[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Orion Sadducees (MMT) et al
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Yirmiyahu Ben-David wrote:
> At 22:37 15/07/97 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> >I see no reason why there was not a close relationship between
> >"Evyonim" and Essenic "Evyonim" and that many Essenes both in Judea
> >Damascus became "proto-Christians."
> "Essenic 'Evyonim'" is an oxymoron. Eusebius, the Didache, et al.
> that the Evyonim and other 'proto-Christian' groups accepted the idea
> selective observance of (halakhah / ma'aseh / "Book of Decrees"),
> partial observance logically equivalent to partial rejection of the
Eusebius and the Didache are several centuries removed from the
"evyomim"as a self designation for the Essenes and found in the DSS
texts. At the time of
Eusebius "Ebionites" referred to a "heretical" group founded by a
heretic "Bishop Ebion." In this regard, we must define
"proto-Christian." It is the
term "Christian" that is an anachronism in referring to the time of the
or the immediate post-passion followers of Yeshua. Neither Yeshua, his
disciples and immediate followers were "Christians." If we utilize the
"Christian" for those immediate followers of Yeshua, we must remove the
Hellenistic, developed christologic sense of the word. In this format,
it is very
likely that "Christianity" in that sense, preceded Yeshua in the form
style of Enochian/Messianic Judaism into which they fit. Where is the
therefore between "pre-Christan" and "proto-Christian?" This is why I
the term "Yeshuine Judaism.
> This is diametrically antithetical to the Qumran Tzedoqim, if you're
> equating Essenes to Qumran Tzedoqim, and makes any transition from
> ultra-Torah-strict Qumran Tzedoqim to selectively-Torah-observant
> Torah, even if only partially) 'proto-Christian' impossible. There is
> continuity from legitimate Judaism of the period -- as defined by the
> undisputed authority, the Beyt Din Ha-Gadol whose decisions reflected
> "halakhah" (Mishnah?) of the three major sects -- and
I think the DSS texts clearly reflect disputation on "legitimate
Judaism" during the
2nd temple period. *IF* the "DSS people" were Essenes, as seems to be
and *IF* there was a cloistered community of Essenes at Qumran, and (and
is the biggest "if") *IF* the DSS corpus originated at Qumran, and this
argumentive..then the "Yeshuines" existed side by side with the "DSS
many parallels in their terminology and self designations. I have seen
that the "Jamesian" community of "Yeshuines" were not ultra-Torah
> It is the issue of selective observance which delineated
> 'proto-Christianity' of this period from legitimate Judaism of this
> -- the sine qua non.
> There is no evidence of the necessary transition between these
> opposites (except the "Two Poofs" explained in my books), and without
> evidence demonstrating the transition it is, therefore, non sequitur
> suggest that ultra-Torah-strict Qumran Tzedoqim (Essenes?) evolved
> partial- Torah-rejecting 'proto- Christians'.
These "proto-Christians" as I define the term, are as yet unaffected
by thePauline diversions and "higher Christology" as reflected by the
Virgin birth and trinitarian schemata. There is no "New Testament" at
this time other than,
perhaps an anthology of "Jesus sayings" in Aramaic and a partiality
the "Testament" and Wisdom literature such as the T12P and the WisSol.
the usage of "proto-Christian" momentarily as anachronistic, and using
Jews, they would have been indistinguishable from those ultra-Torah
> In fact, such an ultra-strict
> sect would be the last candidate. The best candidates to demonstrate
> lapsing into partial rejection of (Mishnah Torah?) would be
> Hellenists who, if they had any religious connection at all, most
> vaguely sympathized with the *Hellenist*-Roman Pseudo-Tzedoqim.
Can you give examples of partial rejection of Torah by the Jamesian
> With their
> demise following the destruction of the Beyt Ha-Miqdash, here we have
> candidates who fit the natural evolution of Jews already oriented both
> toward Romans and selective observance (if observant at all) of
> Torah. I've
> seen no evidence to suggest otherwise, no evidence to logically
> suggest any
> continuity between the Qumran group and 'proto-Christianity'
> whatsoever, and
> all the available evidence suggests that the Qumran Tzedoqim and
> 'proto-Christians' were diametric opposites.
Not if I am defining "proto-Christian" as the group of Yeshuines
predating,and later separate from, the Pauline diversion and the
destruction of 70 CE.
Please keep in mind that I am using the term "proto-Christian" in
anachronistic sense to define the immediate post-crucifixion followers
(Nazarenes) and the likelihood that the similarities between the
and Essenes (rather the "Qumran variey" or others) enhanced considerable
merging of followers.