maryhelena

aa5874,
Just a further point re Josephus and his Essenes.

Philo died around 50 ce - quite some years before Josephus put pen to paper, War in around 75 ce and Antiquities' around 93/94 ce.

Josephus thus had a free hand here. Who was going to question him re there being Essene prophets a long time ago. Consider Judas the Essene - Josephus dates him to around 104/103 BC - a flight of fancy methinks - as Rachel Elior writes: "No Hebrew or Aramaic source is familiar with the word Essenes or Essaioi."

And yet we have Josephus telling us that 200 years prior to his writing Antiquites there was a line of Essene prophets...., Judas, Menahem, Simon - and not a trace of their wonderous prophetic insights has been worth recording by Jewish sources...and Philo - looks like Philo had never heard anything about Essene prophets and their prophecies when he set about writing his more philosophical views re his Essenes.

Judas the Essene: 104/103 BC

Judas, ‘who never missed the truth in his predictions”, predicted the death of Antigonus = who was killed in 104/103 bc

maryhelena

Josephus dated Philo's Essenes - thereby giving them the illusion of being historical. Josephus thus 'invented' the Essenes as being 'historical' people - prior to that - Philo did not date the Essenes, they were just a philosophical ideal society.

Rick Sumner

I snipped the bit before this, because it's not really relevant, and didn't answer the question.

I beg to differ. "Red herring" implies that I'm distracting from some other discussion. But at the moment it's the only discussion I'm having. That's why I took pains to differentiate my opinion from that of ApostateAbe.

Besides which, you've raised the issue of apologetic or ideological views coloring the lenses of scholars or other posters more than once. That sword cuts both ways.

This sounds nice. It's also quite impossible. Neither historicist nor mythicist can be reaching their conclusions "solely on the basis of evidence." The type of evidence required for that doesn't exist.

They reach their conclusions the same way the historicist does. By the interpretation of the evidence. So I'm asking whether you would suggest that that interpretation is never fueled largely by ideological motivations?

It wasn't a rhetorical question. I can cheerily admit that ideology fuels some historicist interpretations. Would you suggest it's unreasonable to posit that, at least in some instances, mythicist interpretations are fueled by the same fire?

You must be new here. As I noted above, this is quite impossible.

maryhelena

Update re the debate...

aa5874

Once it is admitted that Philo gave a count of more than 4000 Essenes living in Palestine and Syria while he was writing, then Philo has DATED the Essenes to his time.

Once it is admitted that Philo gave a count of more than 4000 Essenes living in Palestine and Syria then Philo is NOT dealing with philosophy but history.

This is found in a writing under the name of Philo "Every Good Man is Free"
See http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com

maryhelena

Yep - and 50+ years later there are still only 4000 Essenes...

Maybe 4000 was the magic number....no more, no less - reminds me of the 144,000 that are ear-marked for the rapture....:huh:

aa5874

But, did Josephus, Pliny and Philo write about the 144,000? What historical source mentioned the 144,000 ear-marked for the rapture?

You seem to think that Josephus was going to actually count all the Essenes or knew all the Essenes in Palestine and Syria.

And it was not Josephus who first claimed there was more than 4000 Essenes. It was Philo.

The claim that Josephus invented the Essenes cannot be sustained.

It was Philo who first wrote about the Essenes placing them in Palestine and Syria and giving a count of more than 4000.

Toto

And it's all about you

I suggest that there are at least some historicists whose assume that there was a historical Jesus for confessional reasons, whatever the evidence.

There are at least some mythicists who have no ideological requirement that Jesus be historical or not, who started out as historicists, but have looked at the evidence and decided that there there was no historical Jesus. There is actually no advantage to this conclusion that I can see. I don't know of any position on the ideological spectrum that requires that Jesus be mythical, other than perhaps the neo-gnosticism of Freke and Gandy.

Let me rephrase that. Speculation over other posters' motives is off topic and will get your posts split and moved.

ApostateAbe

I don't have much of a problem with anyone disagreeing with my arguments, but, if you want to make the claim that my argument assumes the conclusion, then that merits an explanation. My line of argument does not seem to assume the conclusion.

Rick Sumner

If you're going to issue the charge that I'm offering a red herring, then yes. It's about me. About my discussion and what is germane to it.

The eyeroll is a nice touch. It generally has more force when you understand the terms you use though. When you suggest charges about my argumentation are not "about me" the eyeroll just looks silly.

Doubtlessly true.

It was a yes or no question. Your evasion speaks volumes.

Then it is fortunate indeed that I haven't speculated about any poster's motivations.

But just to clarify for me any nuances of the rule I'm not understanding. Your comment, less than 100 words ago, about "confessional interests" is an acceptable question of motives, while my equally generic question is deserving of a sober reminder.

Is that because different motives have different rules? Does this correlate to the side of the debate one is on? Or is there some other criteria I'm unaware of?