you can say is that the Essenes have not been found.

Please check your history. There are people who were actually known to have existed who LITERALLY disappeared in the Americas.

They were EXTERMINATED.

But, the Romans exterminated no-one or they cannot account for everybody (that were exterminated).

meow

The exhibitors in St. Paul have cut it the right way, giving a fair balance between the sectarian and non-sectarian theories. But in general, Europeans seem to have a far more open view on all of these controversies surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are also quite critical of the American tendencies. See, for example, what Geoff Hudson (whose humorous, British-tinged send-up of DSS blogging some of us may recall) has to say about what's been going on in New York. He does not mince words!

Toto

Noooo not Geoff Hudson :banghead:

ApostateAbe

Toto has the above reaction seemingly because Geoff Hudson is an alias of Jeffrey Gibson, who has been a very, let's say... assertive member of this forum.

fitter

I will not "mince words" either. Since when did people in "Paree" know anything about "American tendencies." IMO, they should stick to fries and let the experts deal with religion.

And who is this Hudson, and why does he smear Christians. To me he looks like someone who is down on Christ. Why else would he put the word "Christian" in quotation marks.

Toto

Geoff Hudson is not an alias of Jeffrey Gibson. He has accused practically everyone else in the world (including me) of being an alias of Jeffrey Gibson, and his blog is entitled "Aliases of Jeffrey Gibson."

It is hard to think of a person with less credibility in this area.

XKV8R

it's fun to watch though...

show_no_mercy

Sorry for putting you all through the trouble.

I am actually Jeffery Gibson.

N/A

meow

I wonder which area Toto is referring to. The area of idle speculation about who might be using one or another pseudonym? Or the area of ethical concerns like plagiarism and bleating to the courts, which a sharp-witted European blogger has had the courage to address? If Toto finds Mr. Hudson's opinion about these matters objectionable, it might be good for him to say so and to explain why, rather than attacking his "credibility" on the basis of an irrelevant issue.

While we're at it, it may be worth pointing out that since Toto, like many of us, legitimately chooses to "hide behind a cloak of anonymity," we don't really have any way of knowing who he is or isn't. In theory, he could even be the famous Jim West himself, or Hershel Shanks or anyone else. And, in fact, some of us took this to be the real point behind Geoff Hudson's pointed British humor. But some other people seem intent on taking everything literally, at least in "this area," and especially when they are directly concerned.

One more thing in defense of Mr. Hudson. Unlike a number of persons who preach Christian charity but practice not quite what they preach, he did not gloat about someone being arrested. Rather, he, along with Dr. Zahavy, had the basic decency to step forward, condemn the hypocrisy, and say exactly what needed to be said, while everyone else adopted an attitude of passivity or "objective" curiosity. Geoff Hudson's conscience, at least, will be free.

Interestingly, Jim West has now left a comment on Hudson's blog, accusing him of "lacking in ethics" and of "heisting" a photograph from his own site without crediting him. But, as has been pointed out, Hudson did credit Jim West; indeed, the link provided by Hudson goes straight to zwingliusredividus, the current edition of West's blog. I wonder what's so troubling about this little photograph taken at SBL, and how it is relevant to the ethical concerns raised by Mr. Hudson.

Toto

Let me say for the record that I am NOT Jeffrey Gibson.

Are you claiming that Geoff Hudson's saying that everyone is Jeffrey Gibson is some sort of joke? I fail to see the humor.

Geoff Hudson used to post here, but was asked to stop because his posts were incoherent.