Eisenman and the DSS

[Stephan Huller]

So what you are saying is that you can't tell from the evidence whether it is specifically anti-Herodian ... until you come up against the C 14 data. Then the text clearly becomes pre-Herodian and thus - given the other strong signs of specifically anti-Pharisaic polemic, the true POV emerges. Why is it so difficult for you to abandon a refuted interpretation of the text? We have been going over and over the arguments. There is nothing which supports Eisenman's contentions and the carbon dating nails the coffin in the interpretation. It is over.

[John2]

Stephan wrote:

"So what you are saying is that you can't tell from the evidence whether it is specifically anti-Herodian ... until you come up against the C 14 data."

No, that's not what I'm saying. The examples from the DSS that I've cited indicate that the DSS are anti-niece marriage and taking another wife while the other one is still alive, and I think the Herodians are a very good match for who these prohibitions are aimed at since they are directed at kings (whether one agrees with Eisenman's theory or not), and they also fit within the carbon date of the Habakkuk Pesher.

[Stephan Huller]

The latest line of inquiry on your part was to have me clarify why I characterized your previous arguments as 'vague.' I then put forward that even you admitted that the anti-polygamy arguments in the broader DSS could go either way. From here you have shifted back to discuss a number of repeated statements you have been making throughout this thread. The point of all your efforts is to bring up Eisenman, defend Eisenman, promote his theories as 'historical facts.' You are so obsessed with this man that you seem incapable of grasping how vague your/his proofs really are. So let's start again. You didn't like my characterization of your/his interpretation of the DSS as vague. So if it is should be so obvious that there are 'precise' and 'certain' references (i.e. the opposite of 'vague') in the DSS of references to the Herodians, things that can be only be references to Herod and his sons - please provide me with one example.

[Stephan Huller]

Since you seem incapable of providing any substantial defense for your master, here is what Eisenman actually says on the subject:

[In the Zadokite document] it is the 'fornication' charge which is crucial. The reason why these charges must relate to 'Herodians' is that, while that one or another of them might relate to any establishment or priestly party from any age (charges of unjustified enrichment or pollution of a religious shrine are a common enough theme from any discenfranchised opposition); the accusations of marriage with a niece and divorce/polygamy can only relate to one age and one group of persons - the Herodian and Herodians: probably the late Herodian because of parallels with the Habakkuk Pesher. Not coincidentally the proscription on "fornication" also constitutes the backbone of James' "Jerusalem Council" directives . The imagery of "fornication" is ever-present at Qumran - most tellingly in the Community Rule and the Nahum Pesher ... [Folia Orientalia 1987 p. 53]

Are you willing to support this nexus of nonsense? Really? For Eisenman a number of texts from the DSS speak together including the CD testify to James as the Teacher of Righteousness. In this case the CD 'can only' be crying out against the 'fornication' of the Herodians. Do you really agree with Eisenman that the CD 'can only' relate to 'one group and one age' = the Herodians of the first century CE?

[Stephan Huller]

On the dating of the various CD fragments:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gUK6qk ... 22&f=false

And for those too lazy or too unwilling to read:

The eight manuscript copies of Damascus Document from Cave 4 date from several periods of the Community. The earliest manuscript is 4Q266 which dates paleographically to the Hasmonean period, from the first half or middle of the first century BcE. 4Q271 and 5Q12 are slightly younger, dating to the late Hasmonean or early Herodian period; Yardeni dates 4Q271 c. 50-30 BcE.8 The other Qumran manuscripts date to the Herodian period ... The latest possible date of composition is provided by the palaeographic date of the earliest manuscript. 4Q266. in the first half or middle of the first century BCE.

[Stephan Huller]

And yes I am aware of the carbon dating range for 4Q266 - 44 BCE-129 CE. Again, as we have noted over and over again in this discussion we can't possibly claim to certainly possess the exemplar of CD. But again back to our original line of inquiry and the question is - can the references Eisenman claims that the CD can only be referring to the Herodians really be limited to the Herodians as Eisenman claims? Of course not. That's comical.

[John2]

Stephan,

You wrote:

"The latest line of inquiry on your part was to have me clarify why I characterized your previous arguments as 'vague.' "

This is correct.

"I then put forward that even you admitted that the anti-polygamy arguments in the broader DSS could go either way."

This is not correct. The examples I cited revolve around and are directly tied to OT verses and statements that pertain to kings. I said that since the DSS are generally anti-Pharisaic and there are sources that indicate that the Pharisees and Herodians were in cahoots, these prohibitions may have been applicable to the Pharisees too.

"From here you have shifted back to discuss a number of repeated statements you have been making throughout this thread."

I repeated what I've said here before about the carbon dating issue because you asked me what my take on it is even though I had already addressed this in previous comments, and I had nothing more to add to that.

"The point of all your efforts is to bring up Eisenman, defend Eisenman, promote his theories as 'historical facts.' You are so obsessed with this man that you seem incapable of grasping how vague your/his proofs really are."

The point of this thread is to discuss Eisenman's theory and seek out some different points of view. I don't agree with everything he says and have been bringing up the points that I think are worthy of consideration, and I don't think you have shown me how any of them are vague.

"You didn't like my characterization of your/his interpretation of the DSS as vague."

This is correct.

"So if it is should be so obvious that there are 'precise' and 'certain' references (i.e. the opposite of 'vague') in the DSS of references to the Herodians, things that can be only be references to Herod and his sons, please provide me with one example."

The examples that I've already cited, which are the prohibitions against niece marriage and taking another wife while the other one is still alive that are directed at kings. There is evidence that Herod and Antipas married their nieces and married other women while their first wives were still alive. I don't think (and haven't said) that they could "only" apply to Herod and his sons, but I'm unaware of any Hasmonean kings who did these things, so the Herodians seem like a very good match to me.

[John2]

Stephan,

You wrote:

"Do you really agree with Eisenman that the CD 'can only' relate to 'one group and one age' = the Herodians of the first century CE?"

No. But as I said above, I don't think (and haven't said) that they could "only" apply to Herod and his sons, but I'm unaware of any Hasmonean kings who did these things, so the Herodians seem like a very good match to me.

[Stephan Huller]

So the bottom line seems to be that for Eisenman - the 'fornication' accusation in the DSS "might relate to any establishment or priestly party from any age" (= are vague) but "the accusations of marriage with a niece and divorce/polygamy can only relate to one age and one group of persons - the Herodian and Herodians" and this can be further refined to a specific age in the rule of the Herodians because of the Habakkuk Pesher.

You however aren't as convinced that there is any specificity in the charges here (i.e. there is nothing specifically 'Herodian' in the references) however since they are in your mind directed against kings they must mean the Herodians because there is no obvious parallel with the Hasmonean rulers.

I hope I have done justice to your opinion. Please show me then where you see clear evidence that the party vilified in the DSS have to be 'kings' rather than let's say, the Pharisees. In order to deflect criticism of my characterizing your evidence as 'vague' I would need you to provide something specific. But already the idea that you say it isn't specific enough to distinguish between Hasmonaeans and Herodians doesn't sound very promising.

[John2]

Stephan,

As I wrote in previous comments:

"In addition to the prohibition of niece marriage (which was practiced by Herod and Antipas, and not, to my knowledge, any Hasmonean), the DSS also prohibited taking a second wife while the first one was still alive and connects these concepts to the law in Dt. 17:17 that forbids rulers from having multiple wives:

They ... shall be caught in fornication twice by taking a second wife while the first is alive, whereas the principle of creation is, 'Male and female created He them.' Also, those who entered the Ark went in two by two. And concerning the prince it is written, 'He shall not multiply wives to himself'" (CD cols. 4 and 5).

And I think col. 8 makes the connection to kings even clearer:

"'The princes of Judah are those who remove the bound; wrath shall be poured upon them'" (Hos. 5:10) ... and every man has sinned against his near kin, and has approached for unchastity ... of whom God said, 'Their wine is the venom of serpents, the cruel poison of asps' (Dt. 32:33). The serpents are the kings of the peoples and their wine is their ways."

While the more general charge of fornication may be applicable to any group at any time, these citations specifically mention kings and revolve around and are directly tied to a law and a prophecy concerning kings or rulers (with the latter specifically mentioning "the princes of Judah").

So while I think that these prohibitions may have been applicable to the Pharisees, they are (also) certainly directed at kings, and perhaps even "princes of Judah," and considering the evidence that the Herodians did precisely these things (and not, as far as I am aware, any Hasmonean or Seleucid king), I think they are a very good match for who they are directed at (and the best of what seems to be the available options).