Loading...As we used to say back when I was a committed Christian, with respect to prayer: Be careful what you ask for! So I asked for questions that you would like me to address, and I have been receiving them in droves. Some of them I will be able to answer very quickly as a response to the comment itself, some I will handle in a post – or more, depending on how complicated the matter is. (If I intend to answer them in a post, I won’t reply to the comment, just to save some time; but I’ll post the comment/question itself). In any event, I have plenty to keep me busy now for a while! I’ll probably address them in the order in which I received them. For today:
Question:
Can you write a post on how the Qumran Scrolls advance our understanding of the birth of Christianity?
Response:
This is a question that can be answered in one sentence, or in a very long and dense book or … anything in between. I’ll go with the in between, erring on the side of the short, for the sake of the post; but if anyone has follow-up questions, I can try to deal with those as well.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
This is the best Qumran / Jesus summary I have read. Very understandable to a person who appreciates simplicity. (that’s a compliment !!) Thank you.
Albert Schwitzer, He’s next on my reading list.
It’s a brilliant book.
What do you think of Robert Eisenman’s hypothesis that the DS Scrolls contain information about the historical James the Just and Paul (set out in his book “James, the Brother of Jesus”)? To a layman like me, his book sounds plausible, but it seems the carbon-dating of the scrolls tends to disagree… Thoughts?
I think Eisenman is very smart and interesting. But I don’t think there’s any way these views can be right. If you’re looking for the views of those who are experts and have devoted their lives to the study of the scrolls (i.e., the views almost everyone else has), I’d suggest reading the books by Geza Vermes (may he rest in peace), James Vanderkam, John Collins, Peter Flint, and — well, it’s an enormous list, and none of them thinks that the followers of Jesus had anything to do with the Scrolls, for pretty darn good reasons, that you’ll find in their writings.
Thanks. I will check out these guys.
What? You mean you can make such farfetched claims and not even make a brief list of what the “darn good reasons” are? How convenient! I doubt you know what Eisenman’s views actually are or that you have read much of what he’s written. If I’m wrong about that then why not state your own objections rather than dismissing him out of hand by appealing to the consensus opinions of men pretty much in sync with themselves. Or, better yet, why not identify what your scroll-writer “experts” think instead of sloughing off a scholar who is, indeed, “very smart and interesting”?
I’m sorry to offend! But I was asked what my views were, not what my arguments are. No reason to jump down my throat! You’re certainly welcome to your opinions. I hope they’ve been formed after having read a good deal of scholarship on the topic.
Okay. I hear you and I appreciate what you are saying. Maybe I am being somewhat overly sensitive about your comments that felt to me like “cheap shots” thrown at a friend and a historian I hold in high regard. I don’t much care that you disagree with his opinions, that’s fine, but there’s a certain level of condescension that appears or feels unwarranted.
Robert Eisenman deserves better treatment, or so I think, and, yes, I have read a good deal on the topic. I don’t claim to be a professional in this regard, but I know when someone is being unfairly dismissive in his or her judgments. All I’m trying to do here is acknowledge his authentic contribution to the topic at hand (i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls et al) and to make you aware of what comes across to me as a “holier than thou attitude.” When you say, “I don’t think there’s any way these views can be right,” and when you add there are other “experts” who have “devoted their lives to the study of the scrolls,” it implies much the opposite about him. Why? At least you might state with clarity, and without aspersion, how their views differ and why you think what they offer is superior to what Dr. Eisenman suggests.
Now to the crux of the matter. I’m sorry if I have offended you in any way. I guess what I’m looking for is your “arguments” rather than unsupported “judgments” of a fellow scholar. Please understand, this is a genuine question. I really want to know. 🙂
D.C.S.
OK, no problem. I may take it up at some point with some references. The basic line is that there appears to be no compelling reason to associate any of the figures in the Scrolls with, say, Jesus’ brother James, and given the normally ascribed dates, none of them can be referring to James.
Long time no talk… I’ve been in professional purgatory for a bit, but I am back now with more questions (I’ll update you about promoting your blog soon—that’s still going to happen). But my pressing question can be gleaned from this Carrier quote (where he unsurprisingly takes a shot at you):
“The evidence from the Talmud cannot be dismissed so easily. If b.Sanhedrin 98b explicitly says the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the messiah (and it does), and if b.Sanhedrin 93b says the messiah will endure great suffering (and it does), and b.Sukkah 52a-b likewise has a dying-and-rising “Christ son of Joseph” ideology in it (and it does), even saying (quoting Zechariah 12:10) that this messiah will be “pierced” to death (and it does), then my statement “only when Jews had no idea what Christians would do with this connection would they themselves have put it in there” becomes obviously correct: there is no plausible way later Jews would invent interpretations of their scripture that supported and vindicated Christians. They would not invent a Messiah with a father named Joseph who dies and is resurrected. They would not proclaim Isaiah 53 to be about the messiah and admit that Isaiah there predicted the messiah would die and be resurrected. That was the very chapter Christians were using to prove their case (and which scholars like Bart Ehrman keep insisting only Christians saw as messianic). So we have evidence here of a Jewish belief that predates Christian evangelizing, even if the evidence survives only in later sources.”
My basic question is “how do you respond?” But of course I’d like a terse response to each of his sources (i.e. b.Sanhedrin 98b, b.Sanhedrin 93b, b.Sukkah 52a-b) claiming you’re wrong. There are also two other claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls’ “Suffering Messiah scroll” further corroborates this idea and that the “Gabriel’s Revelation” stone shows evidence of a dying Messiah who will “rise” after three days. I thought the Talmud was written and reflecting views that post date Jesus (wasn’t its genesis caused by 70 CE? making it a doctrine developed after Jesus died?) I know some verses in the OT seem to show Jesus’ death if out of context passages are read ad hoc—BUT Carrier is claiming there’s good evidence to suggest Jews saw these as Messianic *before* Jesus which doesn’t seem to match the overall backdrop to me. Even if some remote Jews hiding in caves thought this, I don’t see how this means this was a common belief… as Paul seems to show no concept of this idea until after his vision of Jesus. Clearly Carrier has an interest in this because it aids the mythicist concept, but he does seem to “show his work” to the point that I think he needs to be answered seriously… so I guess I’m looking for your serious answer to Carrier’s over all challenge that at least some Jews looked for a suffering Messiah based on the OT before Jesus died…
I don’t think Jewish traditions from five hundred years later show you what Jews were thinking before the days of Jesus. THe DSS provide no clear evidence at all for a suffering messiah.
That’s what I thought too. I have five distinct areas where a small amount of clarification for each one would go a very long way in helping me understand the gestalt in which you see most likely (I’ve found I usually follow your line of reasoning and find your conclusions reasonable, even if I’m not fully convinced each time… For example you (or maybe really Crossan) have convinced me the tomb tradition might not be as secure as I thought, so thanks for that I guess!—I also finally saw your debate with Dr. Price… and all I can say is the mythicists couldn’t have been happy after it ended because that was a knockout if I’ve ever seen one… good job).
1. Does he (in your view) just *assume* the Talmud must represent what Jews believed in the first century sans any evidence other than he finds it hard to imagine Jews would assign messianic meanings to verses after Xians used them to argue for Jesus?
2. If this is his strongest argument, how do you answer that? It does seem odd, but odd things happen all of the time I suppose. If there’s no evidence outside of that, it’s hardly conclusive to say the least. It seems like a guy like Carrier would have a bit more, no?
3. In your view, what’s the meaning of the *supposed* “Suffering Messiah DSS” that refers to a messiah who is “cut off” (I guess not too dissimilar from Daniel). To whom or what do the “cut offs” in Daniel and the DSS refer to in their immediate historical contexts?
4. You say five hundred years later. I think some sources in the Talmud itself goes back to before the Common Era… so I assume you’re sure that the parts about a suffering messiah are not earlier than something like 500 CE? Is that basically correct?
5. Is it the scholarly consensus that *no evidence* exists for a suffering messiah until the Talmud five centuries after Jesus died?
Sorry — that’s too much for me to address in a comment! Could you pick one of your points and explicate it for me to address?
Sorry… How about these? (I think these are both yes/no answers):
1. You said five hundred years later. Some sources in the Talmud go back to before the Common Era… I assume you’re sure the parts about a “suffering messiah” are *not earlier* than something like 500 CE? Is this basically correct?
2. Is this the scholarly consensus?
Dating Talmudic sources is very, very complicated. But it is widely recognized today that it’s self-datings are not to be trusted and that even if it claims to be basing a ruling on what rabbi so-and-so said, who lived in, say, the second century, we can’t simply take that claim at face value. That in short is what above all Jacob Neusner has shown in literally hundreds of publications. There is very little indeed (anything?) in the Talmud that is relevant to Judaism in jesus’ own day.
OKay, thanks. So how do you reply to the argument that says the Jews wouldn’t take passages like Isaiah 53 as messianic after Christians used it so effectively for their own purposes. I’m sure there are many details here as well, but a basic overview of how you see it is still is still helpful…
I”m not sure if they “would” have or not really. My point is simply that none of them took it as messianic *before* Christians did so.
Understood. I’ll continue to study this on my own, but is your view the majority view? Not that I decide what’s true based on that, but it’s certainly wise to consider the evidence that causes the majority of professional scholars from diverse theological backgrounds to decide one view is very likely correct. I’m basically asking if Carrier is an outlier on pre-Christian messianic references to certain passages (e.g. Ps. 22, Is. 53, etc.) in a similar way he’s an outlier in regards to mythicism? (Jesus being crucified in outer space and all of that). I’d also be interested to hear a book recommendation for this particular subject… thanks!
Yes, of my hundreds of friends among professional biblical scholars, I can’t think of any who agree with Carrier on the quesiton of pre-Christain messianic references; and none of them gives mythicism any credence at all.
Good to know… interesting how his mythicist views actually have him aligning with Fundies at times… as you mentioned in your debate with Price, it’s somewhat similar to how both Swinburne and Carrier use Bayes’ theorem to “prove” their antithetical claims… Is there a book that you or another trusted scholar wrote that counters the specific claims of Carrier on this subject (pre-Xian messianic views of Is. 53 etc.)?
I deal with Carrier and other mythicists in my book Did Jesus Exist. But I have not responded to his subsequent book. No need to.
The phrase “Schweitzer’s knowledge of apocalypticism was based on his reading of slim portions of the Hebrew Bible (especially Daniel), but more importantly on intertestamental Jewish literature…” piqued my interest. How much background on apocalypticism was there at the time that Schweitzer was writing? If he was working primarily from the Bible, then wouldn’t it be a reflexive argument to say Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet (ie, wouldn’t the definition of apocalypticism be ‘…what Jesus was?’) Did this literature provide enough extra information to make that definition something else?
No, he wasn’t working mainly from the Bible. Scholars did know about apocalyptic thinking from the Jewish apocalypeses. And a few years before Schweitzer Johannes Weiss (another book in German!) argued that Jesus was principally an apoclaypticist proclaiming the coming kingdom.
I am glad that you seem to be feeling better.
First let me state that I have the highest regards for Eisenman and his work with the Dead Sea scrolls.
Next I will admit that his books would profit from a good editor. In my opinion he knows so much that when he writes he cannot let a single fact escape him. The result is that his writing becomes extremely complex and in some ways wanders down innumerable paths. However, with all the difficulties in following his books, I have found them extremely informative.
He is considered a maverick among many scholars who also have written regards the Dead Sea Scrolls, but i still find his arguments persuasive. Probably the main disagreements are over the dating of the writing of the scrolls. The carbon dating suggests that some of the material on which they were written predates the early Christian era, and yet the content of the text suggest material that is post Jesus and James and reflects the conditions just prior to the Roman war of 70 CE.
The Dead Sea Scrolls text references three people named as the Teacher of Righteousness, The wicked priest and the Spouter of Lies. The text says that the teacher of righteousness was killed by the wicked priest. Eisenman suggests James and Ananus could be these people. Anathema to most Christian scholars he suggests Paul as possible the Spouter of Lies as this person preaches against keeping the Mosaic Law.
Rather than reading Eisenman’s books I would suggest watching this interview to get a clearer overview of him and his expertise. Then buy and read his books … don’t rely on other scholars criticisms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4IieX5z24o
What about the similar ethos about reciting psalms 37 in Beatitude? The concern for the poor? Or how the Anavim will inherit the Earth? Maybe not the same, perhaps relative in influence no? Is not James & Jesus, & John the Baptist in the line of Zadok- supplanted by the Sadducees- as depicted in the Gospels- considered the reed a vivas of wicked priests in Qumran [House of Eli, priest of Absalom, etc]….