Eisenman and the DSS

[Stephan Huller]

If considerations of chronology are discounted then it is possible to consider whether Barack Obama authored the gospel. Eisenman's theory is on the same level

[spin]

Spin,

That was an excellent response. Thank you.

Since Maryhelena and I had agreed that the Kittim were the Romans, when I began this thread I was focused on the points that I think indicate that they were from the first century CE rather than the time of Pompey. I had felt fairly satisfied with them, and was preparing to move on to the similarities between Paul and the Liar, but instead your responses have caused me to shift gears and question whether or not the Kittim refer to the Romans at all. And ultimately this is great, because I generally like looking at things from different angles and try to keep an open mind. I also don't feel a lot of passion for Christian origins and feel okay with wherever chips may fall.

Just thought I'd explain my state of mind for you.

So, in response to you I've been looking at the Kittim issue with fresh eyes. And while I agree that this word, even in some of the DSS (like Jubilees, which you mentioned), appears to apply to Greeks/Macedonians/Seleucids, Daniel 11:30 does indicate that, for whatever reason, its meaning may have evolved over time. This is also indicated by Josephus, who says that:

"Cethimus possessed the island Cethima: it is now called Cyprus; and from that it is that all islands, and the greatest part of the sea-coasts, are named Cethim by the Hebrews" (Ant. 1.6.1).

And what really grabbed my attention is the word "islands," because the Habakkuk Pesher says that the Kittim:

"come from afar, from the islands of the sea, to consume all the peoples like an insatiable eagle" (col. 3).

Umm, ever thought of doing a google search for "seleucid eagle"? You don't just look for stuff to bolster your own position. Eagles didn't only have significance in Rome.

Additionally, even though the word "eagle" is in the underlying Habakkuk verses being interpreted, its presence here strikes me as being another indication that these Kittim could be Romans.

This has to be coupled with the reference to the Kittim sacrificing to their standards (col. 6), which is something that is only said of Titus' soldiers in the first century CE.

The text doesn't actually say "standards", merely "signs" (אתות), but you know how it is when you're committed to some interpretation, as the translation you're citing from does, you go for it and forget all else. This is usually called "tunnel vision". The Roman eagle for example was not a standard, but it certainly was a "sign" or symbol. The Romans did not invent such military insignias. They were a means with which ancient armies managed their divisions. There was no other way to signal location on the battlefield. In Greek the one who carried the symbol was called semeiophoros, literally "sign bearer". Alexander had them as did the successors. Do you want to argue that the Romans were the only ones who had insignia with them when they entered Jerusalem as occupying forces or maybe performed rites before them?

Carbondating on Pesher Habakkuk rules out Eisenman's theories, because it places the copying of the text before the 1st c. (2-sigma range: 160 - 148, 111 BCE - 2 CE.) We have a wicked priest with a clear reference to Menelaus, the high priest responsible for orchestrating the death of Onias III, an ideal candidate for the teacher of righteousness. It was at the same time as Menelaus that the Cypriots, Kittim, first appear in Jerusalem.

[John2]

"If considerations of chronology are discounted then it is possible to consider whether Barack Obama authored the gospel. Eisenman's theory is on the same level"

I think Eisenman's theory is more on the level with the idea that the gospels may have been written in the second century CE instead of the first century CE.

It's not an uncommon idea that the Kittim in the pesharim may have been the Romans (whether one agrees with it or not), and Eisenman supposes that they were Romans from the imperial era instead of the republican era.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jAsaAw ... ns&f=false

Because this difference amounts to however many decades, I think that carbon dating is not precise enough, and has too many variables, to ignore or dismiss the correspondences between the issues, people and events in the Scrolls and the first century CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Factoring in that the Qumran coin data includes coins from the 66-70 CE war (up to at least 68 CE), I prefer to see alternative explanations for these correspondences, as Spin is offering, than dismissals of them based solely on carbon dating.

[Stephan Huller]

But how do you get around the carbon dating?

[John2]

"But how do you get around the carbon dating?"

It's not a matter of getting around the carbon dating as it is having the impression that it is not precise enough, and has too many variables (as the link I provided indicates) to dismiss the correspondences between what the Scrolls say and the first century CE solely based on them (and factoring in the Qumran coin data).

[John2]

Spin,

You wrote:

"but you know how it is when you're committed to some interpretation, as the translation you're citing from does"

For the record, I'm not committed to Eisenman's theory. While I think it is persuasive, as I said above I like looking at things from different angles and try to keep an open mind.

"Do you want to argue that the Romans were the only ones who had insignia with them when they entered Jerusalem as occupying forces or maybe performed rites before them?"

No, only that the only reference I am aware of that anyone offered a sacrifice to them is Josephus' reference to Titus' soldiers.

As for the translation of אתות as "standards," this is the way I've seen it generally translated (not to imply that this makes it "right"):

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&h ... gws_rd=ssl

So I will take what you've said into consideration.

As for the Seleucids using eagle imagery, I wasn't aware of that. I was casually going by the idea that the Seleucids are not represented by an eagle in Daniel 7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_kingdoms_of_Daniel

So that's another interesting thing you've given me to chew on in this discussion.

However, the Habakkuk Pesher says that the Kittim had "come from afar, from the islands of the sea," which resembles Josephus' reference in the first century CE that "all islands, and the greatest part of the sea-coasts, are named Cethim by the Hebrews" (Ant. 1.6.1).

[Stephan Huller]

Code: Select all

For the record, I'm not committed to Eisenman's theory. While I think it is persuasive

Give me a ducking break. It's persuasive in spite of the obvious refutation of carbon dating? This is insane. Please Bob make a plausible argument for this silly theory and against science

[John2]

"It's persuasive in spite of the obvious refutation of carbon dating?"

As I said, my impression is that carbon dating is not precise enough, and has too many variables (as the link I provided indicates) to dismiss the correspondences between what the Scrolls say and the first century CE solely based on it. I also factor in the presence at Qumran of coins from the 66-70 CE war (and, for that matter, and just to make you groan even more, coins from the Bar Kochba revolt).

Your rejection of Eisenman's theory, which thus far is solely based on carbon dating, is duly noted.

[Stephan Huller]

But what more is there to say if the material can't be from the apostolic period? Saying that carbon dating isn't persuasive in determining the date of a manuscript is like saying a photograph of someone stabbing a victim isn't persuasive in a criminal prosecution. This is becoming as stupid as any mountainman thread. Far more intriguing is the question of the identity of John2. Who could be this devoted to an implausible theory other than the author himself? I thought this discussion was over when spin brought in the evidence of carbon dating. Little did I know ...

[John2]

"But what more is there to say if the material can't be from the apostolic period?"

Even assuming that carbon dating can prove this with absolute certainty, it cannot say when the material was written on, which is another factor I consider.

I intend to discuss Eisenman's theory a lot more, so I want to remind you that no one is forcing you to read this thread.

And I'm enjoying mulling over Spin's alternative explanations regarding what the Scrolls say, and will address those in time as well.

As for my identity, I'm not Eisenman, if this is what you're implying.