Eisenman and the DSS

[MrMacSon]

So many Johns. So many James. So many Jesuses. Christ (so many non-specific Christs, too)

[John2]

Regarding the recent appearance of two people named John on this forum (specifically me and John T), I don't know what to say other than that my name is John and I joined when I joined. Whoever else joined around the same time, and whatever topic they are drawn to comment on is something I have no control over.

Now, I've been meaning to address some things Stephan Huller has said (and incessantly implied and alleged).

Regarding his suggestion that I "at least pretend" to have read someone else besides Eisenman, not only is this demonstrable in the other threads I've commented on here, even in this one, which is focused on Eisenman, I've liberally used Vermes' translation of the DSS and compared his use of the word "confuse" with Eisenman's "swallow" in the Habakkuk Pesher. I also provided a link to a page in a book by Eshel that identifies the Kittim in the Nahum Pesher with the Romans, a link to several sources I've seen that translate a word in the Habakkuk Pesher as "standards," and a link to a book edited by Schiffman that shows that identifying the Kittim with the Romans is a common view. It's not easy to find common ground between Eisenman and mainstream scholarship, and that I've managed to find some shouldn't be overlooked.

I also mentioned some examples of scholars whose works I own or have access to on my "Spin and the DSS" thread who barely mention Menelaus (or not at all).

Stephan also alleged that I did not specify what "problems" I had with carbon dating on page five of this thread, after I had already provided a link that mentions variables in carbon dating on page three of this thread.

Also, I am not Eisenman or John T. The former should be obvious enough from a statement I made in this thread that Eisenman points out that the Talmud uses the expression beit galtah and that I could not confirm it because I don't have access to the Aramaic.

It's things ike this that make me suspect that Stephan is not reading my comments very closely.

Regarding my identity, my name is John, and I chose to be "John2" here because the name "John" was already taken and John2 was the only thing I could think of at the time. I've been reading Christian origins forums for over ten years and have read comments by many of you here on them, but I've mainly been hanging out and commenting on Neil Godfrey's blog over the last five years or so under the name "John," so perhaps some of you might know me from there.

I've avoided discussion forums due to my dislike of rancor, but I like Peter Kirby and have commented on his blog under the name John and enjoy reading his early Christian writings website, so I thought I'd give this new forum a try.

I'm very grateful that Spin has given me so much of substance to think about even though he thinks the carbon dating issue alone is enough to disprove Eisenman's theory.

[John2]

Spin has given me some serious doubts about the view that the term Kittim in the DSS pesharim refers the Romans. Perhaps it does refer to the Cyprian troops mentioned in 2 Mac. 4:29 and in time it became applied to the Seleucid army in general. Perhaps the eagle imagery the Kittim are associated with in the Habakkuk Pesher is a reference to the Seleucids. And it's not hard for me to imagine that offering sacrifices to "standards" (or "signs") was something that was done by armies other than Titus' soldiers, even if it is only explicitly said of the latter.

So I'm no longer certain about this, but given that the meaning of Kittim was also applicable to Macedonians (1 Mac. 1:1), Romans (Dan. 11:30) and "all islands and the greatest part of the sea-coasts" (Ant. 1.6.1), I think it's at least possible that it refers to the Romans. The deciding factor for me will have to be how well the other references in the DSS line up with a particular time period, and on that score I think Ananus hits more points of similarity with the Wicked Priest than Menelaus (or the other candidates I'm aware of).

I've already summarized these points above, the most important being that the Wicked Priest appears to have put the Teacher of Righteousness on trial (though I suspect that Spin may have an interesting opinion about that) along with the "men of his council," and Onias III doesn't appear to have been put on trial and was alone when he was killed (2 Mac. 4:34). Ananus on the other hand put James on trial along with "some others" (Ant. 20.9.1).

But another possible point of similarity between Ananus and the Wicked Priest, with respect to the "exiled house," is that the latter is said to have swallowed the Teacher of Righteousness there in his "hot anger" (hamat: chet, mem, tav), and Eisenman supposes that this may be a pun and another indication that this "exiled house" refers to the exiled Sanhedrin mentioned in San. 41a, since the latter refers to the place it was exiled as "Hanuth" (chet, nun, vav, tav), seen by Derenbourg and Krauss as a reference to the house of Ananus or "sons of Hanan" (see note 43):

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_41.html

That may mean nothing and it's impossible to prove, but it's interesting to think about, and a word play of this sort appears to be used in the DSS concerning the Pharisees and their oral law, so I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility:

http://books.google.com/books?id=i2i5ha ... ot&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

We are all so happy that spin has allowed you the opportunity to convince us that you are 'rethinking' Eisenman rather than baldly engaging in self-promotion. At least I have learned that retirement really is as boring as I suspect that it must be.

[neilgodfrey]

We are all so happy that spin has allowed you the opportunity to convince us that you are 'rethinking' Eisenman rather than baldly engaging in self-promotion. At least I have learned that retirement really is as boring as I suspect that it must be.

I think you're overdoing this John2 is Eisenman thing. Many were once firmly convinced the Beatle Paul was dead on stronger evidence.

[Stephan Huller]

Sure ...

[Stephan Huller]

Sure. I should allow John2 the opportunity to continue to mine a dead theory. Please continue to take turns with the other John to mine the subtleties of a theory utterly disproved by carbon dating for reasons I can't possibly fathom. Please continue ...

[neilgodfrey]

There are about half a dozen "dead theories" being touted in this server space.

I have had exchanges with John2 over some time in other places and he is clearly not Eisenman.

(I also think there is more to be gained all round by addressing their arguments if/as we may have time.)

[Stephan Huller]

http://dsstimeline.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... -timeline/

There is a well established pattern of this sort of behavior among DSS scholars and the bottom line is that there is nothing more to say on the subject. Maybe it is someone impersonating Eisenman to remind us how wrong his theories were. There are many possibilities here including someone with too much time on his hands.

It takes real skill to develop a theory which can be certainly discounted as worthless. Eisenman bet everything on James and lost

[John2]

Regardless of whatever DSS scholars have said or done, or whatever Stephan Huller may think, the allegation that I am Eisenman is false.

Spin has given me some good reasons for re-thinking the common view that the Kittim in the pesharim were the Romans, for reasons I've summarized above. As I said, I'm less certain about this now.

But as I mentioned in a discussion with Maryhelena on another thread, there are some other indications that (some of) the DSS may have been written in the first century CE, such as their prohibition of niece marriage:

"While the Law of incest was written for males, it likewise applies to females. Therefore, if the daughter of a brother uncovers the nakedness of the brother of her father, he is near kin" (CD col. 5); and, "A man shall not take the daughter of his brother or the daughter of his sister, for this is an abomination" (11QT col. 66).

Niece marriage was practiced by Herodians, like Herod:

http://books.google.com/books?id=WaUSt9 ... ns&f=false

and Antipas:

"Herodias ... had been the wife of Herod Antipas' half-brother (who was also called Herod). Marriage to the ex-wife of one's brother was not uncommon, but Herodias was also the daughter of another half-brother, Aristobulus. Marriage to one's niece was also permitted, but marriage to a woman who was both one's sister-in-law and one's niece was unusual."

http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/h ... tipas.html

Another issue in the first century CE was the opposition of accepting sacrifices on behalf of Gentiles, which Josephus says set off the 66-70 CE war when rebels persuaded:

“those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon” (War 2.17.2).

This issue appears to be discussed in a fragmentary scroll called MMT, which Vermes translates as:

[And concerning the offering of the wh]eat of the [Gentiles which they ...] and they touch it ... and de[file it ... One should not accept anything] from the wheat [of the Gen]tiles [and none of it] is to enter the Sanctuary ... And concerning the sacrifice of the gentiles ... [we consider that] they {sacrifice} to [an idol and] that is [like a woman fornicating with him]."

And which Eisenman translates as:

"Now, [concerning the offering of gr]ain by the [Gentiles, who...] and they tou[c]h it... and render it im[pure... One is not to eat] any Gentile grain, nor is it permissible to bring it to the Tem[p]le ... Concerning sacrifices by Gentiles, [we say that (in reality) they] sacrifice to the i[dol that seduces them]."

Paul discusses the issue of eating food that is "sacrificed to idols" in 1 Cor. 8:

"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that 'An idol is nothing at all in the world' and that 'There is no God but one.' For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do" (v. 4-8).

And James is presented as forbidding it in Acts 15:

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols" (v. 28-29).

So not only were Gentile sacrifices and eating food sacrificed to idols issues in the first century CE, Paul was okay with the latter and James is presented as having a similar view as the DSS sect.