[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

orion Re: Jack Kilmon & Essene Christians

Yirmiyahu Ben-David wrote:

> At 09:51 23/07/97 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> >    By the Christian DSS scholars based on the real or perceived
> parallels
> in >practice and vorlage.  Read the earliest reports and publications,
>
> >particularly of the 50's.  Read Charlesworth.  Read Schiffman who
> titles
> his >book "Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls."
>
> MMT has rendered a lot of reports more recent than the 50's
> obsolete.   I
> read Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha  back in the mid 1980's.  It was
> magnificent, due in no small measure to many terrific contributing
> editors.
> Before that I read Charles' edition of of the Pseudepigrapha.
> Charlesworth's next book ('J~sus in Judaism') showed a shocking
> failure to
> grasp the rudiments in this area.  Have you read Qimron's analysis of
> MMT
> yet?  I think you should deal with the issues rather than presuming to
>
> divert me to go read obsolete publications.  If you're representing
> that
> Schiffman argues that the Essenes were Christian I'd very much like to
>
> analyze his evidence and reasoning in those sections of his work.

    Where in the pluperfect holy smoke do you get the impression I
representSchiffman as arguing the Essenes were Christian?  I represented
Schiffman as
"Reclaiming" the DSS to Judaism from a primarily Christian scholarship
that
formulated much of the earlier opinion.  Has my communication skills
deteriorated
this much or are you completely reading past what I post in order to
present
some agenda of your own?


>   Perhaps
> you can cite from Schiffman where he supports your assertion  that the
>
> Essenes were Christians?  From what I've heard Schiffman say I suspect
> that
> he would complain extremely vigorously that your insinuation
> misrepresents him.

    Since I have never asserted that the Essenes were Christian nor
representedSchiffman as doing the same, I haven't the vaguest idea what
you are talking...
er...typing about.

> The KKK are Christians who wear white robes and spout their Scriptures
> too.
> Should we assume that, therefore, they're the main trunk of
> Christianity
> tracing back to the Essenes?   Parallels serve to suggest a line of
> investigation, not substitute assumptions and assertions in place of
> gathering evidence and logical reasoning.  Demonstrating a connection
> between Christianity and the Essenes requires demonstrating the
> *distinguishing* characteristics in the Essene practice and/or
> doctrines--
> the sine qua non.

    Again, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

> It's my understanding that neither of these authors you cite have
> addressed
> the sine qua non of selective observance, the characteristic
> delineating
> Christianity (and proto-Christianity) from Judaism.  Consequently,
> neither
> Charlesworth nor Schiffman, nor anyone else, can defend an
> Essene-Christian
> connection without showing evidence of selective observance among the
> Essenes.  If they show this, then an Essene-DSS connection is
> completely
> impossible as the Essenes would then have been shown antithetical to
> the DSS
> sect.

    Let me again try to assist you in really reading what I said in my
original post.I was discussing the relationship between present day
scholars and the DSS
texts.  I took a moment to quote some of the texts that exemplified the
beauty
of their words and to reflect on  READING the texts as well as studying
them.

    I said nothing about the Essenes being Christians...I remarked that
the earliest
*scholars* who set the trends of DSS scholarship for so long were
Christians.

> Anyone wishing to demonstrate, rather than assume, your claimed
> Essene-
> Christian connection will discover that the sine qua non delineating
> the two
> has absolutely everything to do with it, Charlesworth, Schiffman, or
> anyone
> else notwithstanding.

    First of all, an Essene-Christian "connection" is not the same as
the silly notion
that the Essenes were Christians but the "sine qua non" that seems to be
delineating
you and I is your inability to remotely grasp what I write or its
intent.  Either my
communication skills has suffered some major bouts of entropy in the
last few years
or you are overzealously re-interpreting my posts in order to present an
agenda
of intense personal passion.

    So we can put this discussion back on some reasonable track, take
the time to
list what it is you THINK my positions are as you have interpreted (or
re-interpreted)
them.  Then outline your positions on what you believe my positions are.

    I will be glad to address them one by one.

Jack Kilmon
jpman@accesscomm.net