[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Thu, 14 Nov 96 09:15:24 PST, email@example.com writes:
>On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:08:48 -0600 Jack Kilmon wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:22:35 -0500 (EST) Jim West wrote:
[... snip, snip ... already related material omitted ...]
>>The immediate post-crucifixion Yeshuine Jews were not Christians. Their
>>leader Ya'aqov ben Yosef (ha-tsedek) was not a Christian. This group,
>>like Yeshua, were pious Jews. Evidence of a very possible close association
>>between the Netzarim/Evyonim and the Assaya/Evyonim will not come from a
>>sudden discovery of the Gospel of John in the DSS corpus. More likely
>>would be a closer examination of the very JEWISH texts that the Netzarim
>>held dear, like the "Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs" or the Wisdom
>I think you're quite right, of course. I thought I'd just wait for the
>"proof" of Christianity in the DSS to roll in. I expected an infinite
Not so. The evidence is much earlier. Saul/Paul, educated in Tarsus, was
a diaspora Jew, believing in what Schonfield called the Fourth Philosophy.
If we knew more of Gospeller John, the same would LIKELY be true, but we
have no proof. The case for the background of Paul is rich, as any review
of Schonfield's seminal studies show.
I take the view, because of my understanding of the aftermath of the
appearances of Jesus to His Followers post crucifixion, that Jesus and Paul
actually met at Qumran aka Damascus, knowing that Saul's warrant for arrest
of Jesus' Followers would not be valid in the Governor of Syria's ter-
ritory. The warrant, by report, was the High Priest's. That meeting led
to Saul becoming Paul and all that follows.
Both Paul's letters and Acts, the account of the beginning of his work,
came into being before 62-3 CE, the times of the deaths of James, Paul and
Peter. Some argue that the omission was to avoid calumny and worse from
the hands of the Romans. That argument falls on sterile ground here for
Paul's and Luke's pieces are full of anti-roman sentiments otherwise. No
need to dissemble as John did later with Revelation, for good reason, when
he informed on Domitian's blasphemy at Ephesus to the senate at Rome.
Even when you discount the Fourth Philosophy views of Paul, what remains is
no "pious Jew" of the Sammai sort, against whom by even the biased gospel
accounts He clearly railed. Had Paul not taken and promoted the views he
did, the outreaching views of Jesus might not have succeeded as they did.
This Pious Jew proposition is a revisionist post Jamnia Rabbinic attempt,
now revisited, to deny the clear meat of His Message. Paul/John redemp-
tionist view may be safely discarded. Jesus' views on the Law can't.
This is why DSS discussion must look for the signs Jim West was looking
for. Eisenman and others never seem to be quoted?