You got it wrong. I don’t think Jesus was an Essene.
The most common image is him in white.
Since at least about the 19th-20th century, there has been an increase in artworks showing Jesus in a white robe. Before that, what can really be called the ‘default’ colors for Jesus’ clothes are blue and/or red, and on much older pieces, even purple and gold/yellow. White can be observed in the earliest pieces of art and does occasionally crop up from century to century, but for most of the Christian era, thosese colors were the standard.
img163.imageshack.us/img163/2452/christz.th.jpg
Purple? Linking him with Royalty?
Yes. Christ the Pantocrator, Christ the King.
And ME Archaeologists usually try to link a dig find with something biblical for press and funding purposes. There was no reason to think that Qumran was an Essenic settlement. But the idea was put forth, and it stuck. The Essene-Jesus link is a popular one.
1.) Let’s start with the core question: why is Qumran
not a sectarian settlement? If it wasn’t, then what do you think it was?
2.) Again, no, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran and Masada were not found and excavated with Jesus directly in mind. Tell that rather to the people who try to sell Jesus’ crucifixion nails on EBay.
3.) Jodi Magness in
The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls actually talks a bit about these ‘popular’ (which here should be really taken as the word ‘popular’ in ‘popular media’
) theories (p. 15-16):
The alternative interpretations of Qumran have received much more publicity than the traditional interpretation. In my opinion, there are at least two reasons for this. First, scandal and controversy sell. For this reason, books and articles suggesting that Qumran was not a sectarian settlement and those which describe Vatican or scholarly conspiracies or claim that Jesus lived in Qumran have been highly publicized. This reflects the media-oriented and sensationalistic nature of our society. Second, we tend to side with the underdogs or minority cause. This feeds into a common perception of academics as being isolated and out of touch in their ivory towers.
In addition, we have developed a reluctance to be critical even when the criticism is constructive. Ironically, this is one outcome of the diversity of our society, in which we encourage and celebrate different backgrounds and views. For these reasons, in the minds of many people, different views and opinions should be given equal weight and any interpretation that challenged accepted scholarly concensus must be valid. Challenges to accepted scholarly concensus can be good because they force us to reexamine our assumptions (and sometimes cause us to change our interpretations). However, just because an interpretation happens to represent scholarly concensus does not mean it is wrong. The notion that all interpretations are equally valid is inherently flawed because Qumran could not have been a sectarian settlement
and a villa
and a manor house
and a fort
and a commercial entrepot! There can only be one correct interpretation, which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
I find myself – an American Jewish woman – in the curious position of defending the interpretation proposed by de Vaux, who was a French Dominican priest! But this book is not about my personal beliefs and background or de Vaux’s. It is about the archaeological evidence. Obviously, de Vaux’s interpretation of Qumran was influenced by his background (who isn’t?). De Vaux’s bias is evident in his use of monastic terms to describe some of the rooms and installations at Qumran (such as “refectory” and “scriptorium”). But the objections raised by de Vaux’s critics have obscured the fact that his interpretation of the site is basically correct.
Here is something to munch on, Patrick.
Was Jesus bald?
If he had long flowing locks, would it have a good thing to have Mary anoint his head with oil- even expensive oil?
Well, can only a bald person be anointed?
