Paul�s basket escape from Damascus (Robert Eisenman)

[robrecht]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFTGW...vD_lYW6CibCtCw

A slightly different translation is here:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm
It says:-
Of those who are to be excluded.
Anyone who refuses to enter the (ideal) society of God and persists in walking in the stubbornness of his heart shall not be admitted to this community of God's truth. For inasmuch as his soul has revolted at the discipline entailed in a knowledge of God's righteous judgments, he has shown no real strength in amending his way of life, and therefore cannot be reckoned with the upright. The mental, physical and material resources of such a man are not to be introduced into the stock of the community, for such a man 'plows in the slime of wickedness' and 'there are stains on his repentance'. He is not honest in resolving the stubbornness of his heat. On paths of light he sees but darkness/ Such a man cannot be reckoned as among those essentially blameless. He cannot be cleared by mere ceremonies of atonement, nor cleansed by any waters of ablution, nor sanctified by immersion in lakes of rivers, nor purified by any bath. Unclean, unclean he remains so long as he rejects the government of God and refuses the discipline of communion with Him. For it is only through the spiritual apprehension of God's truth that man's ways can be properly directed. Only thus can all his iniquities be shriven so that he can gaze upon the true light of life. Only through the holy spirit can he achieve union with God's truth and be purged of all his iniquities. Only by a spirit of uprightness and humility can his sin be atoned. Only by the submission of his soul to all the ordinances of God can his flesh be made clean. Only thus can it really be sprinkled with waters of ablution. Only thus can it really be sanctified by waters of purification. And only thus can he really direct his steps to walk blamelessly through all the vicissitudes of his destiny in all the way of God in the manner which He has commanded, without turning either to the right or to the left and without overstepping any of God's words. Then indeed will he be acceptable before God like an atonement-offering which meets with His pleasure, and then indeed will he be admitted to the covenant of the community for ever.

There's no question in my mind that John the Baptizer (and Jesus) came from this milieu, but we cannot be sure of any identifification with the specific community at Qumran, which we know had relationships (and disputes) with other like-minded individuals and groups that did not live in the community. Josephus supposedly spent time with someone named Banas who was probably similar. The biggest difference between Christian baptism and the practice of the community at Qumran seems to be that the latter practiced repeated and frequent ablutions to clense one from ritual impurity, whereas Christian baptism is only the beginning, once and for all, of a new Halakah (way of walking according to the Law), which would certainly not have been approved by Qumran, or by those Pharisees that had similar views. I may be wrong, but I think Eisenman has an overly monolithic view of the Pharisees, whereas I think that some would indeed have been very like minded with the people of Qumran. It is relatively easy to see the differences (and similarities) between Jesus and the Jews of Qumran, but John the Baptizer is a little more mysterious, probably somewhere in between Jesus and Qumran. Now, some early converts to Christianity may very well have been from Qumran-like thinkers, but it does not seem like all Christian Jews were of this mindset.

By the way, the last couple of minutes of this video are hilarious, when both Hanan Eshel and Eisenman have their own microphones and are both talking and not listening to a word the other is saying. I agree with Eisenman in being willing to see first century CE dynamics in the scrolls. There were redactions that can support multiple, evolving interpretations. But be wary of any all encompassing historical theories.

[firstfloor]

There's no question in my mind that John the Baptizer (and Jesus) came from this milieu, but we cannot be sure of any identifification with the specific community at Qumran, which we know had relationships (and disputes) with other like-minded individuals and groups that did not live in the community. Josephus supposedly spent time with someone named Banas who was probably similar. The biggest difference between Christian baptism and the practice of the community at Qumran seems to be that the latter practiced repeated and frequent ablutions to clense one from ritual impurity, whereas Christian baptism is only the beginning, once and for all, of a new Halakah (way of walking according to the Law), which would certainly not have been approved by Qumran, or by those Pharisees that had similar views. I may be wrong, but I think Eisenman has an overly monolithic view of the Pharisees, whereas I think that some would indeed have been very like minded with the people of Qumran. It is relatively easy to see the differences (and similarities) between Jesus and the Jews of Qumran, but John the Baptizer is a little more mysterious, probably somewhere in between Jesus and Qumran. Now, some early converts to Christianity may very well have been from Qumran-like thinkers, but it does not seem like all Christian Jews were of this mindset.

By the way, the last couple of minutes of this video are hilarious, when both Hanan Eshel and Eisenman have their own microphones and are both talking and not listening to a word the other is saying. I agree with Eisenman in being willing to see first century CE dynamics in the scrolls. There were redactions that can support multiple, evolving interpretations. But be wary of any all encompassing historical theories.

[robrecht]

I largely agree with Eisenman on this point as well, except Pauline Christianity, at least during the time of Paul, was thoroughly and completely Jewish in my opinion, messianic Jewish, to be sure, whereas Qumran Jewish was still waiting for their Messiahs, and Paul seems to have seen the fulfillment of the Law very similarly to Jesus and the Letter of James, which Qumran thoroughly rejected. To understand Paul in his Jewish context, one one must abandon the 16th century polemics of Luther and his contemporizing and anti-Semitic exegesis of Paul. Paul was thoroughly hellenized, no doubt, but so was the Jewish government in Judea, and so was much of Galilee at the time of Jesus.

[firstfloor]

I was wondering about the possibility that Jesus was taken away by James for reburial at Qumran and found this:
http://craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf