Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 06-06-2009, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I did look through the list of upcoming lectures and found this interesting one.

Quote:

http://www.rom.on.ca/scrolls/lectures_a2.php

Wednesday, September 16

The Historical Problem of the Essenes

Dr. Steve Mason, Professor, Department of History, and Canada Research Chair in Greco-Roman Cultural Interaction, York University, Toronto.

I followed a link to this webpage.

Quote:

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/josephus-essenes.asp

Professor Steve Mason asserts in his article “Did the Essenes Write the Dead Sea Scrolls? Don’t Rely on Josephus” (BAR, November/December 2008) that the texts of Josephus cannot be relied upon to support the conclusion that the Essenes were the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the inhabitants of Qumran.

From comments on the site. Steve Mason

Quote:

So I propose Josephus' invention of this group at this point, for momentary needs, as what seems to me the best explanation on the literary and historical levels. Josephus demonstrably invents a lot of other material ad hoc, so it shouldn't be shocking, and it would explain the problems listed. Of course, I could be wrong. That doesn't matter to me: history is about the process of understanding evidence and trying to explain it. I'm not offended by genuine disagreement, not at all. But the way to challenge me is to engage my argument and my evidence, not to misrepresent it as some whacky pontification based on reading Josephus' mind.

Steve Mason is not suggesting that Josephus invented the Essenes.
He is proposing that the 'marrying' (ie non-celibate) Essenes mentioned by Josephus but by no other ancient writer are an invention of Josephus.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for that clarification on Steve Mason' position on the Essenes. So, its just the married Essenes that Josephus invented?

So, that leaves us with the other non-Philo Essenes in Josephus i.e. the ones that took oaths and John the Essene that became a general in the war....And lets not forget the three Essene prophets - Judas, Menahem and Simon.

I do think that once it is conceded that Josephus invented some Essenes, in this case the married Essenes, it does open up questions regarding his intent regarding his mention of the Essenes at all....

Looks like Josephus wanted to make Philo' Essenes normal by Jewish standards - i.e. not celibate - which is of course Rachel Elior' take on things - that celibate Essenes would have been noticed in that historical time period as being outside the Jewish culture.

If this was the intent of Josephus - it would indicate that he was aware that Philo' Essenes were not 'normal' to begin with i.e. that they were philosophical....

maryhelena · 06-06-2009, 05:21 AM

Here is more from Steve Mason' comments re the Essenes i.e. the married Essenes. Seems there was a bit of a heated debate going on with another scholar.....

Quote:

Well, I know that Jos. used sources in general, yes. I don't know that he used them for the Essene passage, though I have carefully studied every published argument for that conclusion, in several languages: I haven't been sticking my head in the sand here. But all of them fail to deal with certain literary facts in Josephus, and I find them unpersuasive (and they don't agree with each other). Whether he used a source or not, I don't know -- and nor does anyone else. I have gone through the Greek carefully, many times, translated it and written a detailed commentary. As far as I can see it is well explained by Josephus' lexicon, narrative aims. and interests, and doesn't require a source to explain it. In any case, Dr. G. misunderstands what I have tried to spell out as clearly about my criteria of interpretation. I see such texts as efforts at communication (and have written about this, his audiences, etc. at length). His audiences didn't have any sources to compare, and he doesn't direct them to any sources. Therefore, the meaning of his text for those audiences, which is what I'm trying to recover in the first instance, has nothing to do with whatever hypothesized sources he may have used. 4. Dr. G. misreads my proposal about Josephus' marrying Essenes as a claim. I'm a historian and don't make such claims. I wish people wouldn't make these assertions, since the process of history is about considering all possibilities and rationally weighing them. If I raise a new possibility and explain why, in careful engagement with other known possibilities, this one 'seems to me' to 'best explain' the evidence, why pick out one consideration out of the many that I adduce, misrepresent it as psychological -- rather than premised on the implied author of this text -- and say that this is my claim? I am not imagining Josephus' mind, but working explicitly from clues (e.g., that Essenes, whom he claims to know, irresistibly attract all those who once taste their philosophy) about the impression he wished to make on his Roman audience. Given what he will later say in Ant. 18 (absolutely no women), which happens to agree with what every other Essene description says clearly, and given the curious place of this 'endnote', which plays no role in his main presentation, some kind of explanation is needed. In spite of the impression Dr. G conveys, I carefully consider source-critical explanations and find them implausible, not out of prejudice but for good reasons. So I propose Josephus' invention of this group at this point, for momentary needs, as what seems to me the best explanation on the literary and historical levels. Josephus demonstrably invents a lot of other material ad hoc, so it shouldn't be shocking, and it would explain the problems listed. Of course, I could be wrong. That doesn't matter to me: history is about the process of understanding evidence and trying to explain it. I'm not offended by genuine disagreement, not at all. But the way to challenge me is to engage my argument and my evidence, not to misrepresent it as some whacky pontification based on reading Josephus' mind. Readers can judge for themselves, on the Orion site (search mason, essenes). 5. The fundamental difference between us may lie in Dr. G's declaration that War 2 is not the place to start. Well, it depends upon what your question is. If your question is 'Who wrote the DSS?' or 'Who lived at Qumran?' then he is certainly correct. Why on earth would you begin with Josephus? If, however, your question is 'What is Josephus' War about, and how do his Essenes in Book 2 fit into that narrative?', then War actually is the place to start. Since I defined my question quite clearly, as about Josephus' evidence and the issues I face as commentator on Josephus, I examine War 2. I don't know much, but I do know that each piece of evidence, whether material or literary, needs to be understood in situ before we go using it for historical hypotheses. In this essay I am talking only about that: understanding Josephus on his own terms, and not under the influence of the Scrolls, which would require assuming a particular conclusion. I close by restating my gratitude that Dr. G. finds some of my other work acceptable. For me, this Essene thing is a tiny issue, only one example of precisely the same method I follow elsewhere, in dealing with the historical Pharisees, Pilate, Cestius Gallus, or anything else. There is a method here, and I see no way of compromising it, even at the request of colleagues who happen to hold particular views on the Qumran-Essene connection.

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/josephus-essenes.asp

Susan2 · 06-06-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Hmm. So who's wife was he screwing, we might wonder?

Just for the record, I didn't write an inflammatory comment.

arnoldo · 06-06-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

. . Aparently, you are not allowed even to be angry with people, according to the Sermon on the Mount, on the spurious grounds that if you start being angry with people, you might end up murdering them.

Wrong, the Sermon on the Mount states do not be angry without cause. . .

Quote:

You have heard that it was said to those who lived long ago, ‘You must not murder,’[j] and ‘Whoever murders will be subject to punishment.’[k] 22But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause[l] will be subject to punishment.

arnoldo · 06-06-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

. . . Christopher Hitchens, author of God is not Great, on the issue of why the Ten Commandments "are nothing more than "a blizzard of contradictions," simply pure nonsense that was man-made and not divinely inspired."

Quote:

But Mr. Hitchens reserved his greatest vitriol for the last commandment, which prohibits the coveting of a neighbor's wife, property or cattle.

"The tenth commandment is unique; no specific action condemned. Instead we have the first recorded incident of thought crime. You can't do it and you can't think of it. It's totalitarian. Because it convicts you from what's in your head. It crushes the spirit."

Mr. Bitchens seems to be confusing the tenth commandment (Exodus 20:17) with the more specific commandment written in Matthew 5:28 :constern01:

hylidae · 06-06-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

But Mr. Hitchens reserved his greatest vitriol for the last commandment, which prohibits the coveting of a neighbor's wife, property or cattle.

"The tenth commandment is unique; no specific action condemned. Instead we have the first recorded incident of thought crime. You can't do it and you can't think of it. It's totalitarian. Because it convicts you from what's in your head. It crushes the spirit."

I would not call that vitriol by any means.

Amaleq13 · 06-06-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

Just for the record, I didn't write an inflammatory comment.

Discussing moderator action within a thread is prohibited and, itself, subject to an infraction. If you believe your infraction was given in error, please make a complaint in the appropriate forum.

Toto · 06-06-2009, 12:56 PM

The next lecturer - A.J.Jacobs, a secular Jew who tried to follow all the rules, just as an experiment.

Quote:

The author of the New York Times bestseller The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible (or via: amazon.co.uk)has the bona fides to pronounce on religious commands. At times, by way of research, he has walked the streets of Manhattan with the Ten Commandments tied to his forehead as required by Exodus 13:9.

Concerned and intrigued by the rise in religious fundamentalism, both Jewish and Christian, Jacobs wanted to see what the draw was by observing all 700 rules, orders, injunctions and prohibitions contained in the Old and New Testaments.

That meant everything from letting his beard grow and never "cutting the corners of it" (not that he could figure out where the corners were) to eschewing clothing made of wool mixed with linen,to, yes, stoning (pebble-ing to be precise) a self-admitted adulterer who threw the pebbles at him first.

I see a theme in these lectures - religion as entertainment, part of the culture.

hylidae · 06-06-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

. . . Christopher Hitchens, author of God is not Great, on the issue of why the Ten Commandments "are nothing more than "a blizzard of contradictions," simply pure nonsense that was man-made and not divinely inspired."

Quote:

But Mr. Hitchens reserved his greatest vitriol for the last commandment, which prohibits the coveting of a neighbor's wife, property or cattle.

"The tenth commandment is unique; no specific action condemned. Instead we have the first recorded incident of thought crime. You can't do it and you can't think of it. It's totalitarian. Because it convicts you from what's in your head. It crushes the spirit."

Mr. Bitchens seems to be confusing the tenth commandment (Exodus 20:17) with the more specific commandment written in Matthew 5:28 :constern01:

What's the difference? Both fit the thought crime description.

arnoldo · 06-06-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hylidae

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Mr. Bitchens seems to be confusing the tenth commandment (Exodus 20:17) with the more specific commandment written in Matthew 5:28 :constern01:

What's the difference? Both fit the thought crime description.

Well, that's a very Orwellian interpretation of the text. In any event the Dead Sea Scrolls closely match the Septuagint verse in relation to the tenth commadnment.

Quote:

Dt 5.21/ 4QDeutn Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. .
http://www.freeratio.org/archive/ind.../t-125566.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.