Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I understand that other calendar disputes arose in the 40s CE over the way of counting the first-fruits offering.

John T

Your problem is rooted in the manner in which you develop your argument. You begin by assuming that the Essenes are the authors of the DSS material and then go on to develop a number of hypotheses from that. One of those assumptions is that a community could have only one calendar. This is flatly refuted by the fact that the Jews and Samaritans clearly had at least two calendars insofar as there were two 'starts' to the lunar calendar - i.e. the first of the first and the first of the seventh - which corresponded to the religious and secular year respectively. I think you should begin by purging yourself of a number of assumptions before pretending to engage in academic research. One obvious problem is that you reduce all problems in Jewish antiquity in terms of whether or not it proves or disproves Eisenman. It would not at all be difficult to imagine that ancient communities used several different calendars - much as Jews do to this day (i.e. the solar 'Gentile' calendar). Also you should spend time looking at Samaritan and early Christian sources. The Dustan for instance divided the calendar into 12 months of 30 days i.e. the solar calendar. Stop thinking exclusively in terms of Eisenman or any set 'model' and spend a decade just familiarizing yourself with the data. It is not helpful to organize data according to preconceived notions.

On the use of more than one calendar in the DSS scrolls

http://books.google.com/books?id=uxnXaY ... an&f=false

Stephan,

You wrote:

"Besides look at the convincing work John has done to bring forward a number of vague similarities between the DSS and early Christianity"

If this is addressed to me, I'd like to know an example of a similarity I've brought forward that you consider to be vague.

For instance, you recently said that you think the prohibitions against polygamy in the Damascus Document (and other Scrolls) are directed at the Pharisees, and I gave citations that revolve around and are directly tied to OT verses and statements that pertain to kings.

Thus I think that these prohibitions are aimed specifically at kings rather than the Pharisees and that the Herodians are very good candidates for them that fall within the 1st century BCE to just into the first century CE carbon dating range, and I don't see what's vague about that.

Stephan Huller wrote:One obvious problem is that you reduce all problems in Jewish antiquity in terms of whether or not it proves or disproves Eisenman.

This is the same error as the Jesus is Caesar and the Astrotheologians make. One can always amass data to "prove" one's hypothesis when one is looking for it and the longer and harder one looks the more one will always find. The mass of matching data becomes so overwhelming that the one doing the searching can see no other legitimate alternative to their explanation. The real test is to examine each "match" and seriously test it for alternative explanations -- that is, to explore just as fervently the arguments against. But that can't be really done while one is still immersed in the hypothesis. As you say, one must first step back and take a fresh look at all the other questions and discussions and how everything works and then come back to the treasured hypothesis afresh with a more critical eye.

John T

For instance, you recently said that you think the prohibitions against polygamy in the Damascus Document (and other Scrolls) are directed at the Pharisees, and I gave citations that indicate that they specifically revolve around and are directly tied to OT verses and statements that pertain to kings.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. For some reason you are obsessed with Eisenman. Fine, I am sure he'd like the attention. But then you go on to make the question of the CD prohibitions against polygamy come down to a 'for' or 'against' Eisenman's theory about James. This is no way to proceed. You should cleanse all thought of secondary considerations when examining a text and ask - what clues does the text provide us about the people or individual who wrote it. Nothing in the text shouts out anything about James the Just or any of the things you are obsessed about.

In 1903, long before Eisenman was born a fragment of the CD was discovered in the Cairo Genizah and Solomon Schechter brought it with him to the United States where he and Kaufmann Kohler examined the text and came to the conclusion it was a Sadducean text. I think they coined the text 'the Zadokite fragment' (from memory). The conclusion comes naturally to anyone who sits down and reads the whole document without the voice of a retired professor with a disproved thesis via carbondating in their heads. It's time you stopped thinking in terms of Eisenman and focus instead on what the text says.

That is why for Kohler, the fragments were a remnant of the religious system of the Sadducees, Samaritans, and Karites, who collectively preserved ancient traditions and practices in contrast to the populist notions of the Pharisees.

Stephan Huller wrote:I think I participate in these forums to watch how the manner in which the minds of the obtuse work. Please explain to me Charles why any of this nonsense overcomes the results of the carbon-dating?

Aside from your Non-Cognitive Criticism, please tell me why I would WANT to overcome Carbon-14 dating. I do not doubt the Science here without reason. I'm not the one who screams that there was a savior-god who once lived and therefore always did live and always will live. That would be someone else.

Mishmarot is like finding a coin on a site, maybe even better. A coin may have been placed there in unusual circumstances. Here we have a Group waiting for the chance to takeover in Jerusalem. They keep SEVERAL calenders including the Solar calendar they believe to be True as well as a Luni-Solar calendar. They inter-calculated them. They kept them all and used Mishmarot as a check to make sure that Holy Days were properly kept.

E and W tell of "Aemillius Kills" fragment and that dates to Aemillius Scarus (d. 67 BCE), Salome (d. 67 BCE) and Hyrcanus 2 (executed in 30 BCE) and possibly others. So, what else can we learn? We have several calendars, cross-referenced, the Mishmarot Courses which is a Mathematical Check and any particular mistake would have the possiblities of multiple correctives through many years. We would probably be better served by calculating the years, months and days, cross-referenced with the Holy Days given and matched with the Mishmarot Service Groups. Carbon-14 dating? SURE! Smoke'em if ya' got'em! Guess what? Both disciplines should find the same dates - roughly.

Beats the hell out of sniping for imaginary points in a game nobody cares about...

CW

Charles you have a tendency to project your own (familiar) ideas on any discussion. A fair criticism, no?

Stephan,

I think the example I gave is rather something that stands on its own merits regardless of the existence of Eisenman's theory and is valid within the carbon dating range. And I would like to see another example of something you consider to be vague, because I don't see what's vague about this one.

BTW, you addressed your comment to John T but cited and responded to something I wrote.

You are aware that there is evidence in Judean scripture that the original Judean calendar was in fact the 364 day calendar? The lunar calendar was introduced by the Persians and maintained by the Greeks after Alexander, but that does not mean that the old calendar was not maintained for liturgical use (rotation of priests), despite what Josephus says (since his intent was to explain Judean temple service to Hellenes, who used a lunar calendar).

While a lot is made of the uncertainty of exactly how a 364 day calendar (which is not really "solar," but "schematic") was intercalated, the same situation also applies to how the Judean high priests intercalated their version of the lunar calendar, and there are several ways to reconcile the two. The DSS "otot" texts that give details of rotation cycles may actually have contained clues to such a synchronization, had they not been preserved with so many missing sections.

DCH

John T wrote:@neilgodfrey,

The Essenes came up with a different calender based on the sun and not the moon (4Q320-30 and IQSx, 5). This was in order to be in tune with the 'laws of the Great Light of heaven' (IQH xII, 5). The first day of the year always fell on the same day of the week, i.e. Wednesday. Now, you have to sit back and wonder, how could the Essenes be part of the Sadducees or Pharisees with such an unusual calender?

It seems, the Essenes were a different/separate sect altogether and therefore, the Teacher of Righteousness could not be from the Hasmonaean dynasty.