Quote:
|
Quote by: PatrickHenry Agreed, Sonart. I find it puzzling also. One of many questions I have that hasn't received an answer from God, yet.
And you have always been a gentleman on these types of topics..I was referring to Gorgo and Starboy, who are undoubtedly troubling some other forum just about now.
If people find a topic uninteresting they should refrain from posting, not take to insults. But some folks find faith an irresistible target... |
I will go through the book slowly and point out highlights. I will request this thread be policed carefully. It is an academic discussion more than a debate as such. Debate will be more on a higher level than the usual seige warfare with screaming cats launched from catapults.
I want make it clear that I do not necessarily agree with all of Eisenman's conclusions, and do believe that he offers considerable insight into the language and terminology of the Qumran community and the nature of the movement in history regardless of whether his conclusions are correct concerning their relationship to Christ and James.
I will reference the pages in the book I refer to to make it easier for others to follow my posts in the discussion.
It is true that the documents (DSS) may have different sources, but nontheless the library was likely that of one community. It would be logical that such a library would be eclectic in nature and then include the writings of the community itself.
My first comments will be about how Eiseman himself and how he considers different sources.
Eiseman is a skeptical scholar and he claims to consider all sources equally, whether gospel, Rabbinic traditions, or non-traditional Christian writings. He asserts that Rabbinic and Christian sources should be accorded the same credibility because neither is better attested to objectively historically. These assumptions, which I endorse, would not comfortable with most apologetic Christian scholars. He does put more credance into the likelyhood that James' Letter was indeed written by James the Just (brother of Jesus), which a lot skeptical scholars today question.
Eisman spends a lot of time dealing with the problem of the literary genre and literary devices used, particularly the 'Hebrew love of word-play', which may make it difficult for some to follow. He spends a great deal of effort in comparing different sources in long footnotes to deal with this problem. This is the main part that I find him potentially helpful in improving my understanding of the DSS and the Bible as well.
The two basic concepts of Hesed (Piety, Loving God) and Zedek (Righteousness), are important themes that occur throughout the documents as pillars of justification used against what is referred to as the evil 'opposition'.
One of the first subject Eiseman addresses is who are the Essenes (Hassidim), Saducees, Maccabees, Zadokites (Zaddikim), Ebionites (Ebionim), 'the Saints' (Kedoshim), Zealots (Kanna'im), Nazoreans (Nazrim) and Pharisees? Sometimes the distinction is easy to make other times it is not always that clear.
The rest of this post will deal primarily with the Zadokites pp 15-22.
The Zadokite priesthood is one of the central themes of authority in the DSS and very important to understanding the nature of the Qumran community as described by Eisenman, with also a possible genelogical relationship. The origins are traced to the Book of Ezekiel. They are the ones 'responsible for keeping the covenent and following the law'. The reference to Moreh ha-Zedek (Son(s) of Zadok [Zedek, Zaddik]) in the DSS are likely the same as those referred to as the 'Order of Melchizedek in the Bible.
This relates to Christ because Jesus Christ is referred to as the 'suffering Zaddik' in early Jewish 'Christology'. Eisenman compares the references in the Damascus Document and Qumran hymns with Pauline views, Isa. 53, and Ezek. 44:15.
It is at this point Eisenman brings in his controversial first direct reference to James the brother of Jesus a having the title 'the Zaddik' (which he does refer here to it being debatable.), then considering James to be the possible genealogical succesor to Jesus. Here he footnotes sources not well accepted by traditional scholars. I admit at this point I cannot follow his reasoning clearly in the footnotes, because I am not familiar with the sources he cites.