Answerer

I saw some books talking about the same thing too. Anyway, is the suppression of DSS a fact or just mere fiction?

Bede

According to Geza Vermes, a Jewish DSS expert, in his introduction to the Dead Sea Scrolls in English there was no conspiracy, simply a lot of academic jealousy. Basically a small number of scholars did not want to give up exclusive access to the scrolls as they didn't want others stealing their thunder. Vermes totally dismisses the idea of a Vatican conspiracy and almost all scholars accept that the DSS have nothing to do with early Christianity at all, except coming from a contemporary Jewish sect.

So Bargent and Leigh are as off beam in the DSS Deception as they are in the Holy Blood and Grail.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Answerer

Well Bede, sorry for being skeptical, but I think that it will be better if you are able to refute the points made by the authors, Bargent and Leigh rather than attacking their personality. Somehow, I feel that the attacking of some authors' characters is always the defensive method adapted by most christians.

Bede

Sorry Answerer, but when a scholar of the stature of Geza Vermes says they are talking rubbish, I do not intend to waste my time trying to second guess him. Perhaps Vork would like to take you up (you wouldn't believe me anyway).

B

Vorkosigan

I actually wrote a long post, but deleted it. I recommend you actually read their books, Answerer, as I have done, and I suspect Bede too, since he and I share the same taste for lore and mystery in history.

Vorkosigan

emur

Whether it is a fact or fiction ultimately resides in the minds of the international team. However, I lean towards a fact for several reasons.

One, in my experience of dealing with Christians as a Christian minister, Christian leaders do in fact hide, twist, and distort the truth to protect their belief system.

Two, some of the scrolls that were finally released after almost fifty years contain material that does link some aspects of early Christianity to the Qumran sect.

Consider Christian baptism (Baptist view). Scroll fragment 4Q414 shows a baptismal liturgy that is strikingly similar to that early Christian understanding of baptism. Nothing in the OT suggests such an understanding. Consider too John the Baptist's baptism of repentance. It is much closer to the DSS than the OT.

Then there is scroll fragment 11Q13 which has to do with the coming of Melchizedek (the figure from Genesis). Consider this from the fragment regarding an interpretation of portions of Psalm 7 and 82: "the interpretation applies to Belial and the spirits predestined to him, because all of them have rebelled, turning from God's precepts and so becoming utterly wicked. Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the vengence required by God's statutes. Also, he will deliver all the captives from the power of Belial, and from the power of the spirits destined to him."
Christ in the NT book of Hebrews is linked to the priesthood of Melchizedek. Not so much from the OT, but from this scroll fragment you can see the connection.

Having read some of these fragments myself, and considering the mindset of Christian leaders in protecting their belief system, I don't think Baigent and Leigh should be quickly dismissed as extreme. Some of their views on the connection between certain NT characters and DSS characters are highly interpretive, but their material on the international team working on the scrolls is far from fringe IMHO.

Mel

I will be gone for the day, but will get back to this thread, if needed, when I can.

Geoff Hudson

Kosh,

My theory is that Jesus and the cross were later developments on the back of a "Spirit of God" based religion that did initially succeed but was overtaken by events, particularly the war of the Jews in Judea against the Romans. Paul (imo the young Josephus) and James the leader of the Jerusalem assembly knew nothing of Jesus and the cross.

Perhaps I should classify myself as a partial mythicist, if by that you mean one of the Jesus Mysteries types. I see that there were real characters such as John the Prophet, James the Just, John THE BROTHER OF JAMES and Paul related to real events described in documents that were subsequently changed and garbled by later editors. In their theories, the "mythicists" such as Freke and Gandy generally ignore the Jewish background of the New Testament and its original characters, but they are probably correct to some extent about the mythical man-God Jesus. I differ in that I say that the mythical Jesus was grafted into the original Spirit-based religion of Christianity. The origin of that Spirit of God religion HAS a long Jewish historical justification going back to ancient times in the Old Testament.


May be Chapter 1 of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians looked something like this:

Chapter 1
Paul, called to be an apostle of the Spirit of God, and our brother Sosthenes: To the church of Corinthians
God in Corinth, to those sanctified in the Spirit and called to be pure. Grace and peace to you from God the Father the Lord and the Spirit.

I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in the Spirit. For in him you have been enriched in every way because our testimony about the Spirit was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for the Lord to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Spirit, is faithful.

I appeal to you, brothers, in the Spirit, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in the Spirit. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Ananus". Is the Spirit divided? Were you baptised in order to receive the one Spirit? I am thankful that I did not baptise anyone, so no-one can say that you were baptised by me. For God did not send me to baptise, but to preach the Spirit -- not with words of human wisdom, lest the Spirit of God be emptied of its power. For the message of the Spirit is foolishness to those who are condemned, but to us who have been called it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to call those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach the Spirit; a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, the Spirit is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish people of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak people of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly people of this world and the despised people, so that no-one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in the Spirit who has become for us our purification. Therefore, as the Spirit says: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

Note:

There was no practice of baptism in the Spirit religion, but it was practiced by a rival movement led by the High Priests of Jerusalem. Paul was glad that he had NOT baptised anyone so that no-one could say that they had received the Spirit of God by a physical act. Similarly, John the Prophet was not a baptist, but a rival High Priest was (it was "that man who was with you...he is baptising and everyone is going to him", John 3.26). When you see a non-specific phrase like "that man" you know that the editor has something to hide.

Geoff

CX

Naturally there is no way to know what the variant texts were in any comprhensive way. We have many extant variant MSS and most of the significant among those are listed in the critical apparatus of the critical Greek texts (NA27/UBS4 for example). In essence we cannot say with any degree of certainty what the complete Canonical NT said prior to the 4th century.

Of the 3rd century MSS I listed only P45 is a significant find. It contains fragments of all 4 gospels and acts amounting to a total of approximately 753 verses of the 7500+ verses total in the canonical NT.

Ultimately I think we can be reasonably sure of what the majority of the canon was and said once it was established by the orthodox church after Constantine. Prior to that though it's anybody's guess. In addition we should recall that heretical documents (i.e. any texts that did not meet with approval amongst the orthodoxy) a)where actively suppressed and destroyed b)would not have enjoyed the extensive copying and dissemination that canonical documents did.

History is written by the winners and this is no less true of the history of the Xian text legacy.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

The Admiral

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
[QB]Bagient and Leigh are....um...highly unreliable. Have you read their..er...fantastical book Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

Yes, I read this book some time back but do not have it in my library. My memory of it is that it was written as fiction. Am I wrong on this?

The Admiral

The Admiral

Good luck, but my experience tells me that it is impossible to embarrass a Christian apologist. They can stare a contradiction in the face, deny that it is a contradiction and not even blush. Lee Strobel's book, The Case For Christ, is a perfect illustration of this.

The Admiral