spin

Just a nitpick: it should be obvious that the Qumran texts had nothing to do with the Essenes when one thinks that the leading figures in the scrolls were the sons of Zadok, sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi, ie the people who manage the Jerusalem temple. The Essenes were both excluded from the temple and they repudiated bloodline. Upshot: the Qumran corpus was certainly not of the Essenes. That doesn't stop the scrolls from being a modern religious battlefield. It will take decades to undo the damage to our understanding of the scrolls done by the incompetents who withheld them from the public for the first forty years after their discovery.


spin

spin

You may claim it's <false>. You do make a lot of claims. Ken Humphreys hasn't proven anything. It's irrelevant whether Nazareth did or did not exist, as it isn't in the earliest layers of the gospel tradition. It was added later. The Greek spelling with a zeta fundamentally assures that the word is unrelated to Hebrew NCRT. The vast majority of all medial Hebrew TSADEs are transliterated as sigma, though the gospels never use nasaret. Whether Nazareth existed or not, it is a red herring.


spin

mens_sana

I sorta thought that preaching around Capernaum, Bethsaida, etc., with only one stop in Nazareth, counted toward itinerancy. Do you think being obtuse wins an argument?

angelo

[QUOTE=spin;5151550]Just a nitpick: it should be obvious that the Qumran texts had nothing to do with the Essenes when one thinks that the leading figures in the scrolls were the sons of Zadok, sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi, ie the people who manage the Jerusalem temple. The Essenes were both excluded from the temple and they repudiated bloodline. Upshot: the Qumran corpus was certainly not of the Essenes. That doesn't stop the scrolls from being a modern religious battlefield.The reason they were withheld for so long, is because they failed to mention a Jesus of Nazareth. But I stand to be corrected.

spin

The reason why they were withheld was that most of the people who were working on them were incompetent. Jewish scholars of the period knew it and complained in journals about not having access. The only scholar who did the right thing was the ostracized John Allegro, who bit the bullet and published quickly, which was their obligation. It's better that the texts were out in the scholarly eye than hidden away. But no, these guys didn't want to show their incompetence. It took some of the people well over twenty years to publish their alloted texts. Some never published but handed them on to others before they died.


spin

schilling.klaus

Obtuse are those who still believe into Nazareth and Kapernaum being historical villages/townships of the era of interest.

Klaus Schilling

mountainman

Nag Hammadi, despite being a totally different language, went a little smoother than the DSS. The most recent one, gJudas, was handled by a private organisation -- each of these three finds exemplified an increasingly smaller time frame for a turn-around to the general access to the information. Things are looking up for a very quick release of the information on the day when they find Ammianus Marcellinus' obituary to Constantine.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

aa5874

I cannot find your itinerant preacher anywhere, in what century did he preach, what was his real name and who was his real father? I need to identify and investigate your itinerant preacher?

mens_sana

I'm not sure you can chalk it up to just that. For instance, Frank Moore Cross was quite competent. From just casual reading, overall management was pretty lousy. None of the scholars were given any kind of schedule for presenting their documents and management's urging carried no special weight. Only quite late in the process were scrolls plucked forcefully out of one man's hands and handed on to another. And, if I recall, there were a couple of deaths. I have a suspicion, unsupported of course, that at least some of the scholars saw the opportunity for "carving out a niche" in the academic realm with their work.

Proxima Centauri

I think Jesus may have been many different people.
Richard Carrier pointed out that there was any number of wandering preachers considering themselves the messiah in first Century Judea. Richard Carrier suggests further that contradictions in the teachings purported to be from Jesus could be because the teachings of different alleged messiahs were put together as the teaching of Jesus.
This can be developed further. Perhaps events or myths connected with several different alleged messiahs were put together in the accounts of the life of Jesus. Perhaps one alleged messiah was influenced by Buddhism and tried to live the celibate life of a Buddhist monk. Perhaps another alleged messiah had a relationship with Mary Magdalene or was married to her. Perhaps one alleged messiah survived crucifiction and escaped to Cashmere as Jus Asaf. See DID JESUS DIE?. Perhaps another alleged messiah escaped with his wife, Mary Magdalene to the South of France.