03-31-2004, 08:28 PM
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Jesus could have been travelling under the name Joseph of Arimathea<hr><br>
<br>
That sounds rather like an ancient Interpol memorandum (Interfrumentarii?) - or something from Crimewatch!<br>
<br>
As for Blake, I'm sure criticising his historical accuracy is taking things a bit far! Visionaries never let the facts of history get in their way, after all (one of the few things that William Blake and Mel Gibson have in common, I suspect)...<br>
<br>
Re. Jesus and the Essenes - I think that theory's quite popular with those who like to see Jesus as a two-fisted revolutionary type, agitating against Roman rule - not a completely barmy idea (Judas Iscariot might have been a firebrand of sorts - Iscariot meaning, I believe, <em>sicarii</em>, and therefore connoting one of the radical 'political assassin' sort of zealots). The trouble with the Essenes is that almost all we have to go on regarding them is Josephus and the collection of texts found at Qumran. Josephus portrays them, rather eye-rollingly, as an extreme ascetic sect with strict rules of membership and a dislike of (ahem!) going to the bathroom in public. The Qumran texts are more bellicose, and provide most of the armoury for those who want to make the Essenes into 1st-century Jewish freedom fighters. If Jesus was an Essene, he would have been an outcast and heretic one - they weren't supposed to leave their proto-monastic communities.<br>
<br>
A bit more convincing is the idea that Jesus was actually a Pharisee - the Pharisees being the Jewish equivilant, I believe, of lay preachers, as opposed to the Sadducees, who were the traditionalist temple hierarchy. The Pharisees provided the basis for the modern Rabbinical tradition - they knew the Law backwards and tended towards an academic interpretation, but had plenty of radical offshoots. Jesus obviously knew Jewish Law very well, and it would make sense for him to have been a rebel Pharisee - all his fulminations against them could therefore be seen as a sort of family row about the interpretation of the Word of God - rather like Luther's disagreement with the Catholic church much later.<br>
<br>
It's a big and murky subject, but fascinating nonetheless!<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
That sounds rather like an ancient Interpol memorandum (Interfrumentarii?) - or something from Crimewatch!<br>
<br>
As for Blake, I'm sure criticising his historical accuracy is taking things a bit far! Visionaries never let the facts of history get in their way, after all (one of the few things that William Blake and Mel Gibson have in common, I suspect)...<br>
<br>
Re. Jesus and the Essenes - I think that theory's quite popular with those who like to see Jesus as a two-fisted revolutionary type, agitating against Roman rule - not a completely barmy idea (Judas Iscariot might have been a firebrand of sorts - Iscariot meaning, I believe, <em>sicarii</em>, and therefore connoting one of the radical 'political assassin' sort of zealots). The trouble with the Essenes is that almost all we have to go on regarding them is Josephus and the collection of texts found at Qumran. Josephus portrays them, rather eye-rollingly, as an extreme ascetic sect with strict rules of membership and a dislike of (ahem!) going to the bathroom in public. The Qumran texts are more bellicose, and provide most of the armoury for those who want to make the Essenes into 1st-century Jewish freedom fighters. If Jesus was an Essene, he would have been an outcast and heretic one - they weren't supposed to leave their proto-monastic communities.<br>
<br>
A bit more convincing is the idea that Jesus was actually a Pharisee - the Pharisees being the Jewish equivilant, I believe, of lay preachers, as opposed to the Sadducees, who were the traditionalist temple hierarchy. The Pharisees provided the basis for the modern Rabbinical tradition - they knew the Law backwards and tended towards an academic interpretation, but had plenty of radical offshoots. Jesus obviously knew Jewish Law very well, and it would make sense for him to have been a rebel Pharisee - all his fulminations against them could therefore be seen as a sort of family row about the interpretation of the Word of God - rather like Luther's disagreement with the Catholic church much later.<br>
<br>
It's a big and murky subject, but fascinating nonetheless!<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Nathan Ross
