Eisenman and the DSS

[Stephan Huller]

I think this 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

No it doesn't John. Your head seems to be so deeply shoved up Eisenman's ass that you can't seem to see the daylight. SINCE the rest of the document echoes a Sadducee vs Pharisee dynamic it Is more likely that the anti-polygamy argument is also directed against the Pharisees. If you weren't trying to support a theory already demolished by C 14 evidence you'd be able to see that. But you can't or won't or both.

[Stephan Huller]

On the subject of many calendars being used by the ancient Jews Larsson has put together a convincing case I think that the Pentateuch was written with three calendars in mind. He got this idea from Stenring http://books.google.com/books?id=t-MUAA ... em&f=false All of John's false dichotomies set up a series of 'either/ors' that he hopes can distract people from the carbon dating. History doesn't always come down to 'either/or.' Something it manifests itself as 'yes and yes.'

[Stephan Huller]

From the Secret System:

Many scholars believe that in ancient Israel there were one or more changes between the solar and lunar calendars.22 In that case they very probably ran in parallel for some time. Hanhart has demonstrated that probably two calendars were used in the Book of the Maccabees.23 Changes between them are made without the slightest indication in the text. On the whole, it was common in the ancient world to reckon both by a civil calendar and by a calendar of religious festivals. The Qumran sect, for example, seems to have had the Babylonian calendar for daily use but a calendar of its own in religious connections. In the same way, the Jews of Egypt used both a civil Egyptian solar year and a religious lunar year in their calendars [p. 14]

[John T]

@Stephan Huller,

You have made false allegations about what I proposed, as well as questioning my motives. When you default to straw-man arguments and ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the merits you have forfeited your integrity on the matter.

By refusing to give a fair hearing to Eisenman all you have done is prove how arrogant and closed-minded you are. I got that.

Now as a reminder, I have a lot of respect for the late Geza Vermes but even he said he did not know who the Teacher of Righteousness was and meekly suggested the Wicked Priest might have been Jonathan Maccabaeus of 153 BCE. So, it is a mystery and people like trying to solve mysteries, e.g. who was Jack the Ripper? Eisenman has spent a considerable amount of time trying to solve the mystery. I prefer to give him a fair hearing based on the strength of his arguments.

If you have a smoking gun that debunks his evidence then present the evidence and not your personal uniformed opinion. Otherwise, you should just move onto another thread and let the unbiased folks enjoy trying to solve the mystery.
Is that too much to ask?

Thanks in advance.

John the Ignorant

[Stephan Huller]

By refusing to give a fair hearing to Eisenman all you have done is prove how arrogant and closed-minded you are. I got that.

So it is all about Eisenman, right? So basically what you want to do is have a discussion where carbon dating isn't brought up and all sorts of loose parallels and weak arguments 'decide' the case in favor of Eisenman. I am sure Eisenman would be very happy with those rules if a debate could be framed that way. So basically we go back to the period before the carbon dating demolished Eisenman's case. I think you should invest your efforts in inventing time travel and go back in time to convince Eisenman to come up with a better theory before he got embarrassed in front of his peers.

[Stephan Huller]

Just to make clear. I am not singling out Eisenman. When an equally implausible theory was put forward by Pete Brown in these forums I doggedly reminded him of core arguments which disproved his thesis. I used to a be a dogged midfielder. I saw my son exhibit the same characteristics in his training this week. It's genetic I'm afraid and I will not back down. So you and your other John can continue to try and weave back and forth and try all sorts of tricks. The backline will hold.

[John2]

Stephan,

You wrote:

"it Is more likely that the anti-polygamy argument is also directed against the Pharisees."

While I agree with your "is also," given that I agree the DSS are generally anti-Pharisaic, the particular examples I cited and that we are talking about are (also) directed at kings, and I don't think their relevance to the Herodians (being that they refer to niece marriage and taking another wife while the other one is still alive) is vague.

[John2]

Stephan,

In this particular exchange with you I'm not arguing for or against Eisenman's theory, but rather challenging your assertion that the similarities I've mentioned between the DSS and Christianity (or between the DSS and anything else, for that matter, like the Herodians example) are vague, so I would like to see an example of something you think is vague.

[John2]

Neil,

You wrote (though not in response to me):

"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."

I agree. I've said that I generally enjoy looking at things from different angles and that I joined this forum to get some different points of view. When Spin provided me with alternative explanations for what the DSS say, I eagerly investigated them and concluded that his argument is impressive, to such an extent that I started a new thread devoted to fleshing it out. And he has given me some doubts that the Kittim were the Romans, which I have mentioned several times.

[Stephan Huller]

But there is no other meaningful 'angle' beyond the brick wall which is the carbon dating results of the material. At that point we are limited to groups and religious milieus which existed in the first or maybe second century BCE and we really have no meaningful information about the groups and traditions which existed then. There are something which just have to be left unanswered and the identity of this 'Teacher of Righteousness' is one of those questions. The one thing we can be certain of though is that James the Just is not him again because the carbon dating demonstrates that the text was produced long before the age of the apostles.