Archaeologica.org

We need to leave de Vaux behind

I have to stop you right there, Ish. I'd love to.

No one else will!!!

I would hazard that every word that came out of Eusebius' mouth was not a lie,

Of course not but he did have an agenda. He seems to be the guy who was trying to create a xtian presence with the Testimonium Flavianum being the principal effort on that score. Still...the dictum "when one lie is detected, 1,000 are suspected" comes into play.

Minimalist wrote:

I would hazard that every word that came out of Eusebius' mouth was not a lie,

Of course not but he did have an agenda.

Quelle horreur!

Every writer from the beginning of time has had an agenda, Min. Otherwise, who would pay us humble wordsmiths to write? I used to write for Rupert Murdoch ... now there's a guy with an agenda.

Anyway, methinks you have something of an agenda yourself in these matters .... n'est pas?

This is about who buried the scrolls

No argument. But anyone who ever went through Qumran (whether to visit the 'fort' or the 'pottery factory' ) would know of the caves. One does doubt that they assumed that they would be burying them for 1900 years. That seems to have been an accident.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about...which is normal...because it seems that we both agree that these are Jewish texts that have nothing to do with xtians. Therein lies the rub. This is becoming a battle royale between the Israeli archaeological structure and the former colonial archaeologists who had a decidedly xtian point of view. As noted in this discussion from a xtian website (which does, btw, include a link to the NY TImes story on Magen and Peleg's work) it is the West which is not at all inclined to give up the "monastery" outlook.

http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2006/08/tho ... umran.html

What we really have is the "fact" that a bunch of Jewish texts were found in caves "near" Qumran. There was human activity at Qumran for quite a period of time leading up to the Great Revolt. After that....the "facts" start to get a little foggy.

To my mind, this is a little like attributing the Sphinx to Khafre because it is "near" the Second Pyramid at Giza.

Ishtar wrote:

Minimalist wrote:

I would hazard that every word that came out of Eusebius' mouth was not a lie,

Of course not but he did have an agenda.

Quelle horreur!

Every writer from the beginning of time has had an agenda, Min. Otherwise, who would pay us humble wordsmiths to write? I used to write for Rupert Murdoch ... now there's a guy with an agenda.

Anyway, methinks you have something of an agenda yourself in these matters .... n'est pas?

Absolutely, my dear. I wish to wage a war against "certainty."

Bloody hell ... we're in agreement!

How did that happen?

Ishtar wrote:Bloody hell ... we're in agreement!

How did that happen?

Want to go back and start over?

Minimalist wrote:

Ishtar wrote:Bloody hell ... we're in agreement!

How did that happen?

Want to go back and start over?

No argument MIN.
Babylon had a large Jewish population.
That is why Peter went there to preach.
(There is a complete lack of evidance he ever was in Rome.)
But we don't have any "Babylon Scrolls."
We do have the Babylon Talmud, but that isn't Scripture.

Those Jews in Babylon would have been maintaining their traditions during the period after the sacking of the temple. They were doing so in relative peace. In addition to the Romans crushing the revolts in 66 and 135 there was an intervening Jewish revolt c 120 AD which occurred outside of Judaea. The point is that maintaining continuity of the texts is not so mystical when one understands that there was a highly successful school doing just that in Babylon.

Bart Ehrman (and others) have convincingly demonstrated that there are numerous errors in NT texts. The problem there is that some of these "errors" are not errors but deliberate editing.

I have no argument with your history Min.
It is right on.

I would note, however, that there are no NT books in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
They are all Jewish (OT) stuff.

Absolutely, kb. A fact which has not stopped Christian writers from looking for hints or echos of early Christianity in the DSS.

Also, let's not forget that another Israeli scholar, Rachel Elior, suggested not too long ago that the Essenes were figments of Josephus' imagination.



(I find that one to be quite a stretch.)

You cannot have “Christianity” without a Christ.
And Jesus wasn’t born (or at least not an adult) when most of the scrolls were written.

The most you could have in the DSS was a “messianic hope.”
Or the belief that a messiah would appear.
But then, the whole OT is that.

Based on the Daniel prophecies, there were a whole lot of Jews expecting a messiah in the 30 AD time frame.
That is why there are a lot of references to “false messiahs” in the NT.

But those looking for “early Christianity” in the DSS are barking up the wrong tree.

At least, that is, if they are looking for the real Christianity.
That is, a spiritual, not a physical/political “messiah.

That is the mistake most of the Jewish population made regarding Jesus.
And that is why he was rejected when he didn’t “take on” the Romans.
The phrase "My Kingdom is no part of this world" went right over their heads.

You cannot have “Christianity” without a Christ.

Sure you can, if you make it up.