Manaen = Menahem = Absolom...

There are a few results on books and articles in a search for the economics of the Qumran scrolls. But they are expensive works.

This theory could sell a lot of books for the layman, depending on its presentation.

It’s intriguing to me. But I have no idea if it’s true, because I don't have a serious background in history of that era.

I think it’s somewat believable is that the Qumran writers used old parchment. But I find it hard to believe no-one’s thought of that when dating the scrolls. And old parchment would be hard to keep in good condition for writing on for a hundred years or more.
 
Orphia Nay said:
There are a few results on books and articles in a search for the economics of the Qumran scrolls. But they are expensive works.

This theory could sell a lot of books for the layman, depending on its presentation.

It’s intriguing to me. But I have no idea if it’s true, because I don't have a serious background in history of that era.

I think it’s somewat believable is that the Qumran writers used old parchment. But I find it hard to believe no-one’s thought of that when dating the scrolls. And old parchment would be hard to keep in good condition for writing on for a hundred years or more.
Click to expand...

Thanks Orph.

Part of the hypothesis is that what the community were using was basically a "Genizah" (look it up) - A place where old sacred scrolls were deposited to decompose naturally, rather than be burned or trampled.

As to why no one thought of it before: Maybe they did. The original Scroll editors who held a monopoly over the texts until 1989 were all Catholic Priests who signed agreements not to publish anything which contradicts Catholic dogma. ( is this just a CT? Not sure.)

The lead Archaeologist at the site for decades was a Catholic Priest who never got around to publishing his notes.

The Archaeology at the site has been pretty bad generally. It should be a scandal IMO. I wish they'd get Time Team in there, Tony Robinson would sort them out...

It is either incompetence , conspiracy, or I'm wrong.

I don't think I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
Thanks Orph.

Part of the hypothesis is that what the community were using was basically a "Genizah" (look it up) - A place where old sacred scrolls were deposited to decompose naturally, rather than be burned or trampled.

As to why no one thought of it before: Maybe they did. The original Scroll editors who held a monopoly over the texts until 1989 were all Catholic Priests who signed agreements not to publish anything which contradicts Catholic dogma. ( is this just a CT? Not sure.)
The lead Archaeologist at the site for decades was a Catholic Priest who never got around to publishing his notes.

The Archaeology at the site has been pretty bad generally. It should be a scandal IMO. I wish they'd get Time Team in there, Tony Robinson would sort them out...

It is either incompetence , conspiracy, or I'm wrong.

I don't think I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Huge if true. Well, actually, all of it.

But yeah, where did you hear/read about them all being Catholic priests and signing an agreement?
 
Orphia Nay said:
Huge if true. Well, actually, all of it.

But yeah, where did you hear/read about them all being Catholic priests and signing an agreement?
Click to expand...

Scuttlebut...

It's one of the things Eisenman says during his lectures.

Plus Wiki has this, with foot notes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran#:~:text=Today, the Qumran site is,digs have been carried out.

Roland de Vaux died in 1971 without having provided a full report on the excavations at Qumran.[31][32] In 1986 the École Biblique appointed the Belgian archaeologist Robert Donceel to the task of publishing the final results of de Vaux's excavations. Preliminary findings were presented at a conference in New York in 1992,[33] but a final report never eventuated. According to Pauline Donceel-Voûte the final report was impossible to write, because many artifacts had been lost or corrupted (in particular, according to the Donceels, some of the coins excavated by Roland de Vaux from Qumran had been lost.[31][34]) To fill the gap, the École had a synthesis of de Vaux's field notes published in 1994.[35] This volume included several hundred photographs, 48 pages of measurement, and summary descriptions of the field diaries.[36] An English translation of the field notes synthesis was published in 2003.[37] Two later books, devoted to the interpretation of the excavations of de Vaux, were published by Jean-Baptiste Humbert in 2003 and 2016.[38][39] However, not all of de Vaux's archaeological findings from Qumran (which are stored in the Rockefeller Museum) have yet been published; some are still inaccessible to scholars and the public.[31][40]

Further excavations and surveys
Click to expand...
 
Hmm, De Vaux’s entry has this:

“Roland Guérin de Vaux OP (17 December 1903 – 10 September 1971) was a French Dominican priest who led the Catholic team that initially worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
 
Hold on, have you seen this?

“Allegro's book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970) argued that Christianity began as a shamanistic cult. In his books The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross and The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1979), Allegro put forward the theory that stories of early Christianity originated in an Essene clandestine cult centred around the use of psychedelic mushrooms, and that the New Testament is the coded record of this shamanistic cult. Allegro further argued that the authors of the Christian gospels did not understand the Essene thought. When writing down the Gospels based on the stories they had heard, the evangelists confused the meaning of the scrolls. In this way, according to Allegro, the Christian tradition is based on a misunderstanding of the scrolls. He also argued that the story of Jesus was based on the crucifixion of the Teacher of Righteousness in the scrolls. Mark Hall writes that Allegro suggested the Dead Sea Scrolls all but proved that a historical Jesus never existed.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Allegro?wprov=sfti1#The_Sacred_Mushroom_and_Christian_Myth
 
Orphia Nay said:
And this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_and_the_Christian_Myth

Sounds like your theory, with added shamanism.

Note, the Wikipedia page was mostly created by a banned user.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this subject can attract nutters...

Having said that, it's all stuff that I'm familiar with.

They all want to make something supernatural or something about it, but it's just economics, sociology and politics, Ancient style.

People want to keep magic Jesus, commie Qumran Jesus is only a man and not really a lot of fun...
 
Brainache said:
Yeah, this subject can attract nutters...

Having said that, it's all stuff that I'm familiar with.

They all want to make something supernatural or something about it, but it's just economics, sociology and politics, Ancient style.

People want to keep magic Jesus, commie Qumran Jesus is only a man and not really a lot of fun...
Click to expand...

Allegra really poisoned the well with his druggie Jesus.
 
Brainache said:
So I ask again: Why are you here?

Just to act all snooty and superior for no apparent reason?

No one is forcing you to read anything, just asking you not to prejudge ideas about which you have no clue.

Can you do that?

Then go away.
Click to expand...

Even if somebody came on here and showed you, chapter and verse, that you are completely wrong in your assertions (and I reckon there are plenty of scholars and historains who could do just that, except arguing with a random nobody on a non-expert forum isn't worth their time), you'd still refuse to accept you're wrong.

Your antics in these threads amply demonstrate that you are incapable of accepting that you are wrong, no matter how strong the argument against your position is.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Your antics in these threads amply demonstrate that you are incapable of accepting that you are wrong, no matter how strong the argument against your position is.
Click to expand...

How on earth do you know this? There hasn’t been a decent argument against Brainache’s theory in this thread. All we have are people (like you) simply claiming victory, with some even asking for an expert scholar to turn up and make arguments against Brainache.

With your and others posts masquerading as skeptical debate, the final collapse of this forum can’t come soon enough.
 
acbytesla said:
I know about Paul only from what is in the Bible. I do know however that your claims in this thread contradicts the generally accepted history of Paul. But I admittedly am not sufficiently educated about the history of this period in time. As I suspect almost all ISF members aren't either.
I am criticizing your choice of forums. If you are seeking valid criticism of your work then why are you posting here?
Click to expand...

Brainache doesn't want valid criticism of their work. They simply want validation.

Hence the constant refrain to their critics of "you didn't read my theory right".
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Brainache doesn't want valid criticism of their work. They simply want validation.

Hence the constant refrain to their critics of "you didn't read my theory right".
Click to expand...

You haven't read it.

Another one with firmly held ignorant opinions.

I really thought this place was better.

OK Mr Foyle, I ask again: Can you (or anyone else) show me these devastating critiques I supposedly ignored?

Certainly none from Mr Foyle who didn't know the difference between Herod the Great and Herod the Tetrarch, so loudly assumed I was as ignorant as him and declared victory.

If that is a sample of these devastating critiques of my actual arguments, I think I'm pretty safe.

Read it Gully, you might learn something....
 
Brainache said:
You apparently can't read and don't know what a Gish Gallop is.

There are no more replies for you.
Click to expand...

Throwing out loads of nonsense points while not giving your opponent a chance to rebut them? That's a Gish Gallop and it perfectly describes your posting style.

Your the deafest person of them all, the one who won't listen.
 
Brainache said:
You haven't read it.
.

....
Click to expand...

I have read most of this thread and a good portion of the original thread. Enough to know that all you have is a bunch of superficial similarities hung together as a unified narrative solely by your need for there to be one.

If you believe you have more gather your sources and publish. But you won't do that, because you know deep down that your nonsense is nonsense, but you are too prideful to admit you are wrong.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Throwing out loads of nonsense points while not giving your opponent a chance to rebut them? That's a Gish Gallop and it perfectly describes your posting style.

Your the deafest person of them all, the one who won't listen.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Can you not read?

There is no gish gallop there, just a brief bit of fairly standard History of the region, followed by my hypothesis and a description of how it could be falsified.

What were you reading?

Everybody has the chance, opportunity and my encouragement (over many posts) to reply to any of the points I have made.

Why you say the ridiculous things you say is a total mystery to me, but I wouldn't dream of telling you what to do. that might be rude...

Are you drunk?

That might explain it.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I have read most of this thread and a good portion of the original thread. Enough to know that all you have is a bunch of superficial similarities hung together as a unified narrative solely by your need for there to be one.

If you believe you have more gather your sources and publish. But you won't do that, because you know deep down that your nonsense is nonsense, but you are too prideful to admit you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Be specific.

How can I respond to criticism like that?

What, specifically am I "stringing together"? It all has evidence and I link to it all.

Seems to me you can't read, through all the angry pills you've been taking...
 
This is me not giving anyone a chance to reply:

Can someone please tell me where I'm wrong?


This is also apparently an arrogant declaration of victory and my crowning as the King of Skepticland....

Seriously, what are people reading?

Is there some secret font that I'm unaware of?

Guys, if you are unfamiliar with the details, it's OK to not have an opinion.
 
So, no more pompous windbags to give me lectures on critical thinking or add their ignorant opinions of a hypothesis they refuse to read?

I just came back to say I haven't heard back from Notre Dame re the bones from Qumran.

Before I see the report I will just say that if that skeleton is intact except for hands and feet, I would take that as evidence of crucifixion - how else was someone 'cut down' from a cross? Have you seen those crucifixion nails? You're not prying those things out of a post in a hurry.

Of course if the skeleton has hands and feet, I'm wrong.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I think this thread should be closed to all but Brainache. He's not willing to listen to anybody else anyways.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for a response from people who have read it and who might have specific criticisms of my work.

How is that me not being willing to listen?

What have you got that isn't ignorant nonsense?

I'll be waiting.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I think this thread should be closed to all but Brainache. He's not willing to listen to anybody else anyways.
Click to expand...

OK Mr Foyle, "Illuminator" that you are, how about this:

You take that post of mine above which you described as: a "Gish Gallop" and a "load of nonsense points", take it one point at a time and reply here with your reasons for calling it nonsense.

I will then respond to your arguments and we will stay on topic until each point is resolved, one way or another.

No "Gish Gallop". No name-calling. Just calm reasoned debate.

Can we do that?

Or do you just want to carry on insulting me?
 
Brainache said:
So, no more pompous windbags to give me lectures on critical thinking or add their ignorant opinions of a hypothesis they refuse to read?

I just came back to say I haven't heard back from Notre Dame re the bones from Qumran.

Before I see the report I will just say that if that skeleton is intact except for hands and feet, I would take that as evidence of crucifixion - how else was someone 'cut down' from a cross? Have you seen those crucifixion nails? You're not prying those things out of a post in a hurry.

Of course if the skeleton has hands and feet, I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I kind of think it would be easier to use a tool of some sort to take the nails out than it would be to cut off the feet and hands.

But yeah, I'm kind of hoping your theory is true. :):D
 
Orphia Nay said:
I kind of think it would be easier to use a tool of some sort to take the nails out than it would be to cut off the feet and hands.

But yeah, I'm kind of hoping your theory is true. :):D
Click to expand...

Not without crushing the hands and feet to a pulp, unless they had a "jaws-of-life", which I doubt.

Also I presume they (disciples I spose) didn't want to spend a long time struggling and mashing their beloved Teacher's corpse.

It's the kind of job someone would do as quickly and neatly as possible. Put the body on a cart and head back down the road to Damascus before the Romans know what happened.

Next day the body is missing...
 
Brainache said:
Not without crushing the hands and feet to a pulp, unless they had a "jaws-of-life", which I doubt.

Also I presume they (disciples I spose) didn't want to spend a long time struggling and mashing their beloved Teacher's corpse.

It's the kind of job someone would do as quickly and neatly as possible. Put the body on a cart and head back down the road to Damascus before the Romans know what happened.

Next day the body is missing...
Click to expand...

Are we sure they even used nails?
 
Orphia Nay said:
Are we sure they even used nails?
Click to expand...

They have a heel bone with a huge nail driven through it from the time.

From The Times of Israel:

Heel-bone-and-nail-from-the-ossuary-of-%E2%80%98Yehohanan-son-of-Hagkol%E2%80%9D-Jerusalem-1st-century-CE.jpg


You'd need more than a claw hammer...
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Positive.

We have hundreds of relics of Nails from the True Cross.
Click to expand...

:D

Brainache said:
They have a heel bone with a huge nail driven through it from the time.

From The Times of Israel:

[qimg]https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2012/03/Heel-bone-and-nail-from-the-ossuary-of-%E2%80%98Yehohanan-son-of-Hagkol%E2%80%9D-Jerusalem-1st-century-CE.jpg[/qimg]

You'd need more than a claw hammer...
Click to expand...

I don't see how that was used in a crucifixion.
 
Gruesome details follow, be warned:

Well, see the way the Romans crucified people, according to Dr Tabor, was with the arms over the top of the cross-bar, so that the shoulders take all the weight. The hands are nailed at the back. The feet are nailed either side of the upright post, through the heel bone (as seen above).
 
Well, it's gone very quiet in here.

No specific criticisms then?

I think the closest I've gotten to a specific criticism was the poster upthread (can't remember who), who said that they dismissed my entire hypothesis because I said there was a scribal error in the passage of Josephus I quoted. Apparently that proved I was biased and was distorting the sources to suit my stupid narrative.

The passage in question described Menachem the Essene, a son of Judas the Galilean, ( the Menachem who tried to take over the revolt in 68 CE and was attacked and stoned to death at the instigation of his brother (or cousin) Eleazar who went on to lead the last resisters at Masada), meeting a very young "Herod the Great", flattering him and receiving "many gifts" as a result. I said it should read "Herod the Tetrarch".

Yes I am biased against Menachem meeting young Herod the Great, because that would make him about 150 years old at the time of his death. I also don't think he had a time machine which Josephus inexplicably failed to mention.

I think a fairly standard type of Scribal error is far more likely, don't you?
 
Brainache said:
This thread is an attempt to summarise a derail from my "Paul the Herodian..." thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

It started when I read this passage in Acts:

https://biblehub.com/bsb/acts/13.htm

Hullo, I thought. This would appear to be a clear connection between the Herodian royal family and Paul. Why was nobody talking about this "Manaen" character who was so tight with the bloke who killed John the Baptist?

Who's Who of The Bible just quotes the passage and says "origin unknown". In the introduction to "The New Testament Code" Eisenman says he thinks the name might be a pseudonym for Paul, but I don't like that explanation.

So I went looking for people with similar names who were "prophets and teachers" at that time. It didn't take long to come up with an answer that made sense to me, but I'm an amateur, what do I know? I thought it might be this guy: Menahem the Essene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menahem_the_Essene
I think the bold is a mistake, because Josephus also tells us that Menahem was a "Son of Judas the Galilean" who didn't lead his tax revolt until after that Herod was dead. I don't think Judas' son could have seen Herod the Great as a school boy. Herod the Tetrarch maybe. That might also explain the "raised with" in Acts as a garbled version of "raised by" in the sense of being promoted, raised up.

So I looked further into Josephus to see if this character who "went out" in the King's service is mentioned again and he is:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-2/chapter-17.html

Apsalom? That's not a name! Absolom, That's a name. I think it must be a reference to the OT bad boy son of King David who tried to usurp his father's throne. Why else mention that name in connection with this disgraced son of Judas the Galilean?

Remembering the point of the original thread about Paul and his depiction in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) as "The Man Of Lies", "The Lying Spouter" etc, I also remembered seeing that name "Absolom" in there somewhere and here it is:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/courses/rels/225/Texts/Pesher Habakkuk

Looks like someone who took up with the DSS's Liar got called "Absolom", just like the guy who was a son of Judas the Galilean, who was raised up by Herod the Tetrarch and was hanging out with Paul and sending out disciples in fancy robes...

Or is it just me?
Click to expand...
Just coming back in here as this thread's resident "Crackpot Theorist" to repot that I am experiencing the usual crackpot delusion that my work is being read by the experts and that any day now the paradigm will start shifting... etc.

I've been watching my usual list of Scholars and their various podcasts, etc and I've heard hints that they might be talking about this in "a few weeks", so I thought I'd mention it just in case.

When is "Thanksgiving"? Probably some time around then...

Or, not for the first time, I'm totally wrong.
 
theprestige said:
... Maybe you're acceding to the crackpot interpretation of your hypothesis?
Click to expand...
I would, but there is just too much evidence and it makes too much sense.
So I'm sticking with it, even if no one else agrees. I've seen the evidence, I linked to it all and supplied the relevant quotes. I'm not asking anyone to accept anything, or just believe me. I want people to look up all that evidence and see it for themselves. It's there.

This whole thing is about discovery, not invention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom