spin

The Dead Sea Scrolls involve a community headed by the sons of Zadok, the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi. This should sound familiar enough: they are the temple hierarchy. In pre-Herodian Judea bloodline was an extremely serious notion, so any attempts to "metaphorize" the numerous references to priests are doomed to be data manipulation.

The teacher of righteousness was a priest, a high priest, a son of Zadok. The scrolls mainly used a two messiah theology, a priestly messiah and a worldly messiah, a messiah of Aaron and a messiah of Israel. Jesus by his genealogy and by the literary recognition of him as the son of David could not have been the messiah of Aaron -- wrong bloodline -- and therefore could not have been either the messiah of Aaron or the teacher of righteousness.


spin

Larsguy47

KUMRAN TRIVIA:

The LXX version of the Book of Esther clearly shows her married to Artaxerxes, the "son of Xerxes." But the popular Hebrew version shows her married to "Ahasuerus" whom most historically link with Xerxes, since her and mordecai active during the time of Artaxerxes I would be considered contradictory to canonical Erza/Nehemiah.

Thus it would have been interesting to see which version of the book was in use at Kumran. Guess what. Esther is the only book of the Bible not found at Kumran. Not one fragment.

I wonder why?


LG47

Larsguy47

That's certainly a baited question. But ever hear of the "Mysteries"? Secret societies who are trained in propaganda and disinformation? One of their rules seems to be that if somone is unliked, and you want to obliterate them historically, you don't talk against them, better to simply not mention them at all. So a no mention isn't always evidence of nonexistence but of competitiveness. This was understood in ancient Egypt where some rulerships were obliterated and not mentioned. Once you mention them, even negatively, you preserve them.

Also you have to understand this about historicity, which is true: "He that controls the past controls the present. He that controls the present, controls the future. But that controls the present, also controls the past!"

So once an entity comes into power and influence, they control history. They control the libraries, everything. So that in the end, what we get is pretty much picked over and may be everything that isn't controversial for those making revisions. People rewrite their history all the time, to fit political correctness.

So one scenario to include, certainly, is intentional avoidance.

The Christian movement was so powerful that even pagan emperor Constantine gave in and merged with it, corrupting it at the same time, but still, such a movement is not likely to have been the creation of a group of clever writers. The entire Jewish nation was waiting for a messiah to come and he did. They preached about it and eye witnesses of these things got the movement started and it continued on from there. The eye witnesses died off or went into obscurity and all that was left was the movement itself and the OT-coordinated gospels. To me, that so many people believe suggests these things really happened rather than were invented.

LG47

spamandham

If that's so, perhaps we should just give up on the enterprise of 1st century history altogether, seeing as there is no credible evidence Jesus even existed.

spamandham

No doubt, the answer must be some sort of evil atheist anti-Bible conspiracy. But since you're the messiah, you must already have the "right" answer to this question (and all others!).

spin

It's Qumran -- with a Q. Always has, always will be. Forget toiletpaper editions.

The Vulgate often agrees with the LXX over matters but it certainly doesn't here, as it has Asuerus, ie Ahasuerus, ie Xerxes. In fact all versions except the LXX has Ahasuerus.

Your insistence on the LXX here is purely tendentious.

It hadn't been written at the time.

But then, there was no Nehemiah either. Josephus only knows a version of the Nehemiah Memoir, so he doesn't even support a biblical Nehemiah text.

And the supposed tiny scrap of Chronicles at Qumran is certainly not. It is probably just a wayward form from Kings, so it is unlikely that Chronicles was there either.


spin

Larsguy47

[QUOTE]No. I'm just noting there are two versions where Esther is married to two different kings. It's a legitimate inquiry since Josephus quotes the history from the LXX and he wrote at the turn of the 1st century CE. Why did he do that? Why did he prefer the LXX version? Further, he is quite specific. He definitely says, "Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes" so he's not historically confused. He deals with Ezra and "Neamias" by placing them specifically under Xerxes. Thus being a point of historican contention between the two books, both of which can't be correct, not that either has to be since it was originally a fable now turned pseudo-history, there was a thought that Qumran might shed some light on the topic. But it's quite silent in the case of Esther for some reason.

That's for sure. And I've read at least one folkroic version of Nehemiah, where he is apparently infatuated with Artaxerxes, sits on his lap and bats his eyes at the king when he asks to return to Jerusalem. I was in shock. So he was a popular folkloric hero, likely partially because he was rather "militant" in getting the Jews to finally fight back.

Interesting. I didn't know that. The Encyclopaedia Britannica suggests the LXX version precedes the Hebrew version, however:

Page 928 under "Biblical Literature"/Book of Esther: "The Book of Esther is a romantic and patriotic tale, perhaps with some historical basis but with so little religious purpose that God, in fact, is not mentioned in it. The book may have been included in the Hebrew canon only for the sake of sanctioning the celebrations of the festival of Purim, the Feast of Lots. There is considerable evidence that the stories related in Esther actually originated among gentiles (Persian and Babylonian) rather than among the Jews. There is also reason to believe that the version given in the Septuagint goes back to older sources than the version given in the Hebrew Bible."

Again, interesting that Josephus as late at the end of the 1st Century CE uses the LXX version where she is decidedly married to Artaxerxes and not Xerxes.

William Whiston's footnote on Josephus regarding Esther is also interesting:
Again, the version/s that might have been found at Qumran may have shed some light on this but it's the one book not found at Qumran.

SOME MISC COMMENTS FROM THE WEB:


LG47

Steven Avery

Apparently you mean against the Hebrew Bible. I would like to see some of those "oftens". Have a documented source ? (Outside of Psalms, where Jerome did multiple translations, from the Greek as well as from the Hebrew.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin .. all versions except the LXX has Ahasuerus.Your insistence on the LXX here is purely tendentious.

spin accepts the Greek OT as an independent significant source when it fits his methodology of manipulation. In fact then he will accept the authority of the preferred manuscript that he wants to highlight as

"directly derived from the Hebrew".

Consistency, thou art a jewel.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Because it was already in Greek so he didn't have to translate it.

Of course. He's aware of the Hebrew and trying to compromise by at least mentioning Ahasuerus.

What is important with Josephus's Ezra is that it is also the Greek version. That Greek version has Artaxerxes, yet Josephus changes it to Xerxes. He did so through his own rationale.

This is the grunt and groan video version is it?

You need to realize that the Greek version of Esther contains a lot of other material, ie "stories related to Esther".

Take it up with Josephus. He clearly used the Greek version of Esdras including the debate of the pages and the scene of Ezra reading the law, which later made its way from Ezra into Nehemiah 8.

Whiston was writing in the 17th century without many of the cards of the deck that are now available to us.

There was no theological reason for it not to be there. It is most likely that either it hadn't been written, or that it hadn't arrived in Palestine.

Yeah, I know.


spin

spin

Two, the Vulgate and the LXX. Check them out. You'll find them interesting.

One day praxeus might learn something about text criticism.


spin