Re: Some more Essene Research FYI
>>>As for you ot being sarcastic, well I guess the virgins and DragonQueen thing was your creativity showing itself, eh??<<<
More caricature by analogy than sarcasm, actually. However, you can
read things how you choose.
>>>Thank you for the info from Josephus. I am finding there are manytransaltions of the Essene material that vary slightly and I am
trying to discover the one that best suits my studies. I am waiting
for a coorespondance from a family freind who does alot of research
into the Sadducee, Pharasee and Essene departments.<<<
Yes, these materials can vary quite a bit from translation to
translation. Of course, to some extent we have to take the works of
Josephus, Philo, and the others who observed the "Essenes" with a
little scepticism even outside the translation problems.
My larger worry would be about any texts we would consider to be
possible Essene texts. However, I suppose before we can really
compare/contrast the Essenes vs the various Gnostics we have to have
some kind of construct. More than anything I just wanted to give you a
heads up before you put a lot of work into building your model from
something like the so called "Essene Gospel of Peace", only to find
that it doesn't help our subject in the least because it is a
completely modern work (in spite of what the webpage you listed for us
states about it).
>>>And yes, originally you dubbed a friend of mine as neo with no info,so perhaps you do make critisisms of people as well.<<<
Sure. And unless I find evidence to the contrary I am afraid I must
stick by that "criticism" whether I would like or not. This is because
in scientific method the burden of proof lays with the positive
construct of any questionable premise, claim or theory.
We are speaking of etic categories in this case, so the term "neo" is
used to point out whether we are talking about an historical group or
a modern one. In order not be a "neo" we would have to prove that a
modern person is an actual member of a living sect long thought dead,
be it Gnostic, Pythagorean, Essene, Manichaean, etc.. Whatever you
believe about a person who claims to be a member of these various
groups, I am afraid it is not rational for you to expect us to do the
same when all the evidence we have is to the contrary (even if you are
completely right and this person really is part of the historical
sect). If you keep that in mind, then I think you can see that being
defensive about it just isn't objective. If you are correct, you can
be happy in your own mind knowing that you have a bit of information
that the rest of us are not able to share at this time, but you also
have to be understanding of the fact that since we cannot share it we
cannot adjust our historical model to fit your belief.
There us no insult or threat to your beliefs. It is simply an
elementary means of outlining definition that you would find in any
academic conversation on any subject, be it history, music,
philosophy, literary criticism, psychology, so on and so on.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> I'm glad to hear that Layton didn't include TT *lol*. BTW, I justit
> thought I would also add an interesting note for the group (maybe
> will come up in the Essene conversation as well) that in additionto
> the sects you mention are attacked the treatment of John theBaptist
> is not very sympathetic either.Heh. Neither is the treatment of his mother, Elizabeth. The author
writes, "John was begotten by means of a womb worn with age."
> Less obvious, but possibly still significant....
> "It is through water and fire that the whole place is purified -
> visible by the visible, the hidden by the hidden. There are someone
> things hidden through those visible. There is water in water, there
> is fire in chrism."
> (side note.... considering the subject matter and the mention of
> of the rituals mentioned in other valentinian texts, along withThat's possible. Sure. Yet,... talking about "things hidden
> scribal errors elsewhere in Philip, one could reasonably wonder if
> the second use of the word "water" in this passage may not have
> originally been "baptism")
through those visible" preceding "water in water" compels me to draw
an immediate association of hidden water through visible water. I
don't know if that is any less meaningful than spelling it out.
Since "chrism" is mentioned, it even might be expected to think of
the water in terms of baptism. Chrism and water are mentioned as
*both* being necessary for baptism elsewhere in GPh:
"We are reborn by the holy spirit. And we are born by the anointed
(Christ) through two things. We are anointed by the spirit. When we
were born we were joined. No one can see himself in the water or in
a mirror without light. Nor, again, can you see by the light without
water or a mirror. For this reason it is necessary to baptize with
two things light and water. And light mean chrism."