Dead Sea Scrolls and First Christians

[shunyadragon]

This thread is intended to be a discussion on a book I just finished and I am reading again called The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians by Robert Eisenman. It is an interesting book, but a bit difficult to read because it is a bit heavy into Hebrew and other Biblical languages. If the moderators would please note, that I would like this thread to be open to everyone included atheists and agnostics. The Comparative Religions section should be more open, but sometimes I have seen non-theists excluded.

The book presents a somewhat radical view of the community that compiled the Dead Sea scrolls than previous scholars have concluded. The previous works I had read before I came to China did not clearly draw these radical conclusions presented in this volume, though I had read of some claims to this new apparoch to the scrolls before I left.

The book concludes that the Dead Sea scrolls were the library of an early Christian Messianic Movement living at Qumran in the 1st century. The movement at Qumran is depicted as one of several or many rebellious zealote communities at the time rebelling against the establishment. The book concludes that the 'Righteous teacher' was none other than James the Just. He further concludes that the 'Wicked Priest' or the enemy may be Paul (pre-conversion Paul?).

The book does present an interesting picture of the Holy Lands of the time occupied by Rome, The Pharisees and there allies are portrayed as compromisers and selling out to Greek and Roman influences polluting the true pure Hebrew faith and desicrating the temples with foreign gifts, ornaments and influence. The Pharisees are described 'seeking accomidations with foreigners'.

The book also alludes to a possible controversy within early Christianity that is also alluded to in the Bible, and that is whether Christianity was a Jewish movement or a Hebrew-Gentile movement.

Was James the Just the advocate of a pure Jewish only movement, and Paul the advocate of a Jewish-Gentile movement?

[Technosoul]

In an interview conducted by Playboy they asoked John Lennon for his views about the Christian religion, he told them that he thought Jesus had set forth some good ideas but hat Paul had altered and messed up the message, he said that people also did that in nearly all the religions (Buddha and so forth) and so the prueness of the original concepts have been poluted by the followers of any given faith.

An interesting experiment to conduct is the 'gossip train' experiment. You get a bunch of people. The first guy would whisper something in the ears of the first person on this right, each person in the circle group would then pass on the news (whispering) to the next person, and by time the words got back to the orginator you would see if the words are the same or not. You would be surprised how altered the first words become by the time they reach the last person in line.

That is what Jesus was talking about when he said "woe unto the scribes" - because he knew that they were adding or altering the first writings as they passed them on from generation to generation (being that each scroll was hand-written at the time). John also was aware of that and warned people not to add or subtract any verses from his 'book of revelations". As an aid to preventing those changes from happening they started to number each verse and chapter, so we can know if something was left out or added. But even that was not fool proof.

The more modern gentile version of the Christian movement was founded by Paul, not really by Jesus. And should be called "Paulian instead of Christian", but because the teachings of Paul were added on to the original texts, his interpretations have been given equal status with those of Jesus and other "acceptable" early followers of the messages of Jesus. Which is like adding grape juice to pure spring water, creating a different taste.

[PatrickHenry]

Shunyadragon, I am not familiar with the work you cited, but I just ordered it from Amazon. I anticipate its arrival in a few days, then a few more days before I will be able to comment on the subject. I won't clutter up the thread with posts that don't have relevance to the question.

But let me take this opportunity to state my esteem for you and your views. You are one of the infrequently-sighted members whose reappearance is heartening to me.

I am a little apprehensive to the inclusion in the debate here of those who don't acknowledge God. We have had some serious cases of disrespect on volconvo in the past by some now-banned members. But the process of defending legitimate discussion from those who just wanted to provoke heat instead of light was a chore.

I hope to contribute some thoughtful posts here in a week or so.

To those of us who don't know shunyadragon or remember his days as a moderator here, allow me to offer his article on Shenyang: http://218.25.39.149/746029634562293.../1160006.shtml

[Technosoul]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Shunyadragon, I am not familiar with the work you cited, but I just ordered it from Amazon. I anticipate its arrival in a few days, then a few more days before I will be able to comment on the subject. I won't clutter up the thread with posts that don't have relevance to the question. But let me take this opportunity to state my esteem for you and your views. You are one of the infrequently-sighted members whose reappearance is heartening to me. I am a little apprehensive to the inclusion in the debate here of those who don't acknowledge God. We have had some serious cases of disrespect on volconvo in the past by some now-banned members. But the process of defending legitimate discussion from those who just wanted to provoke heat instead of light was a chore. I hope to contribute some thoughtful posts here in a week or so. To those of us who don't know shunyadragon or remember his days as a moderator here, allow me to offer his article on Shenyang: http://218.25.39.149/746029634562293.../1160006.shtml

Pat - here is a short cut while you await the book in the mail. the link webpage seems to give a rather detailed account of the book by Eiseman, other posters here can also find out more. James was of course also the son of Mary and brother of Jesus.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: PatrickHenry I am a little apprehensive to the inclusion in the debate here of those who don't acknowledge God.

Me being one of them, although I do try to show as little disrespect to belief as I can.

I will probably not read Eisenman's book, simply because I don't find the minutiae of ancient gnostic religious dogma all that fascinating. What does fascinate me, however, is that the Dead Sea scrolls seem to be among a wealth of competeing scriptures, some contradictory, that were eventually cherry-picked in the Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD, to create the New Testament.

Odd that the written Word of God should be the result of such a pedestrian political process.


.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Sonart Odd that the written Word of God should be the result of such a pedestrian political process.

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...

[shunyadragon]

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.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Shunya Debate will be more on a higher level than the usual seige warfare with screaming cats launched from catapults.

:) :) Awwww, and I was so looking forward to that. Sorry, the ball was just sitting there... had to kick it.

As I said, I doubt that I'll read Eisenman's book, but I am enjoying your synopsis, Shunya, and look forward to more. I did a quick Wikipedia review of James the Just, to familiarize myself. Very interesting.

.

[Zhavric]

The book also alludes to a possible controversy within early Christianity that is also alluded to in the Bible, and that is whether Christianity was a Jewish movement or a Hebrew-Gentile movement.

Sounds like the book is pretty close to what actually was going on back then.

It's important to understand the context of that era. The Romans had just put down a Jewish rebellion and were taxing individuals in the region in question just for being Jewish. Claiming to be a Jew meant higher taxes. Renouncing Judaism meant lower taxes.

To make a very long story summarized, Christianity came from a movement to "re-judify" Judea. What we would consider to now to be early Christians were actually Jews who were trying to invent a new branch of Judaism based on "Yeshua ha Notzrim" which people would want to follow... even if they were persecuted.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric Sounds like the book is pretty close to what actually was going on back then.

I believe the book offeres insight into the culture, beliefs, and political situation of 1st century Judea under Roman rule. The conclusions of the book are somewhat open to debate. Apologetic Christians on other sites found this book and the discussion unsettling.

It's important to understand the context of that era. The Romans had just put down a Jewish rebellion and were taxing individuals in the region in question just for being Jewish. Claiming to be a Jew meant higher taxes. Renouncing Judaism meant lower taxes.

Correct context is important, and the schism in Judaism between the establishment Hellenists and the traditional factions that rejected Roman and Greek influence and control are important to this discussion.

To make a very long story summarized, Christianity came from a movement to "re-judify" Judea. What we would consider to now to be early Christians were actually Jews who were trying to invent a new branch of Judaism based on "Yeshua ha Notzrim" which people would want to follow... even if they were persecuted.

I believe this touches on some issues in the discussion, but it is a little too simplistic.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: shunyadragon I believe this touches on some issues in the discussion, but it is a little too simplistic.

Oh, there's a lot more to the story, but that's the basic motivation. The temple was thoroughly corrupted by the Romans. The Jews were being taxed just for being Jewish. The big rebellion had failed.

Jews had to find a way to get people to want to be Jewish again. There are other chapters of the tail, but without that introductory motivation, none of them make sense.

Does your book mention Philo of Alexandria?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric Oh, there's a lot more to the story, but that's the basic motivation. The temple was thoroughly corrupted by the Romans. The Jews were being taxed just for being Jewish. The big rebellion had failed. Jews had to find a way to get people to want to be Jewish again. There are other chapters of the tail, but without that introductory motivation, none of them make sense. Does your book mention Philo of Alexandria?

I do not want to get too far ahead, but yes good old Philo is mentioned and his family of Hellenized Jews. Quit wealthy and powerful.

[Zhavric]

What does it have to say about Philo? I am very curious about that subject.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric What does it have to say about Philo? I am very curious about that subject.

Basically the book brings in Philo in when it discusses the powerful Herodian Hellenized Jewish family network of relationships from Asia Minor to Egypt and on to Rome with their Pro-Roman policies and relationships.

"It is also interesting to consider Herodian links with the Hellenized Alabarch in Alexandria. In the generation we are examining, the family of the latter not only produced the famous Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, but was considered the "Richest in Egypt, controlling the all-important graineries there and commerce in the Red Sea ports. It was also instrumental in Vespasian's rise to power in Rome." p. 232 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians by Robert Eisenman

This network of relationships gets more involved with the early history of Christianity and Paul, but to go to far gets ahead of the game.

[Zhavric]

Put aside the stories that don't match up.

Put aside the ridiculously impossible claims.

Put aside everything that makes the Jesus myth obviously false and the biggest evidence that Jesus of the bible never existed is Philo of Alexandria.

He lived at the time Jesus allededly was alive.

He wrote about Hellenized Jews and was interested in Grecko-Roman religion as it pertained to Judaism. We know that he visited the area that Jesus allegedly existed.

Yet, despite that, he managed to miss (according the bible) an incarnate god who came back from the dead, raised people from the dead and had the popularity / infamy of a rock star.

Imagine someone telling you that Superman showed up at the corner of Main and First and saved everyone in a burning building and was awarded the key to the city by the mayor... Then imagine finding someone who blogs about superheroes who lives in the building across the street from where the blaze was who never mentioned the fire or Superman showing up.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric Put aside the stories that don't match up. Put aside the ridiculously impossible claims. Put aside everything that makes the Jesus myth obviously false and the biggest evidence that Jesus of the bible never existed is Philo of Alexandria. He lived at the time Jesus allededly was alive. He wrote about Hellenized Jews and was interested in Grecko-Roman religion as it pertained to Judaism. We know that he visited the area that Jesus allegedly existed. Yet, despite that, he managed to miss (according the bible) an incarnate god who came back from the dead, raised people from the dead and had the popularity / infamy of a rock star. Imagine someone telling you that Superman showed up at the corner of Main and First and saved everyone in a burning building and was awarded the key to the city by the mayor... Then imagine finding someone who blogs about superheroes who lives in the building across the street from where the blaze was who never mentioned the fire or Superman showing up.

I am familar with Philo and this problem, but this is not the subject of the thread.

If you have any thing to offer in terms of quotes from Philo concrening the situation in in Palistine in the 1st century, Herodian lineage, Hellenized Jews at the tim in Palistine, and Paul it would be helpful.

Philo would be a good topic for a thread.

[Athena]

Quote by: Sonart . Me being one of them, although I do try to show as little disrespect to belief as I can. I will probably not read Eisenman's book, simply because I don't find the minutiae of ancient gnostic religious dogma all that fascinating. What does fascinate me, however, is that the Dead Sea scrolls seem to be among a wealth of competeing scriptures, some contradictory, that were eventually cherry-picked in the Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD, to create the New Testament. Odd that the written Word of God should be the result of such a pedestrian political process. .

Not odd, that the bible coming out of Nicaea is as it is. The Roman's had long applied the Law of Nature to legal matters. They ruled over many city/states each having their own legal systems, and often people from different city/states would have legal conflicts. In Roman court, they took what was common in both legal systems to come to a legal decision. The Nicaea council applied this same principle to religion. They took what was common from many sources and declared it to be God's truth. No deciet was intended. It was just a method for determining truth or what is best. Like democracy- majority rules.
If this is what most people think, then it must be so. At least it is the best reasoning we have.

This included ancient Sumerian stories carried by Hebrews, Egyptian theology, the mysticism from Persia, and Hellenic philosophy making Christianity decidedly different from Judaism.

I don't think Christianity would have survived if I hadn't been for Paul making it okay for non circumcised people to be considered part of the new faith. Remember that circumsicion was about God's covenant with his chosen people. I don't think this should have been changed, and I think Christians should follow the bible more closely.

I'll be back with information about Hellenized Jews, do you want anything else?

[Athena]

I am quoting from Ancient Education and Today, by E.B. Castle

First comes the explanation of the synagogue and how adults and not children were taught from the sacred books, the Law to the body of the people, which I am skipping over to get to the point. Basically the children's education was up to the parents, and not a Jewish controlled education, as the synagogue education was for adults. As Roman children's education also was up to the parents. Whereas the Greeks had public education for children, called gymnasiums.

Even this firm foundation of religious conditioning failed to withstand the inroads of Hellenism into Jewish society. In the third century Greek settlements had appeared all over Palestine, even within the Holy City itself, and municpal government was organized on Greek models. In the second century the Jews of Alexandria had produced their own Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint written by 'the seventy', for they had long ceased to speak their own language. Many Jews in Palestine fell before the blandishments of this new and attractive culture. For the young generation the most potent Hellenizing influence was the appearance in Jersalem of a Greek gymnasium, violently attractive to the gilded youth in its gay and sporting life, but equally seductive by the new learning it purveyed. To the horror of the pious, young men adopted the Greek practice of running in the games completely naked. It was the despicable Jason, 'that ungldly man and no high priest', who was responsibble for this betrayal. But this was the culmination of Greek influence, not the beginning. For the Hellenised Jews had become an even more dangerous enemy to Judaism than the Hellenized Egyptian monarchy that ruled Syria at this time. They were the fifth colunm, as the sordid intrigues recorded in the books of Maccabees make evident. For a century Judaism was in jeopardy, but in the end the superb courage of the Chasidim and Pharasees, and solid fabric of popular adult education proved just sufficient to prevent disaster. The attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes ro eradicate Judaism by force precipeated the fiece natonalistic revolt of the Maccabees in 168 B.C., which resulted in the first separation of Jewish education from the Graeco-Roman world

.

To get to the point, the Jews began educating their own children for the first time; to teach them to reject Hellenism and the ways of the world that were not the way of Judaism.

[Athena]

Septuagint: The ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. An old testament source for early Christians. Credible proof for Messianic prophecy. www.septuagint.net/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Part of the problem with the bible is the orginal Hebrew writting, didn't use verbs. Only the rabbi trained to know the meaning of these anceint writings could know the meaning of this writting without verbs. The Septuagint used for the Christian bible is a Greek translation of Jewish books, and the bible is full of Greek concepts.

In the beginning is the word

is Greek not Hebrew.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Athena Not odd, that the bible coming out of Nicaea is as it is. The Roman's had long applied the Law of Nature to legal matters. They ruled over many city/states each having their own legal systems, and often people from different city/states would have legal conflicts. In Roman court, they took what was common in both legal systems to come to a legal decision. The Nicaea council applied this same principle to religion. They took what was common from many sources and declared it to be God's truth. No deciet was intended. It was just a method for determining truth or what is best. Like democracy- majority rules. If this is what most people think, then it must be so. At least it is the best reasoning we have. This included ancient Sumerian stories carried by Hebrews, Egyptian theology, the mysticism from Persia, and Hellenic philosophy making Christianity decidedly different from Judaism. I don't think Christianity would have survived if I hadn't been for Paul making it okay for non circumcised people to be considered part of the new faith. Remember that circumsicion was about God's covenant with his chosen people. I don't think this should have been changed, and I think Christians should follow the bible more closely. I'll be back with information about Hellenized Jews, do you want anything else?

I agree that the Roman compilation of the Bible was not dishonest as such, but I do not consider it totally democratic as majority rules. Rome was ruled by Republican pyramid structure, and Roman and Hellenistic philosophy was dominant and largely decided the outcome of the Council of Nicaea.

The significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the represent the only significant Biblical scriptural resource that would not be considered Romanized or Hellenized.

My next post will concern dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.