DCHindley

Malachi,

Allegro was one of those quirky early DSS researchers who wasn't afraid to ask questions and propose solutions (that made some sense then but some now believed to be wrong).

He went way beyond the evidence WRT the mushroom cult (The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (or via: amazon.co.uk)). Had he stuck to the anectodal accounts relayed by Gordon Wasson about intoxication by Amanita Muscaria, related it to characteristics of the vision of Jesus' disciples or maybe even Paul's conversion, brought in evidence from other sources that Jesus' disciples practiced some techniques of mystical ascents (e.g., one of the apocryphal gospels indicated that after his death some of them were in hiding "with their heads between their knees" - suggesting a breath control technique to induce a trance), he would have been on safer ground.

As for the book in question, his still interesting observations include those about the physician's report (a seldom discussed DSS text in which a man seems to write down the results of another man's physical examination), and the possibility that some of the structures found around qumran were meant to imitate places mentioned in the accounts about Moses and Joshua and their journy to the promised land as relayed in Jewish scriptures. He also proposes a certain historical place name for the Qumran settlement. In other respects, he is most definitely a Jesus Myth-er.

Dave

Clivedurdle

If Acts is the first mention of him, what is the latest possible date of the writing of Acts?

Rick Sumner

It's still accepted pretty dominantly. If his acceptance of that theory is the greatest criticism of his book you can muster, such that even in the face of this "there may still be some value," something is amiss.

Right or wrong, it's still pretty safe to call it a consensus.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

It is my understanding that the reason you don't hear that text mentioned so much is that it was wrongly identified. "4QTherapeutae" was a writing excercise, not a medical document. So far as I know, that is now uncontested.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

gstafleu

I noticed that the review on bibleinterp does not have a problem comparing the Jesus myth to sun worship:
The final paragraph of the review is:
In some circles, and occasionally one crosses these circles in this forum, these ideas are seen as disreputable or at least as not very well evidenced. So, is the author of this review (Judith Anne Brown) a Reputable Scholar, a Flighty New Age Airhead or something in between?

Gerard Stafleu

Toto

Take that up with spin.

Toto

Good question, Gerard Stafleu. Bibleinterp is a fairly good site, so I assumed she had some credibility.

Judith Ann Brown is the author of John Marco Allegro: The Maverick Of The Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature) (or via: amazon.co.uk) (published by Eerdmans). And it seems that she is his daughter. (See the review here.

So, while New Age Airhead might be going a little too far, I would guess that she is a bit uncritical of some outdated claims in this area.

Rick Sumner

Why would I need to? I've never seen spin suggest that it's not an overwhelming consensus, rather he suggests that the consensus is wrong. Since you seem to think otherwise, it would seem that you're precisely who I need to take it up with.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

This is correct.

I get the idea that the reason why so many scholars espouse the consensus is that they have rears on chairs and want to keep them that way. I couldn't explain the rabidity otherwise. One hand simply doesn't want to know what the other is doing, so that they don't have to notice how far out on a limb they are.

You point out that the scrolls claim that their central group is priestly and you get told that the site of Qumran was obviously sectarian, so you point out that the site of Qumran, except for the cemetery, is really no different from what one might expect from a Hasmonean outpost of the palace at Jericho and you get told but the scrolls are obviously sectarian, therefore Essene.


spin

Toto

Why do you think I disagree with you? What I said was that the Essene theory was "not currently accepted to the same extent it was a few decades ago," which I think leaves room for the theory to still be popular, even overwhelmingly popular.