Religous debates and questions

When I began many years ago taking an interest in it I didnt really have a point of view, but I was looking to form one- took a lot longer than I expected and a lot more books and thinking.
My own view of it kind of formed out of gut feeling and connecting dots. And some of it there is no evidence for whatsoever beyond it connects two points and makes some sense of them.
Whether its the right sense is another matter altogether however.
Mainly I try to put my head there. A young man, out to change the world (weren't we all) knowing better than all those who have gone before-seeing all the obvious problems with the world and how easy it would be to fix them, part of a movement of people who thought alike, had heated debates late into the night where they reshaped the world into a better place.
Not entirely unlike some of the movements in the 1960's really only religous.
When I do that and get my head in that space and I think about what was going on in Jesus time and around it historically, I kind of feel like I get him.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
When I do that and get my head in that space and I think about what was going on in Jesus time and around it historically, I kind of feel like I get him.

A lot of people have felt that before you. It's one of the things that draws people to Christianity.

Not to distract you from the narrative, but I'm curious how you draw the links from Joseph, John, and Jesus to the Essenes.

I dont have the relevant notes for that stuff to hand as I only dug out the ones pertanent to the NT analysis (I've folders and folders of notes taken over years which are all filed somewhere between badly to not at all).
However one aspect is the similarity of some of the teachings ascribed to Jesus to some of the teachings of the Essenes. The strong desire on behalf of those who set out the biblical birth account to include both the older astronomical significance of the time of birth-thats very essene- and the presence of the magi in the story- that all points towards the essene mystery school thinking on astronomy and calendars.
The insistiance on connecting Joseph and Jesus to David even though that contravenes the actual divine birth story being told also points to the essenes- they considered themselves the only legitamete priets and kings as ordained by Moses. Any association with Aaron or David in Jesus time would therefore be naturally with the essenes- theres more too but thats off the top of my head.

I'm not an expert here, but I think the Qumran/Essene debate is still being debated, right? Have historians ever agreed on what an Essene really was, or how much to trust Josephus?

There's no doubt that the teachings and practices of Jesus and the early church share a lot with what we know of Essene community. But I've always understood the Essenes to be a strongly fundamentalist sect of Judaism that tended toward monastic isolationism, which doesn't seem to me to match with Jesus (or John the Baptist for that matter.)

If he came from such a strong, insular community, why are there no direct references to that community in any of the gospels? They seem to talk about everybody else.

That's a good observation, David. Though I know nothing it will not stop me from saying said nothing: weren't the Essenes a really small sect? I think Jesus would be talking about groups his listeners would be familiar with. Folks in New York don't spend much time discussing the small towns they come from, or if discussing religion and happen to come from a small splinter group they typically won't waste time even referring to it.

This is why I originally stuck to a historical analysis of the content of the NT- anything else by definition enters the realms of increasing specualtion.
And my own view on things has a fair bit of that.

I will dig up and put up the relevant info on the essenses- also still there is a huge argument over if there ever was such a goup at all. So specualtion is rife.

The Essenes, assuming they were there t all- were more than at first thought- as there were not just those who lived at Qumaran but those who lived in normal communities- the village essenes- it was about who you paid your tithe too rather than anything else.

You see, I'm not even sure there ever was such a thing as an "Essene". We get the term and much of what is known from people like the historian Josephus, a Pharasee, who is an interesting story in himself. It's very common to lump many little groups together under one set of generalizations, and that looks to me like what may have happened in the case of the Essenes. Like lumping the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, and others all as Celts.

The lack of reference in the Gospels troubles me for a number of reasons, too many to list right now. There are plenty of references to Pharisees and Sadducees but none to Essenes. In a nutshell, if the Essenes were a cohesive group I'd expect them to receive at least some mention somewhere in the Bible.

It's easier for me to imagine it comparable to American political parties, where you have the Democrats, the Republicans and the Independents, where the "Independents" can often include Communists, Socialists, Libertarians, Greens, and Nazis all under one umbrella. Or for another example, there is plenty of ideological and tactical crossover between the so-called "Tea Party" and the so-called "Occupy Movement", but to lump them together seems too simple.

I believe times then were every bit as confused as now, so I tend to question simple answers.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This is why I originally stuck to a historical analysis of the content of the NT- anything else by definition enters the realms of increasing specualtion.
And my own view on things has a fair bit of that.

I will dig up and put up the relevant info on the essenses- also still there is a huge argument over if there ever was such a goup at all. So specualtion is rife.

The Essenes, assuming they were there t all- were more than at first thought- as there were not just those who lived at Qumaran but those who lived in normal communities- the village essenes- it was about who you paid your tithe too rather than anything else.

Cross posted. Fair enough! I'm challenging for the sake of discussion here.

Off the top of my head the biggest single factor for the essenes being an actual seperate group (although I'd agree they never called themselves essenes) would be the discovery of the Community Rules at Quamran- its quite detailed and quite extensive - only a seperate community would need its own rule book. If they were just Saduccess, Pharisees, who had found common ground they would not both agree to new rules that are not strictly speaking from either source.

Josephus is one of those figures- you cant study the period without bumping into him all the time- he is the closest thing to a contemporary historian we have- but he was not a historian in the modern sense. He often lumps events very seperate in time together because they form a common narrative or theme. And he had a point of view, outlook and motivations that were not always professional.
However where possible he can be backed up enough to know that a lot of what he recorded was at least reasonably acurrate.
I quoted him in the last part of the biblical analyis to point out Pilate was not the man the bible portrays. In that case we also have a letter from Philo, writing at the time to Rome about Pilate's abuses, executations without trial ect which accords perfectly with what Jospehus says about him being removed from his position for such acts.
So sometimes we kow he was right, but equally sometimes we know he was wrong, or flavouring events a certain way.

When it comes to the Essenes he is the lead source from the time for information on them. Some of it we can confirm from archeology, other records and the contents of the books and scrolls found there. Other things reamined to be confirmed or sound like he is guessing or filling in blanks.
In short for some information he is the best we have, but that is not the same as saying he is always right or accurate or truthful.

With that in mind here are one or two bits from his account of the essenes which for me are potential links to Jesus and his movement.

119 For three forms of philosophy are pursued among the Judeans: the members of one are Pharisees, of another Sadducees, and the third [school], who certainly are reputed to cultivate seriousness, are called Essenes; although Judeans by ancestry, they are even more mutually affectionate than the others.
122 Since [they are] despisers of wealth—their communal stock is astonishing—, one cannot find a person among them who has more in terms of possessions. For by a law, those coming into the school must yield up their funds to the order, with the result that in all [their ranks] neither the humiliation of poverty nor the superiority of wealth is detectable, but the assets of each one have been mixed in together, as if they were brothers, to create one fund for all.

This strikes me as similar to Jesus warnings of the harshness of following him. It also sits well with his outlook on wealth, on the poor and on neighbours and brothers. And its also the basic structure the early catholic church took- its communial wealth now is so large it includes its own city.

122 they make it a point of honor to remain hard and dry, and to wear white always.

Since the very earliest depictions of Jesus he wears a white robe.

124 No one city is theirs, but they settle amply in each. And for those school-members who arrive from elsewhere, all that the community has is laid out for them in the same way as if they were their own things, and they go in and stay with those they have never even seen before as if they were the most intimate friends.
125 For this reason they make trips without carrying any baggage at all

Jesus and the Disciples seem to travel in just such a fashion.

128 Toward the Deity, at least: pious observances uniquely [expressed]. Before the sun rises, they utter nothing of the mundane things, but only certain ancestral prayers to him, as if begging him to come up.

Jesus birth story is full fof astronomical refrences and hints of a leaning towards this sort of older mystery school worship.

129 After this purification they gather in a private hall, into which none of those who hold different views may enter: now pure themselves, they approach the dining room as if it were some [kind of] sanctuary. 130 After they have seated themselves in silence, the baker serves the loaves in order, whereas the cook serves each person one dish of one food. 131 The priest offers a prayer before the food, and it is forbidden to taste anything before the prayer; when he has had his breakfast he offers another concluding prayer. While starting and also while finishing, then, they honor God as the sponsor of life. At that, laying aside their clothes as if they were holy, they apply themselves to their labors again until evening.

The significiance of the sacred meal is evident both in the NT and in the Christianity and the Church which subsequently took shape. No one took the sacred meal concept as far or as seriously as the Esenees, other than the later Catholic Church.

134 [rendering] assistance and mercy. For helping those who are worthy, whenever they might need it, and also extending food to those who are in want are indeed left up to the individual

Again very in line with Jesus's outlook and actions. The miracle of the loaves and fishes feels very essene.

136 They are extraordinarily keen about the compositions of the ancients, selecting especially those [oriented] toward the benefit of soul and body. On the basis of these and for the treatment of diseases, roots, apotropaic materials, and the special properties of stones are investigated.

Again the mystery schools connection. And Jesus of course was first and foremost a Healer specialising in exorcisms. He could have had no better trainers in medicines and rituals than the essenes. We also know now from the scrolls found there that they were keen astronomers and astrologers and mathmaticians. If quanity of a given scroll is any judge of popularity then astromical mystery works like the Book of Enoch come out top.

152 The war against the Romans proved their souls in every way: during it, while being twisted and also bent, burned and also broken, and passing through all the torture-chamber instruments, with the aim that they might insult the lawgiver or eat something not customary, they did not put up with suffering either one: not once gratifying those who were tormenting [them], or crying.
153 But smiling in their agonies and making fun of those who were inflicting the tortures, they would cheerfully dismiss their souls, [knowing] that they would get them back again.

Jesus reflects this attitude at his trial with answers like "If you say I am," being almost flippant and seemingly unheeding of the very real threat of death hanging over him. And the torure dealt out to Jesus, the crown of thorns etc is reminiscent of the description given above to how Rome treated essene prisoners.

159 There are also among them those who profess to foretell what is to come, being thoroughly trained in holy books, various purifications, and concise sayings of prophets. Rarely if ever do they fail in their predictions.

Jesus fortells several times including of course the final time, when he foretells of the destruction of the Temple.

160 There is also a different order of Essenes. Though agreeing with the others about regiment and customs and legal matters, it has separated in its opinion about marriage. For they hold that those who do not marry cut off the greatest part of life, the succession, and more: if all were to think the same way, the line would very quickly die out.
161 To be sure, testing the brides in a three-year interval, once they have been purified three times as a test of their being able to bear children, they take them in this manner; but they do not continue having intercourse with those who are pregnant, demonstrating that the need for marrying is not because of pleasure, but for children.

This viewpoint was what I referred to as the Moderates in the Essene group- it was they who held that Jesus was legitmate after Joseph despite Joseph and Mary breaking this three-year ritual. Mary being referred to as a virgin comes from the fact she should still have been- but she and Joseph it seems could not wait and Jesus was conceived after the second purification, not the third (Jesus was a special case, being from the line of David and in the essene view the rightful heir, he had to born at the right time of year according to the position of Venus. Which has a long association with birthing and rebirthing. When Mary actually conceived it was to early. At a time when she should have still have had virgin status.

That's really good stuff.

It seems clear that there is a strong relationship between these people the teachings and practices of Jesus and the early Church, especially the monastic branches.

But the differences are interesting as well. It seems to me that if Essene beliefs have a central founding principle, it is puritan Judaism and isolationism as opposed to the increasing cosmopolitan Jewish life with Greek and Roman influences.

Even in Jesus' time, and especially after Paul comes along the followers of Jesus seem to be much more evangelical than monastic, and to welcome most comers (the good Samaritan for example).

Rather than assuming they were a radical splinter from a unified Essene community, it's easier for me to believe that Jesus' followers, the Qumram community, and early Christianity were just 3 of many little movements that were aware of each other and borrowed freely, but were only united by opposition to the ruling class. (Like opposition to the English was often the only uniting principal among Celtic people, right? )

It may seem like splitting hairs, but to me it seems important whether Jesus was rebelling against a dogmatic community in which he was raised, or whether he was one voice out of many in a decentralized grassroots social movement.

Of course I don't have evidence either way. I'm just raising questions....

My own hunch is that the Essenes where themselves several 'wings' of the same party. This may explain why they seem to have had no real name from themselves.
They shared a general set of aims- the restoration of the Temple (the Temple Scroll is testimony to this) but under a proper Aaron High Priest, not a Roman puppet. The restoration of the line of David as Kings. The all shared a belief that the end of days was nigh (calculated using astronomy and astrology) and that the Kingdom was coming lead by the Son of Man.

But within this more general set of ideals you had those who wanted to use force against Rome and traitors wherever possible (the forerunners of the Zealots- Judas was in this wing of the party, as was Joseph I reckon).
James, the brother of Jesus however was in the hard line side of the party- the strict observance to the laws. As James was born at the 'right' time he had always been supported by the the hard liners.
Jesus in the other hand constantly found his brother upsurping his position as 'The David'. It seems that for a long period in Jesus' youth James was in favour. Jesus got the second heir role- he was educated and taught a suitable trade -in his case he showed an aptitude to Healing.
And then there was John the Baptists group. John favoured the hard line wing in regard to living in poverty and holding all in common. But he did not share their fondness for the strictnest of their laws. John was a raidcal in his own right and his followers believed that as the Kingdom was coming how people lived was no longer as important as they repent for it before it was too late.
John advocated the strict lifestyle but he did not expect it of those who heard him, but he did expect them to repent.
Jesus joined this wing of the party when he was yet again out of favour.

Its also worth baring in mind Joseph was a village Essene- most likely he was a carpenter or similar by trade. Although Jesus demonstrates knowledge and Essene teaching, in both his healing skills and some of his words he was not raised in a commune or community, but most likely in Nazereth just as the Bible says.

There were of course probably many shades of grey within each of these wings of the party called Essenes, and there were probably other viewpoints I have missed.
But I dont think your view David is far off my own in regards to small groups with shared goals. Groups like Johns were almost certainly at least semi-independent.

I agree, I don't think we're very far apart, and I'm instantly mobile as soon as new evidence comes to the table.

I was reading last night about the Damascus Document and theories of Babylonian origins of some of the Essene beliefs. Earlier I referred to theories I'd read of Egyptian influence on the mystery cults, and particularly the understanding of resurrection, in the early Church.

If we consider how many Greek and Roman influences came in to the early Church during the time of Acts, it really presents quite a cosmopolitan soup, doesn't it?

Then considering the Gospels textually, the later dates and the questions of authorship, it would be very difficult to say how much the Gospels represent Jesus' actual history and how much was myth mysticism creeping in from the authors' personal and spiritual backgrounds.

This has been the fodder for almost 2 thousand years of biblical scholarship. Christianity would almost certainly passed into obscurity if it weren't for all the unknowns!

What I really found interesting from an art history perspective was that the cross as a symbol of Christianity only came in once it was the established religion in Europe. Kenneth Clarke espoused a theory for that which seems likely enough - that early preachers and promoters were unwilling to place too much evidence on the sacrifice and persecution bit for fear it would deter people from joining. That was in the wonderful Civilization series he mentioned that.

Certainly the early Church was cautious around the whole persecuton cross thing- partly because it was done at the hands of Rome whom the early Church was keen to be best friends with- and partly because, as you say, noone wants to be in a group who might be tortured to death as a result.
There is also the possibilty he was not ever put on a cross and that it was a single pole with his hands nailed above his head.

Yup! Btw your views in this thread are mine, only much better informed

Not so sure about better informed-just been a round longer to gath more misinformaition than you!

If I am not mistaken one of the first symbols was a fish? I always used to think it was odd that in some Renaissance religious paintings they would have an egg suspended from the ceiling on a string, weird.

The fish image associated with Chrisitians is one of the earliest- although still a good bit after Jesus lived.
Its roots seem to be more linguistic than meaningful.

'In Greek, the phrase, "Jesus Christ, Son of God Savior," is "Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter." The first letters of each of these Greek words, when put together, spell "ichthys," the Greek word for "fish" (ICQUS ).'
It came to be also assocated with the loaves and fish miracle.
A more forgotten about early symbol for a Christian was a dolphin oddly enough.

The egg has a much older tradition than Christianity however.

'The egg has long since been a symbol for resurrection and new life; from the time of the ancient Persians, through Jewish culture, and well incorporated in Christianity, the egg, a part of the celebrations about the Vernal Equinox, the coming of Spring, a time for planting and new life, has been a subject of wonder and veneration for just about all cultures. It appears in many religions as a critical symbol of new life, of Resurrection.'

edit add- on the fish symbol there is a possibilty it is astrological. The Age of Pisces- of the fish, began just before Christianity. It may have been seen by its followers as the 'new' religion for the new age.
Earlier ages seem to have had predominant symbols with just such associations- the Minoans and the Egyptians for example both had bull religions come to dominance during the astrological period of Tauros.

Mrs Figg wrote:I always used to think it was odd that in some Renaissance religious paintings they would have an egg suspended from the ceiling on a string, weird.

(Shhh....I think the Easter Bunny hid it there! )

well if its a chocolate egg it all becomes quite logical

Osiris, the Dying and Resurrecting God... whoops, sorry... Jesus, the Dying and Resurrecting God.

(The egg or the chicken? What came first? And was the egg a representation of a Cycle? )

Just discussed things with my dad who has discovered he's an 'apatheist' - someone who suspects the whole spectrum from pantheism to atheism may be bunk, but just can't be bothered to care.

Slartibartast- Who cares. Perhaps I'm old and tired but I always think that the chances of finding out what really is going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say: hang the sense of it and just keep yourself occupied. Look at me, I design coastlines. I got an award for Norway, where's the sense in that? None that I've been able to make out. I've been doing fjords all my life, for a fleeting moment they become fashionable and I get a major award. In this replacement Earth we're building they've given me Africa do to, and of course I'm doing it all with fjords again becasue I happen to like them. And I'm old fashioned enough to tink they give a lovely baroque feel to a contintent. And they tell me it's not equitorial enough. What does it matter? Science has achieved some wonderful things of course but I'd far rather be happy than right any day.

Arthur-And are you?

Slartibartfast- No. That's where it all falls down of course.

-Hitchhikers Guide

Your Dad reminded of ole Slarty Halfwise.

did you do that from memory? Dad would likely appreciate being compared to Slartibartfast.