A Response to If_U_Knew: Jesus, the Law, and 1st century Judaism

[Oberon]

Jesus and The Law: A Response To If_U_Knew

I began a thread not long ago on the issue of Jesus being married, in response to Ben Masada’s claims that any religious Jews at that time would have been married. I showed in that thread that there were other religious Jews who were unmarried. I would have thought this to be enough to demonstrate that it is completely unnecessary to manipulate the NT texts to try to uncover scraps of evidence that Jesus was married.

What I hadn’t counted on is how little some people were aware (like If­­_U_Knew) of just how diversely the law of Yahweh was understood in Jesus day. So I was confronted with constant citations from the Tanakh, as if a simple reading of these texts today would be enough to shed light on how Jesus thought.

So I am beginning this thread on how Judaism around Jesus’ day was practiced and understood, and in particular how the Law of Yahweh was variously interpreted.

This is probably (as was my last thread) a vain attempt. None so blind as those that will not see, after all. However, it may very well be that even if those who have already made up their minds continue to ignore all evidence to the contrary, my posts and interactions with the posts and minds of others will instruct others and myself. So while my intended targets will most likely remain unmoved by evidence, positive things might come of my endeavors.

The topic I intend to address is too large to deal with in one post. So I intend to write a series of posts on the matter, hopefully without too much time between them. Anyone interested in the topic should feel free to jump in at any point.

The first place to begin is obviously with the “law” itself. Before I can get into how various Jewish groups, let alone your average “every day” Jew understood the law of god, I should explain what that was. Only then can I go into the Pharisees, Essenes, Hasmoneans, Sadducees, individual sages, zealots, etc, and not the least Jesus himself, and how they differed in interpreting the law.

What was “the Law” in and around 1st century Judaism? The simplest answer is no doubt the tôrâ (תֹּורָה/תֹּרָ&#1492, formed from the Semitic root yrh, whence comes the English “Torah.” Of course, saying that the Law was the tôrâ is more or less to say that the Law was the Law, as of course this is what tôrâ meant. However, the range of tôrâ in the Jewish scriptures is wider than simply “law.” The semantic range covered “instruction” or “teaching” as well as “directive” or “law” (see Isa. 1:10; 2:3, Jer 6:19; 26:4-5; Mic 4:2). Furthermore, Yahweh was not the only one who could issue tôrâ. For example, in the Book of Proverbs we see tôrâ being issued as the instructions of the wise (see Prov. 13:14).

However, the most important sense of tôrâ was no doubt the tôrâ issued by Yahweh himself, a divine law or set of laws (tôrôt in the pl.), the tôrâ Yahweh, at the center of which was of course the tôrâ mōšeh, the represented in the five books of Moses.

Yet tôrâ from Yahweh was not limited to the tôrâ mōšeh, but rather came down to the Jews around Jesus’ day via a long tradition of sapiential, prophetic, priestly, and judicial literature passed down not only in written form but also orally, some of which was unique from town to town and village to village.

It is also important to not that there was not any fixed canon of Jewish texts around Jesus’ time, nor were the texts themselves fixed. For example, a debate between Hillel and Shammai is recorded in the later rabbinic literature (mYad. 3.5, mEduy. 5.3) over whether or not Ecclesiastes was really one of the “holy books.” The LXX does not always agree with the Masoretic texts, and some of the documents recovered at Qumran reveal alternate readings even in Hebrew versions of scriptures (e.g. notably for my purposes, Deut. 24-1, or on a related issue the variant reading of the Qumran Mal. 2:16).

So while the Jews around the time of Jesus certainly respected and knew the Tanakh, their interpretation of the Tanakh not only differed but was filtered through a variety of other texts and oral traditions. At this point it would perhaps be good to give an example of how a simple passage in the Tanakh could mean so much more to Jews of Jesus day.

One of the biggest issues for Jews even before rabbinic Judaism was exactly what constituted “work” (mělā’kâ) which was forbidden to be undertaken during the Sabbath. Long before Jesus’ time, apparently the question of whether fighting was considered work was not even discussed, as can be seen from 2 Kings 11, where all types of activity including an armed revolt takes place during the Sabbath.

However, during the Maccabean revolt, certain pious Jews began to question whether or not fighting was indeed forbidden by tôrâ. The book of Jubilees, for example, is very adamant that fighting on the Sabbath is indeed forbidden by God. On the other hand, 1 Macc. 2:27-28 records just how disastrous this could be. As a result, Mattathias decided that only attacking was forbidden, but not self-defense. Although the author of Jubilees vehemently opposed this position, by Jesus day we can see that is was taken for granted. Josephus, despite being aware of the origins of the interpretation of what constituted acceptable “fighting,” nonetheless specifically states that it was the Law/ho nomos, not an interpretation of the Law by Matthias, and that the Law forbids any Jew from attacking an opponent on the Sabbath. From the time of Matthias’ hǎlākâ to Josephus’ day, Matthias’ ruling had ceased to be thought of as interpretation and had become to be thought of as tôrâ itself.

We can see, then, that any adequate understanding of how Jews of Jesus’ day interpreted tôrâ cannot be gathered simply from reading the Tanakh. Rather, a number of sources become important to understand how tôrâ was understood by Jesus and his contemporaries, ranging from pagan literature, to Jewish literature (like Josephus and Philo), to Jewish works like Jubilees and Maccabees, to (most importantly in understanding Jesus) the gospels themselves.


In the posts to follow, I will attempt to show the range of interpretation of the law by various groups of Jews around Jesus’ time, including Jesus himself, and including what the “average” Jew likely believed. Once this is done, perhaps the question of Jesus’ marriage may be revisited in light of the diversity of Jewish thought during his day, and the lack of evidence of any marriage, and Jesus’ advice for all those who can to remain celibate.

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm really looking forward to this. My own studies in this area have been somewhat limited, although Vermes and Wright feature prominently on my bookshelf. But so far, I unqualifiedly agree with what you've stated.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Jesus’ advice for all those who can to remain celibate.

JESUS did not support celibacy :no:. The idea to use the term eunuch by the prophets came from the whole babylonian mindset. Jesus was enlightening its usage as it was meant to be seen... as a metaphor.. they were CUT OFF from their people. When the Jewish were scattered among the nations, there were many who were told to either join the religion of whatever culture they were in or be killed. This, to be cut off from their People, for a Jew is the equivelent (if not worse to some ~ some would have rather chosen death which Jesus, knowing the words of Isaiah was trying to avoid) as being castrated (to deprive of virility or spirit; emasculate). This was metaphorical speech that Jesus was using.. this is why the word "Eunuch" is used and praised in regards to those joining BACK to the covenant. Some were BORN a Eunuch because of what their parents had to choose.. some were MADE a Eunuch so as not to cut off THEIR SEED, their physical bloodline (the future of their family.. that is VERY important to the Jews); and some chose to be because there was a time when Jews were not given credit for the enlightenment they had to share and thus, they converted (often to Catholicism in the last 2,000 years) simply so their work would gain the public attention. But always.. there is that clause, the provision in Isaiah 56...

And as Jesus made clear.. thank the Good Lord, else this world would have been deprived of some of its most brilliant minds.

Eunuch in the sense that Jesus was speaking of was allegorical for those CUT OFF from the People, Israel.

Jesus was PRAISING those who would spread enlightenment or saved their lives along with those of their bloodline, their People, by choosing life rather than dying for belief. IT IS one thing to die for your People and your family (I would fight for the life of my own children, without a doubt).. but it is quite another to choose death in the way that Christians like to uphold the deed of dying for their faith.

Jeremiah speaks to this as well.. he warned people to go with the babylonians rather than dying at the hands of other nations.. Daniel and his buddies are conceptual metaphors of 4 such Jews who did this. They kept their traditions and such alive, but they did not make a spectacle or fight just for the sake of "beliefs." They preserved Life. :yes:

BY THE WAY, Vermes was one of the "Eunuchs" that Jesus was speaking of metaphorically. I am not sure if he was born into catholicism or if he was a young child when his family converted to Catholicism.. but either way, THANK THE GOOD LORD on his behalf, the provision was given in Isaiah 56. He had to convert back to Judaism to be considered a Jew among his people again (otherwise, you'd only be able to contribute his perspective as being one of a Christian instead of a Jew, ya know).

Life is meant to be lived.. the Jewish were not to have the mentality of the Christian martyrs (sacrifice Life as though there is something to be gained in death). As it states in the Tanakh.. to do justice and judgment is better than sacrifice.

 

[Dunemeister]

I cannot speak in scholarly fashion to the issue of how the word "eunuch" is used in the Hebrew scriptures, but I must say that, after having done an exhaustive search using a concordance, and reviewing all the uses of the word presented there (in English, mind), I see no justification for If_u_knew's take on that word. If there is anyone who has credentials in biblical Hebrew who can cast light on this, I'd be interested.

However, let us at least have the passage at issue before us for consideration, Matthew 19:1-12:

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there. Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’

He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’

He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’

His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’

But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’

These six paragraphs represent the only time the gospels use the word "eunuch." And in these paragraphs, it is hard to see how Jesus might be referring to traditions that If_u_knew says he is. It looks for all the world as though the topic under discussion is divorce.

Pharisees ask Jesus whether divorce is ever permissable. Jesus says no, except for cases of adultery, appealing to the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2. He further explains that the law permitting divorce was added by Moses because Israel were hard of heart and couldn't possibly have obeyed God's original intention. That is, they never would have been able to be faithful to the covenant without that provision.

The disciples were taken aback by this. They said that if this is the case, it's better not to marry. It is in this context that Jesus uses the term "eunuch", and it appears obvious to me that the term, as Jesus uses is, refers to a person who cannot enter a marital union. Some are unable so to enter because of genetic reasons, and others for social reasons.

However, there is a third class of eunuchs, and these are what interest me. They are those who are eunuchs for spiritual reasons - for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. If the inability or unwillingness to get married or simply being single was somehow a second rate situation spiritually speaking such that a single person couldn't be a rabbi or a full covenant member or properly religious or whatever, how could Jesus have said that it's possible to be single for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?

But even taking that issue aside, what need is there to appeal to some mysterious Babylonian tradition in understanding what Jesus is talking about. The immediate gospel context makes the parameters of the discussion clear, and appeals to some Babylonian tradition only serves to confuse what otherwise seems quite clear.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Daniel and his 3 friends, while in Babylonian captivity were considered Eunuchs. Jeremiah 27.. read closely. They are being commanded where to go.. to Babylon. There they would be until God visited them again. Daniel and his friends were considered Eunuchs because they were CUT OFF from their People.. a conceptual metaphor..

Because always, there is the clause given in Isaiah 56 for this metaphorical idea of Eunuchs to join back to their People, but there is no clause given for the physical resurrection as is taught by the Christian People. In Isaiah 51:1.. we are gaining the understanding that the bill of divorce (what Moses gave) was given for merciful purposes.. of course, God can not find that Bill of Divorce when it comes to his people. Thus, yes... let it disturb the mind of a Jew to have to "cut himself off" from his people, so that like Daniel, he will not forget to where it is he belongs. And that God will not throw off His People is what it is Jesus was enlightening his People to. Don't die for God's sake (as though you are doing Him a favor).. Live and then take the clause of Isaiah 56 to come back. (Christianity is the only adultress here).

Really.. all you need for understanding is to throw off what it is man tells you (for truly, as Oberon HAS INDEED testified, you will get mixed opinions). All there is needed to understand is to follow what is said in Proverbs 2:1-7. Now, truly, if Oberon has no agenda, he will deny this whole passage altogether... but if you are claiming to trust God.. then, you will not.

 

[Dunemeister]

Daniel and his 3 friends, while in Babylonian captivity were considered Eunuchs. Jeremiah 27.. read closely. They are being commanded where to go.. to Babylon. There they would be until God visited them again. Daniel and his friends were considered Eunuchs because they were CUT OFF from their People.. a conceptual metaphor..

Or maybe they were called "eunuchs" because that was their role in Babylon. What justification is there for taking eunuch metaphorically? And even if there's a case to be made to take THIS reference metaphorically, why take the reference in Isaiah 56 metaphorically?

Here's the Isaiah passage:

Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
‘YHWH will surely separate me from his people’;
and do not let the eunuch say,
‘I am just a dry tree.’
For thus says YHWH:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

Having progeny is a sign of blessing. Eunuchs, because they cannot have progeny, are denied this sign. It appears that in this passage that eunuchs, if they are faithful, are promised something better than sons and daughters.

I see no reason to take this passage metaphorically. Nor do I see any reason, assuming that a metaphorical reading is possible, to think that Jesus is following such a metaphorical usage in Matthew 19. You need an argument for all three stages:

1. There is a metaphorical use of "eunuch" in Daniel and Isaiah.
2. The metaphorical use of "eunuch" means <specify meaning>.
3. This metaphorical use of "eunuch" controls Jesus' use of the term in Matthew 19. Here you need to show how a metaphorical use of the term makes more sense of the passage in its context than a more straightforward reading such as I've offered.

Best of luck.

 

[Oberon]

3. This metaphorical use of "eunuch" controls Jesus' use of the term in Matthew 19. Here you need to show how a metaphorical use of the term makes more sense of the passage in its context than a more straightforward reading such as I've offered.

There isn't much for me to add here (until the next post on Judaism around Jesus' time), as you pretty much covered everything. There is no reason for reading into Matthew the usage of eunuch in any Hebrew scripture.

Jesus gives his ruling on divorce. The disciples respond with the question/exclamation that if divorce isn't allowed then it is better not to marry. Jesus says, "actually, that is the best, for those who can."

 

[Oberon]

Given that I started this thread in reaction to the assertion that all religious Jews of Jesus&#8217; day would have been married, it seems only logical to begin examination of various &#8220;strains&#8221; of Judaism with the Essenes.

Before getting into the Qumran sect itself, I think it would be better to begin with the information on the Essenes given by contemporaries: the Jewish philosopher Philo, the Jewish historian Josephus, and the Roman historian Pliny the Elder. This is mainly because it is no longer assumed even that the &#8220;Qumranites&#8221; WERE Essenes (although the consensus among scholars is that they were), but more importantly they are thought to be only one group of Essenes, and therefore their literature (as valuable as these documents are) may not be representative of the entire movement. I will save for a separate post discussing Qumran, and here concern myself only with what is said about the Essenes by those who knew the sect and wrote about them.

A) Josephus

Josephus discusses the Essenes (&#7960;&#963;&#963;&#951;&#957;&#959;&#8054;) in his book De Bello Judiaco 2.8.2.

I will transliterate the greek below, and then translate:

Tria gar para Ioudaiois eide philosopheitai, kai tou men airetistai pharisaioi, tou de Saddoukaioi, triton de, ho de kai dokei semnoteta askein, Essenoi kalountai, Ioudaioi men genos ontes, philalleloi de kai ton allon pleon. Houtoi tas men hedonas hos kakian apostrephontai, ten de egkrateian kai to me tois pathesin hypopiptein areten hypolambanousin. Kai gamou men par&#8217; autois hyperopsia, tous d&#8217; allotrious paidas eklambonontes hapalous eti pros ta mathemata suggeneis hegountai tois ethesin auton entupousi, ton men gamon kai ten ex autou diadochen ouk anairountes, tas de ton gynaikon aselgeias phylattomenoi kai medemian terein pepeismenoi ten pros hena pistin.

For among the Jews three forms/groups philosophize: of [the first} the followers [are] the Pharisees, of [the second] the Sadducees, and the third, which seem to practice solemnity/dignity, are called the Essenes, for being a race of Jews, they are filled with mutual affection for one another. These [Essenes] reject pleasures as evil, but they hold [lit. take up] as a virtue mastery over and not succumbing to passions. And they disdain marriage among them, but [instead] taking from others children yet pliable for learning [which] they hold as kin, and form them according to their customs. They do not reject marriage from them as [a means of] succession, but they guard against the licentiousness of women, and they believe none give heed to fidelity to one [man].




As, can be seen above, Josephus clearly respects the Essenes. He describes them as a group of Jews, and praises them as having greater love for one another (&#966;&#953;&#955;&#8049;&#955;&#955;&#951;&#955;&#959;&#953; &#948;&#8050; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#964;&#8182;&#957; &#7940;&#955;&#955;&#969;&#957; &#960;&#955;&#8051;&#959;&#957. Most importantly, he not only says that they do not marry (&#954;&#945;&#8054; &#947;&#8049;&#956;&#959;&#965; &#956;&#8050;&#957; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#8125; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#959;&#8150;&#962; &#8017;&#960;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#968;&#8055;&#945, but that in fact they choose other children (rather than having sex) to continue their communities.

B) Philo



Philo mentions the Essenes in two different works, and clearly praises their devotion to God in both. In one of these works (Quod Omnis Probus Liber 12-13) he does not explicitly state that the Essenes were not married. He does describe their communal living and good will, and says:
Alla gar oudeis &#8230;ischuse ton lechthenta ton Essaion e hosion homilon aitiasasthai, pantes de asthenesteroi tes ton andron kalokagathias genomenoi &#8230; kai ten pantos loyou kreittona koinonian, e biou teleiou kai sphodra eudaimonos esti saphestaton deigma.

But no one [is able] to truly accuse the community called the Essenes, or the holy, and all those existing are subdued by the virtue of these men&#8230; and their fellowship is stronger than any account [can describe], which is the clearest proof of the complete life and exceeding blessedness.



The other passage for the Essenes from Philo is from his Hypothetica. Philo states here that the Essenes banned marriage all together:
For no Essene takes to himself a wife, because woman is immoderately selfish and jealous, and terribly clever in decoying a man's moral inclinations, and bringing them into subjection by continual cajoleries.

Once again, he also praises them for their virtue and communal approach to life. I will quote in full the passage (translated by Gifford):

 

[Oberon]

'BUT our Lawgiver trained to community of living many thousands of his disciples, who are called Essenes because, as I suppose, of their holiness. They dwell in many cities of Judaea and many villages, and in large and populous societies.
'Their sect is formed not by family-descent, for descent is not reckoned among matters of choice, but on account of zeal for virtue and a longing for brotherly love.
'Accordingly there is among the Essenes no mere child, nor even a scarce-bearded lad, or young man; since of such as these the moral dispositions are unstable and apt to change in accordance with their imperfect age: but they are all men full-grown and already verging upon old age, as being no longer swept by the flood of bodily impulses, nor led by their passions, but in the enjoyment of the genuine and only real liberty.
'And their mode of life is an evidence of this liberty: none ventures to acquire any private property at all, no house, nor slave, nor farm, nor cattle, nor any of the other things which procure or minister to wealth; but they deposit them all in public together, and enjoy the benefit of all in common.
'And they dwell together in one place, forming clubs and messes in companies, and they pass their whole time in managing every kind of business for the common good.
'But different members have different occupations, to which they strenuously devote themselves, and toil on with unwearied patience, making no excuses of cold or heat or any changes of weather: but before the sun is up they turn to their usual employments, and hardly give up at its setting, delighting in. work no less than those who are being trained in gymnastic contests.
'For whatever occupation they follow, they imagine that these exercises are more beneficial to life, and more pleasant to soul and body, and more permanent than athletics, because they do not become unseasonable as the vigour of the body declines.
'For some of them labour in the fields, being skilled in matters relating to sowing and tillage, and others are herdsmen, being masters of all kinds of cattle; and some attend to swarms of bees.
'Others again are craftsmen in various arts, who, in order to avoid any of the sufferings which the wants of the necessaries of life impose, reject none of the innocent ways of gaining a livelihood.
'Of the men then who thus differ in occupation every one on receiving his wages gives them to one person who is the appointed steward: and he, on receiving them, immediately purchases the necessary provisions, and supplies abundance of food, and all other things of which man's life is in need.
'And they who live together and share the same table are content with the same things every day, being lovers of frugality, and abhorring prodigality as a disease of soul and body.
'Not only have they a common table, but also common raiment: for there are set out in winter thick cloaks, and in summer cheap tunics, so that any one who will may easily take'whichever he likes, since what belongs to one is considered to belong to all, and the property of all to be on the other hand the property of each one.
'Moreover if any of them should fall sick, he is medically treated out of the common resources, and attended by the care and anxiety of all. And so the old men, even if they happen to be childless, are wont to end their life in a very happy and bright old age, inasmuch as they are blest with sons both many and good, being held worthy of attention and honour by so many, who from free good will rather than from any bond of natural birth feel it right to cherish them.
'Further then as they saw with keen discernment the thing which alone, or most of all, was likely to dissolve their community, they repudiated marriage and also practised continence in an eminent degree. For no Essene takes to himself a wife, because woman is immoderately selfish and jealous, and terribly clever in decoying a man's moral inclinations, and bringing them into subjection by continual cajoleries.
'For when, by practising flattering speeches and the other arts as of an actress on the stage, she has deluded eyes and ears, then as having thoroughly deceived the servants she proceeds to cajole the master mind.
'And should she have children, she is filled with pride and boldness of speech, and what she formerly used to hint under the disguise of irony, all this she now speaks out with greater audacity, and shamelessly compels him to practices, every one of which is hostile to community of life.
'For the man who is either ensnared by the charms of a wife, or by force of natural affection makes children Ins first care, is no longer the same towards others, but has unconsciously become changed from a free man to a slave.
'So enviable then is the life of these Essenes, that not only private persons, but also great kings are filled with admiration and amazement at the men, and make their venerable character still more venerable by marks of approbation and honour.'


C) Pliny the Elder

Pliny the Elder also mentions the Essenes in his Naturalis Historia. Like Philo and Josephus, he describes these Jews as refraining from marriage (sine ulla femina) and sex.

I will save until the next post going into detail concerning Pliny’s description, for the simple fact that it is his testimony which (in part) is responsible for the widespread belief that the Qumran community (whence came the Dead Sea Scrolls) are to be identified as Essenes.

 

[IF_u_knew]

For among the Jews three forms/groups philosophize: of [the first} the followers [are] the Pharisees, of [the second] the Sadducees, and the third, which seem to practice solemnity/dignity, are called the Essenes, for being a race of Jews, they are filled with mutual affection for one another. These [Essenes] reject pleasures as evil, but they hold [lit. take up] as a virtue mastery over and not succumbing to passions. And they disdain marriage among them, but [instead] taking from others children yet pliable for learning [which] they hold as kin, and form them according to their customs. They do not reject marriage from them as [a means of] succession, but they guard against the licentiousness of women, and they believe none give heed to fidelity to one [man].




As, can be seen above, Josephus clearly respects the Essenes. He describes them as a group of Jews, and praises them as having greater love for one another (&#966;&#953;&#955;&#8049;&#955;&#955;&#951;&#955;&#959;&#953; &#948;&#8050; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#964;&#8182;&#957; &#7940;&#955;&#955;&#969;&#957; &#960;&#955;&#8051;&#959;&#957. Most importantly, he not only says that they do not marry (&#954;&#945;&#8054; &#947;&#8049;&#956;&#959;&#965; &#956;&#8050;&#957; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#8125; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#959;&#8150;&#962; &#8017;&#960;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#968;&#8055;&#945, but that in fact they choose other children (rather than having sex) to continue their communities.

B) Philo



Philo mentions the Essenes in two different works, and clearly praises their devotion to God in both. In one of these works (Quod Omnis Probus Liber 12-13) he does not explicitly state that the Essenes were not married. He does describe their communal living and good will, and says:
Alla gar oudeis &#8230;ischuse ton lechthenta ton Essaion e hosion homilon aitiasasthai, pantes de asthenesteroi tes ton andron kalokagathias genomenoi &#8230; kai ten pantos loyou kreittona koinonian, e biou teleiou kai sphodra eudaimonos esti saphestaton deigma.

But no one [is able] to truly accuse the community called the Essenes, or the holy, and all those existing are subdued by the virtue of these men&#8230; and their fellowship is stronger than any account [can describe], which is the clearest proof of the complete life and exceeding blessedness.





The other passage for the Essenes from Philo is from his Hypothetica. Philo states here that the Essenes banned marriage all together:
For no Essene takes to himself a wife, because woman is immoderately selfish and jealous, and terribly clever in decoying a man's moral inclinations, and bringing them into subjection by continual cajoleries.

Once again, he also praises them for their virtue and communal approach to life. I will quote in full the passage (translated by Gifford):



Do you at all pay attention to my posts? I do yours and in fact, I think on them a while before responding so as to respect "your" say on the matters.

I have repeatedly stated that I have read Josephus and do not agree that Jesus fits into the description of the Essenes; either Josephus' or Philo's.. neither do either identify Jesus as being a part of this particular group. What you bolded of Josephus' sounds more like Paul's way of doing thing and way of teaching and personally, I do not see that as a respectable line of thinking.. it is scary in fact and sounds more like the secular way of thinking than it does the Jewish way of thinking.

Who knows... perhaps Josephus really did have the same mind as Paul.. I have considered this many times and even have speculated that he had a hand at least in writing Luke as well as Acts.. but it is hard to tell with Josephus what exactly his intentions were with the things he wrote on. Given statements like the one you bolded above, it seems more like he was being honest (but using discretion in that he seemingly praises them.. because let's just be honest, that description is not an honorable one in the least).

You have listed the pharisees and the sadducees as two other lines of thinking at the time. Even though Jesus had much interaction with the Pharisees more than any of the other two groups that were listed by Josephus and even though he was well respected in the synagogues (as Luke's gospel is clear on), you still insist to imply that he was with the essenes. That is agenda on your part for all the evidence in the gospels speaks to the contrary.

There are many different sects of people in America today and we could single out one person and have a vague list about the things they did in their life along with some false things written.. we would fail to know anything about them if we take just ONE area of the list detailing their life and match it up with a random group of people to draw our conclusion of them.

First things first would be to rule out the fantastical. Next thing is, who did that person have the most interaction with in regards to influential groups... in Jesus' case it was the Pharisees. Next thing would be to figure out what that person said to believe .... Matthew 5:17-19 (one of many places this was confirmed). Then, we can look in this light to see how it is his teachings were meant to be taken.

After establishing all of this, it is not evident, and in fact more evident that Jesus was not, opposed to marriage.. so, we can look to see if there are evidences that he was married as well as other areas of his day to day life.

It may still all be speculation, but at least it is speculation drawn up by using rational thinking rather than just grasping for straws.

There is NOTHING in the greater accounts of Jesus life (the gospels) that would point toward him being a part of the essenes. Nothing! :no:

 

[Oberon]

I have repeatedly stated that I have read Josephus and do not agree that Jesus fits into the description of the Essenes; either Josephus' or Philo's.. neither do either identify Jesus as being a part of this particular group.

Apparently you don't pay attention to my posts. To repeat what I said in the other thread:"I never said he was an essene, nor do I think he was. However, he (like John the Baptist) shared certain apocalyptic views with the essenes. It is not suprising he (like John the Baptist) also adopted another similar view with respect to celibacy. The point of the essenes is that they are a clear example of devout jews, respected by other Jews, who were UNMARRIED."

What you bolded of Josephus' sounds more like Paul's way of doing thing and way of teaching and personally, I do not see that as a respectable line of thinking..

Great. You don't respect it. The point here is not how you conceive of Judiasm, but how it was thought of by jews at the time. We are interested in the Jewish mindset of the first century, not yours. Josephus and Philo both clearly respected the fellowship and devotion of the essenes, considered them excellent Jews, and knew they were celibate. Also, neither were essenes, so they were hardly biased in favor of this group.

You have listed the pharisees and the sadducees as two other lines of thinking at the time. Even though Jesus had much interaction with the Pharisees more than any of the other two groups that were listed by Josephus and even though he was well respected in the synagogues (as Luke's gospel is clear on), you still insist to imply that he was with the essenes. That is agenda on your part for all the evidence in the gospels speaks to the contrary.

I HAVE NEVER SAID JESUS WAS AN ESSENE NOR DO I THINK HE WAS!!!! They are simply a clear example of celibate Jews. So was John the Baptist (a loner in the wilderness) and so was another apocalyptic prophet (Jesus), and so was a later rabbi according to the Talmud, and there were probably more. Most Jews were married, but the fact there were many who weren't means there is no reason to assume Jesus was when he promoted celibacy and there is no indication he was married.

There are many different sects of people in America today and we could single out one person and have a vague list about the things they did in their life along with some false things written.. we would fail to know anything about them if we take just ONE area of the list detailing their life and match it up with a random group of people to draw our conclusion of them.

Funny you say this after blanket statements of a "jewish mindset" and "all jews were married" without respecting the vast diversity of jewish thought around Jesus' day.

Next thing is, who did that person have the most interaction with in regards to influential groups... in Jesus' case it was the Pharisees.

And his interactions with them were negative. What's your point?

Next thing would be to figure out what that person said to believe .... Matthew 5:17-19 (one of many places this was confirmed). Then, we can look in this light to see how it is his teachings were meant to be taken.

You use no historical critical or sociological criteria, nor any other accepted criteria to determine whether Matt. 5:17-19 is an authentic saying of Jesus. You assume it is because you want it to be. Once you have done that, you read into it what you want. As I am going to continue to show in this thread, how various groups of Jews undestood the "law" varied widely. Jesus believe in fulfilling the law, AS HE INTERPRETED IT! This DID NOT include being married.

After establishing all of this, it is not evident, and in fact more evident that Jesus was not, opposed to marriage..

Completely false. All of your distortion on his teachings of celibacy and divorce(based on reading into it scripture which is not alluded to, or going to Isaiah when Jesus is talking about deuteronomy) amount to little. Furthermore, how the "law" was interpreted differed. Jesus had his interpretation, which differed from the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the later Rabbis. He opposed divorce, he redefined how familial ties were to be understood, and so on. Yes he believed in the law. But you take that and naively assume you can understand what he thought the law meant.

so, we can look to see if there are evidences that he was married as well as other areas of his day to day life.

Of which there are none. He is described as being in the company of a number of women (not all named Mary) and no woman is given priority. No one is ever named as his wife. He promoted celibacy. And so on.

It may still all be speculation, but at least it is speculation drawn up by using rational thinking rather than just grasping for straws.

Zero rational, and zero evidence. You are grasping for straws. You conflate two cleary seperate people, and even though it is nowhere mentioned that Jesus was married, you assume he was and try to find particular lines which indicate this. Yet none of them do. Moreover, you take out of context or distort lines which indicate that Jesus was unmarried.

There is NOTHING in the greater accounts of Jesus life (the gospels) that would point toward him being a part of the essenes. Nothing! :no:

If you can't even accurately represent my posts, what makes you think you can understand the NT texts, especially without having studied the period in question?

 

[maklelan]

Apparently you don't pay attention to my posts. To repeat what I said in the other thread:"I never said he was an essene, nor do I think he was. However, he (like John the Baptist) shared certain apocalyptic views with the essenes. It is not suprising he (like John the Baptist) also adopted another similar view with respect to celibacy.

I don't believe Jesus espoused a type of celibacy anything like that of the Essenes. Paul can be interpreted in that manner, but I'm wary of that interpretation, and it is Paul's alone, not Jesus'.

The point of the essenes is that they are a clear example of devout jews, respected by other Jews, who were UNMARRIED."

Respected by other Jews? You mentioned a Roman and two Hellenized Jews. Josephus wrote in Rome for a Roman audience and highlighted aspects of Jewry that were most palatable to Graeco-Roman intellectuals. Philo was entirely steeped in Hellenized Judaism. Asceticism was one of the ideals he lauded the most. You can hardly claim the Essenes were "respected by other Jews" when the only two Jews you can produce are Josephus and Philo.

Great. You don't respect it. The point here is not how you conceive of Judiasm, but how it was thought of by jews at the time. We are interested in the Jewish mindset of the first century, not yours. Josephus and Philo both clearly respected the fellowship and devotion of the essenes, considered them excellent Jews, and knew they were celibate. Also, neither were essenes, so they were hardly biased in favor of this group.

Their accounts of the Essene worldview also conflict in many areas, but Josephus and Philo hardly constitute a representative sample of first century CE Judaism. All you can say at this point is that a Roman sympathizer and the Hellenized Jew appreciated the asceticism of the Essenes. This doesn't add much to the discussion.

I HAVE NEVER SAID JESUS WAS AN ESSENE NOR DO I THINK HE WAS!!!! They are simply a clear example of celibate Jews. So was John the Baptist (a loner in the wilderness)

There's no indication his lack of marraige was anything other than incidental to his mission.

and so was another apocalyptic prophet (Jesus),

There's no indication he promoted celibacy.

and so was a later rabbi according to the Talmud, and there were probably more. Most Jews were married, but the fact there were many who weren't means there is no reason to assume Jesus was when he promoted celibacy and there is no indication he was married.

The celibate Jews were usually those more integrated into Graeco-Roman society, where asceticism and celibacy were ideological priorities. I don't think Jesus can be accurately grouped with them.

Funny you say this after blanket statements of a "jewish mindset" and "all jews were married" without respecting the vast diversity of jewish thought around Jesus' day.

But you seem to be averring that one pocket of Hellenized Judaism should bear on this discussion simply in virtue of the accident of the preservation of their ideologies. The Essenes were also only a single facet of this multifarious Jewish world.

You use no historical critical or sociological criteria, nor any other accepted criteria to determine whether Matt. 5:17-19 is an authentic saying of Jesus. You assume it is because you want it to be. Once you have done that, you read into it what you want. As I am going to continue to show in this thread, how various groups of Jews undestood the "law" varied widely. Jesus believe in fulfilling the law, AS HE INTERPRETED IT! This DID NOT include being married.

To begin with, I find a tacit rejection of the idea that Matt 5:17-19 is original in your post, and yet no "historical critical or sociological criteria" are presented to support that assertion. I'd also be interested to see you show that marriage was not an element of the law Jesus sought to preserve.

Completely false. All of your distortion on his teachings of celibacy and divorce(based on reading into it scripture which is not alluded to, or going to Isaiah when Jesus is talking about deuteronomy) amount to little. Furthermore, how the "law" was interpreted differed. Jesus had his interpretation, which differed from the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the later Rabbis. He opposed divorce, he redefined how familial ties were to be understood, and so on. Yes he believed in the law. But you take that and naively assume you can understand what he thought the law meant.

And you naively aver that you do understand what he thought the law meant. Are you going to support that, or just hint at it?

Of which there are none. He is described as being in the company of a number of women (not all named Mary) and no woman is given priority. No one is ever named as his wife. He promoted celibacy. And so on.

I don't find any evidence that he promoted celibacy anywhere. When are we going to be presented this evidence?

Zero rational, and zero evidence. You are grasping for straws. You conflate two cleary seperate people, and even though it is nowhere mentioned that Jesus was married, you assume he was and try to find particular lines which indicate this. Yet none of them do. Moreover, you take out of context or distort lines which indicate that Jesus was unmarried.

If you can't even accurately represent my posts, what makes you think you can understand the NT texts, especially without having studied the period in question?

I find your study of the period rather myopic and biased. You also don't seem to want to explain how poorly the period is represented and how compartmentalized the texts are to which we do have access. Finally, you want to reject the notion that Qumran was the home to an Essene community and yet have produced nothing on which to base this. You make so many promises, and yet nothing has been produced that at all satisfies the standard of debate you keep demanding of everyone else. I see little more than a limited and severely biased study of cherry-picked sources.

 

[Oberon]

I don't believe Jesus espoused a type of celibacy anything like that of the Essenes. Paul can be interpreted in that manner, but I'm wary of that interpretation, and it is Paul's alone, not Jesus'.

I find the M tradition of Jesus' remarks on celibacy to be untypically matthean, and therefore unlikely to be his redaction. While this does not mean that the saying goes back to Jesus, I find it likely it does.

[/color]

Respected by other Jews? You mentioned a Roman and two Hellenized Jews. Josephus wrote in Rome for a Roman audience and highlighted aspects of Jewry that were most palatable to Graeco-Roman intellectuals. Philo was entirely steeped in Hellenized Judaism. Asceticism was one of the ideals he lauded the most. You can hardly claim the Essenes were "respected by other Jews" when the only two Jews you can produce are Josephus and Philo.

As hellenized Jews they were if anything LESS likely to respect the conservatism and extremism of the essenes.



[/color]

Their accounts of the Essene worldview also conflict in many areas, but Josephus and Philo hardly constitute a representative sample of first century CE Judaism. All you can say at this point is that a Roman sympathizer and the Hellenized Jew appreciated the asceticism of the Essenes. This doesn't add much to the discussion

Josephus is perhaps our best source for first century judaism.

There's no indication his lack of marraige was anything other than incidental to his mission.

Wrong. There is the eunuch saying in the Matthew.

There's no indication he promoted celibacy.

Wrong. I already quoted matthew.

The celibate Jews were usually those more integrated into Graeco-Roman society, where asceticism and celibacy were ideological priorities. I don't think Jesus can be accurately grouped with them.

The essenes were hardly "integrated" into Graeco-Roman society. Moreover, the apocalyptic writings of one sub-sect of the essenes is similar to Jesus' apocalyptic views.

But you seem to be averring that one pocket of Hellenized Judaism should bear on this discussion simply in virtue of the accident of the preservation of their ideologies.

I can't believe you are categorizing the Essenes as hellenized.

The Essenes were also only a single facet of this multifarious Jewish world.

That is my point. The whole argument used by If_U_Knew and Ben Masada is that if Jesus were Jewish he would have been married. But Judaism in Jesus' day was very diverse, and such a statement has no basis.

To begin with, I find a tacit rejection of the idea that Matt 5:17-19 is original in your post, and yet no "historical critical or sociological criteria" are presented to support that assertion.

I don't know why you state this. I am specifically arguing that Jesus DID believe he was fulfilling the law. However, he was interpreting it in a particular light, and this did not include the necessity of marriage.

I'd also be interested to see you show that marriage was not an element of the law Jesus sought to preserve.

He wasn't married, his teachings are ascetic in nature, his statements against family (an extremely important judaic symbol) are a related aberration on typical Judaic understanding of "proper" family life, and I already quoted Matthew who records an oral tradition of Jesus' views on celibacy.

And you naively aver that you do understand what he thought the law meant. Are you going to support that, or just hint at it?

No, I have no intention of getting into Jesus' view of the law in this thread. The only point is to address the diversity of views in Jesus' world.

I don't find any evidence that he promoted celibacy anywhere. When are we going to be presented this evidence?

Matt. 19:11, and see above.

I find your study of the period rather myopic and biased.

It isn't finished, and it isn't a study. It is a sketch for people who haven't studied the period at all.

You also don't seem to want to explain how poorly the period is represented and how compartmentalized the texts are to which we do have access.

Actually, I do.

Finally, you want to reject the notion that Qumran was the home to an Essene community and yet have produced nothing on which to base this.

No, I don't. I just don't think that it was all of the essenes. I do believe it was an essene sect.

You make so many promises, and yet nothing has been produced that at all satisfies the standard of debate you keep demanding of everyone else. I see little more than a limited and severely biased study of cherry-picked sources.

Probably because so far I have addressed only a general meaning of the law and just begun to talk about one group in first century judaism, which I haven't even finished writing about. I haven't even started to address the sadducees or pharisees, or what the "average" Israelite believed, or John the baptist, or philo, or Josephus, or any number of other views. I have just barely begun.

 

[maklelan]

I find the M tradition of Jesus' remarks on celibacy to be untypically matthean, and therefore unlikely to be his redaction. While this does not mean that the saying goes back to Jesus, I find it likely it does.

A little more technical discussion than I'm willing to get into right now. I'll give you this one for now.

As hellenized Jews they were if anything LESS likely to respect the conservatism and extremism of the essenes.

I disagree. 4 Maccabees praises the martyrs up and down for letting their wisdom control their bodies and for their ascetic responses to torture. Philo does the same thing in his Contemplative Life. Extreme asceticism is one of his highest ideals. This is why Eusebius identified the sect from his text as early Christians:

The semianchoritic character of the Therapeutae community, the renunciation of property, the solitude during the six days of the week and the gathering together on Saturday for the common prayer and the common meal, the severe fasting, the keeping alive of the memory of God, the continuous prayer, the meditation and study of Holy Scripture were also practices of the Christian anchorites of the Alexandrian desert.

No, Philo would never have denigrated such extremism. That was his bread and butter.

Josephus is perhaps our best source for first century judaism.

But he is not without biases that must be accounted for.

Wrong. There is the eunuch saying in the Matthew.

What does this have to do with John the Baptist? Are you insisting he castrated himself simply because Jesus mentions eunuch's in a single discourse?

Wrong. I already quoted matthew.

And the majority of modern interpretations of that scripture don't include the promotion of celibacy.

The essenes were hardly "integrated" into Graeco-Roman society.

I said most of those who were celibate, referring primarily to the other sources for celibacy in formative Judaism. According to Josephus, however, the Essenes adopted numerous Greek ideas:

War 2.8.11.154: For the view has become tenaciously held among them that whereas our bodies are perishable and their matter impermanent, our souls endure forever, deathless: they get entangled, having emanated from the most refined ether, as if drawn down by a certain charm into the prisons that are bodies.

That sound strangely Platonic.

For the good, on the one hand, sharing the view of the sons of Greece they portray the lifestyle reserved beyond Oceanus and a place burdened by neither rain nor snow nor heat, but which a continually blowing mild west wind from Oceanus refreshes.

Sharing the view of the sons of Greece? Ok.

If you want to extrapolate your picture of the Essenes from Josephus or Philo then you're left with Hellenized Jews. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't support reading celibacy into their ideologies.

Moreover, the apocalyptic writings of one sub-sect of the essenes is similar to Jesus' apocalyptic views.

Which were also similar to several other Second Temple Period texts. The Christianity - Essenes connection was appropriately dismissed a long time ago. At best they can be said to be different outgrowths of a similar messianic/apocalyptic worldview, but a linear relationship is out of the question.

I can't believe you are categorizing the Essenes as hellenized.

I am speaking of the writings of Philo, Josephus, and Pliny.

That is my point. The whole argument used by If_U_Knew and Ben Masada is that if Jesus were Jewish he would have been married. But Judaism in Jesus' day was very diverse, and such a statement has no basis.

I think it's a much more likely assumption than that he probably wasn't married because Essenes didn't marry.

I don't know why you state this. I am specifically arguing that Jesus DID believe he was fulfilling the law. However, he was interpreting it in a particular light, and this did not include the necessity of marriage.

It did not reject it either.

He wasn't married,

That's not a conclusion one can derive from the text of the New Testament.

his teachings are ascetic in nature,

That's debatable.

his statements against family (an extremely important judaic symbol) are a related aberration on typical Judaic understanding of "proper" family life,

I disagree. They're more rhetoric than anything else.

and I already quoted Matthew who records an oral tradition of Jesus' views on celibacy.

An oral tradition? Can you support that conclusion?

It isn't finished, and it isn't a study. It is a sketch for people who haven't studied the period at all.

And I find it lacking in many areas.

Actually, I do.

I haven't seen it.

No, I don't. I just don't think that it was all of the essenes. I do believe it was an essene sect.

I can agree with that.

Probably because so far I have addressed only a general meaning of the law and just begun to talk about one group in first century judaism, which I haven't even finished writing about. I haven't even started to address the sadducees or pharisees, or what the "average" Israelite believed, or John the baptist, or philo, or Josephus, or any number of other views. I have just barely begun.

I await the rest of your discussion, then.

 

[Oberon]

I'll address the rest of your statements tomorrow, but in the meantime a few points:

What does this have to do with John the Baptist? Are you insisting he castrated himself simply because Jesus mentions eunuch's in a single discourse?

I thought you were talking about Jesus. My mistake.

I think it's a much more likely assumption than that he probably wasn't married because Essenes didn't marry.

I am not assuming that. There is no evidence that he was married. I use the essenes to address the argument that Jesus, as a Jew, would have to married. There were jews who weren't.

That's not a conclusion one can derive from the text of the New Testament.

Yes, it is.

That's debatable.

Everything's debatable. However, given our sources this is the most likely view of Jesus.

I disagree. They're more rhetoric than anything else.

Hardly. You are an expert in the near east, right? How much study have you devoted to NT studies in particular (which is my area of expertise)?

An oral tradition? Can you support that conclusion?

Yes.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Matt. 19:11, .

And considering he made it clear as to what he was here to enlighten the People to... well, how do you reconcile your view of the Eunuchs according to Isaiah 56 regarding the joining to the covenant (hey.. he left out more groups in the case that your view is correct). OBERON!! You have proved yourself to not be dense in more than one area. Do you REALLY think this is concerning those who cut off their *ahem* physically? Come on... NO WHERE IN THE TANAKH is this physical act condoned. It is symbolic of those who are CUT OFF from the people. It doesn't ALWAYS hurt to admit that you are wrong, ya know.

 

[Oberon]

And considering he made it clear as to what he was here to enlighten the People to... well, how do you reconcile your view of the Eunuchs according to Isaiah 56 regarding the joining to the covenant (hey.. he left out more groups in the case that your view is correct). OBERON!! You have proved yourself to not be dense in more than one area. Do you REALLY think this is concerning those who cut off their *ahem* physically? Come on... NO WHERE IN THE TANAKH is this physical act condoned. It is symbolic of those who are CUT OFF from the people. It doesn't ALWAYS hurt to admit that you are wrong, ya know.

No I think it means what it says. "Eunuch" by choice, i.e. remaining celibate, for the sake of the kingdom. The saying views such people as positive, which would hardly be the case if Jesus were referring to being cut off from Yahweh. Your interpretation not only involves reading in a scriptural reference on the basis of a one word, it also runs against the entire thrust of the logion.

 

[IF_u_knew]

No I think it means what it says. "Eunuch" by choice, i.e. remaining celibate, for the sake of the kingdom. The saying views such people as positive, which would hardly be the case if Jesus were referring to being cut off from Yahweh. Your interpretation not only involves reading in a scriptural reference on the basis of a one word, it also runs against the entire thrust of the logion.

Then why the reference in Isaiah 56? Oberon.. come on.. leave behind the views of those who can't think with their own minds. Use yours already!!! If it as you say, then why the reference made in Isaiah 56 regarding their JOINING back to the People.. unless of course, it is metaphoric. Or do you think a Jew who whacks his *ahem* off is automatically cut off from his people? or do you think that those who do not have sexual relations are cut off?

Something here in your view does not add up when looking at what it is Jesus said to be enlightening on... Isaiah 56 would be included in his enlightened teachings ya know.

YOUR VIEW .. if taking Isaiah 56 (according to Jesus' teachings) is to be taken the way you say:

1. They need to join back if they whack physically.. and OUCH!! (couldn't say from personal experience, but a full chop seems worse than the teeny bit of chop that I even made my own sons endure... definately more barbaric).

2. They need to join back BECAUSE THEY are choosing NOT to have children.. thus meaning ANY Jew not having children is against the covenant.

Else... why the mention as it is said in Isaiah 56, Oberon?

Perhaps... *bites nails nervously*.. my view *could possibly* be correct?

 

[Oberon]

Then why the reference in Isaiah 56?

THERE IS NO REFERENCE! You are making a reference out of nothing. I am not talking about Isaiah, and neither was Jesus. The two just happen to have the same word. You can't claim Jesus was making a scriptural reference just because two passages have one word in common.

Let's make this clear: Isaiah 56 uses a metaphorical usage of eunuch. Jesus also uses a metaphorical usage of eunuch, in a totally different way, and a totally different context.

Jesus talks about eunuchs who were born as eunuchs (i.e. without the ability to have sex) those who are made that way (which are real eunuchs who have actually chopped it off) and those who choose to be eunuchs metaphorically for the sake of the kingdom. In other words, they choose to be celibate because it is the best path.

If Jesus were making a reference to Isaiah, why would he go on to say that some are eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom? In Isaiah, the metaphorical eunuchs are cut-off from god, but not by choice. By keeping his commandments, they can be near him, and not cut-off. Being cut-off, in Isaiah, is a BAD thing.

In the logion in Matt., it is a GOOD thing. Hence, no reference to Isaiah.

Else... why the mention as it is said in Isaiah 56, Oberon?

It isn't. There is nothing similar between the two, except that they both have the same word (more or less).

 

[maklelan]

I'll address the rest of your statements tomorrow, but in the meantime a few points:

I thought you were talking about Jesus. My mistake.

No problem.

I am not assuming that. There is no evidence that he was married.

Nor is there evidence he was not. I'm not arguing that he was definitely married, I'm just arguing that your premise seems based on some tunnel vision.

I use the essenes to address the argument that Jesus, as a Jew, would have to married. There were jews who weren't.

I see you making the argument that Jesus most definitely was not married, not just that not all Jews were married.

Yes, it is.

Can you support it?

Everything's debatable. However, given our sources this is the most likely view of Jesus.

I disagree, and I'll wait to see your evidence before I comment further.

Hardly. You are an expert in the near east, right? How much study have you devoted to NT studies in particular (which is my area of expertise)?

Quite some time. I minored in Greek for my undergrad and have worked with the Jewish/Christian relationship for a few years now. Two years ago I wrote a seminar paper on the possible relationship of Qumran to Christianity. Second Temple Judaism and early Israelite theology are my main foci, and I have read Josephus extensively. I will be working with Martin Goodman at Oxford for the next year using Josephus as our primary source for Jewish history in the Graeco-Roman period.

Yes.

By all means, please do so.