Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Spin posted: Where in your [JohnT] addled brain did you dig up the notion of "willy-nilly" from??
Answer: that came from you Spin when you wrote; “The scrolls were deposited willy-nilly, so that earlier works were mixed with later works”…Spin/ Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:38

Spin posted: “Eisenman's James = righteous teacher falls apart because of the inconvenience of C14 dating of such texts as Pesher Habakkuk, which dates wholly before the 1st c. He co-wrote a paper attempting to revise the C14 data. It was flawed as I long ago explained to Atwill…Spin/Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:05 pm
Answer: Please briefly explain how the paper was flawed. By the way do you have any documentation of a reply from Atwill? Why is it that I suspect not?

Spin posted: “Until you can get over all this petty quibbling about the C14 and provide evidence that actually contradicts it, you've got nothing to whinge about.”…Spin/ Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:27 am
Answer: “In the case of the documents concerning the Teacher tested by Tucson, the extreme date was supplied by 4Q171, the pesher on Psalms. It was found to be written on material manufactured 29-81 AD. As the Teacher is still alive in it, this was data of the greatest significance. The Teacher cannot have appeared a century or more before the date when he was still alive. It would be the starting-point that the Teacher lived in the 1st century AD, and that another explanation should be sought for any earlier datings of documents concerning him.” http://www.peshertechnique.infinitesoul ... ssues.html
Also this from Wiki that John2 was so kind to provide for you and you dismiss out of hand: Radiocarbon dates are generally presented with a range of one standard deviation on either side of the mean. This obscures the fact that the true age of the object being measured may lie outside the range of dates quoted. In 1970, the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory ran weekly measurements on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of over 4,500 years.[60]… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
Now if Spin would be so kind as to provide a link to the peer review study on the C14 calibration curve for the Commentary on Habakkuk that certainly would help me change my mind.

Spin posted: “but you [John2] 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"…Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:01 am
Answer: Yes, we do know how it is; we have seen it with you throughout this thread.

Spin believes Eisenman is wrong because he wants to believe C14 proved him wrong because that is what Spin wants to believe.

Yes, I get your circular argument but please forgive for not accepting it on nothing more than Spin says so.


John the Ignorant

When it comes to Herodian infractions against the charge of fornication in general (one of the "three nets of Belial"), consider also that Josephus says Agrippa and his sister Bernice were rumored to have had an incestuous relationship:

"The report went that she [Bernice] had criminal conversation with her brother [Agrippa] ... she persuaded Poleme ... to marry her, as supposing that by this means she should prove those calumnies upon her to be false; and Poleme was prevailed upon, and that chiefly on account of her riches" (Ant. 20.7.3).

As column 8 of the Damascus Document says:

"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."

Notice also that Bernice is a said to have had "riches," which is another one of the "nets of Belial" that revolve around and are directly tied to OT verses and statements that pertain to kings. And the third "net," pollution of the Temple, is also relevant to Herodians, given Josephus' account of the Simon who wanted to bar Agrippa from the Temple:

"There was a certain man of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem, who appeared to be very accurate in the knowledge of the law. His name was Simon. This man got together an assembly, while the king [Agrippa] was absent at Cesarea, and had the insolence to accuse him as not living holily, and that he might justly be excluded out of the temple, since it belonged only to native Jews" (Ant. 19.7.4).

John T wrote:Spin posted: Where in your [JohnT] addled brain did you dig up the notion of "willy-nilly" from??
Answer: that came from you Spin when you wrote; “The scrolls were deposited willy-nilly, so that earlier works were mixed with later works”…Spin/ Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:38

This is my fault. When you misrepresent people you will tend to be over-literal in defense. Your whole construction was

your silly notion of the scrolls being deposited willy-nilly from a personal library in Jerusalem

"Willy-nilly" referred specifically to the physical act of depositing the scrolls in the caves. Taking "willy-nilly" out of that original context, such that it is linked to your erroneous "a personal library", is your addled brain constructing fabrications.

John T wrote:Spin posted: “Eisenman's James = righteous teacher falls apart because of the inconvenience of C14 dating of such texts as Pesher Habakkuk, which dates wholly before the 1st c. He co-wrote a paper attempting to revise the C14 data. It was flawed as I long ago explained to Atwill…Spin/Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:05 pm
Answer: Please briefly explain how the paper was flawed. By the way do you have any documentation of a reply from Atwill? Why is it that I suspect not?

Atwill et al completely failed to demonstrate that any dated fragment could be younger than what they were dated.

John T wrote:Spin posted: “Until you can get over all this petty quibbling about the C14 and provide evidence that actually contradicts it, you've got nothing to whinge about.”…Spin/ Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:27 am
Answer: “In the case of the documents concerning the Teacher tested by Tucson, the extreme date was supplied by 4Q171, the pesher on Psalms. It was found to be written on material manufactured 29-81 AD. As the Teacher is still alive in it, this was data of the greatest significance. The Teacher cannot have appeared a century or more before the date when he was still alive. It would be the starting-point that the Teacher lived in the 1st century AD, and that another explanation should be sought for any earlier datings of documents concerning him.” http://www.peshertechnique.infinitesoul ... ssues.html

Great source. It does in no way change the dating of 1QpHab, so fail.

John T wrote:Also this from Wiki that John2 was so kind to provide for you and you dismiss out of hand: Radiocarbon dates are generally presented with a range of one standard deviation on either side of the mean. This obscures the fact that the true age of the object being measured may lie outside the range of dates quoted. In 1970, the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory ran weekly measurements on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of over 4,500 years.[60]… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
Now if Spin would be so kind as to provide a link to the peer review study on the C14 calibration curve for the Commentary on Habakkuk that certainly would help me change my mind.

All you have to do is read the sources cited in that same Wiki article.

John T wrote:Spin posted: “but you [John2] 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"…Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:01 am
Answer: Yes, we do know how it is; we have seen it with you throughout this thread.

Yawn, you're doing the schoolyard shift: "it's not me, it's you!!!!!!!"

John T wrote:Spin believes Eisenman is wrong because he wants to believe C14 proved him wrong because that is what Spin wants to believe.

Yes, I get your circular argument but please forgive for not accepting it on nothing more than Spin says so.

Starting with the overwhelming C14 data that demonstrates that 1QpHab is a text from before 2 CE and arguing that all efforts to ignore that data is circular in the mind of John T. That wonderful logic is why he remains

John T wrote:John the Ignorant

Come on John,

Surely you can't be serious about this. We began by arguing about the Habakkuk Pesher where the carbon dating makes an identification with James impossible you said:

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.

But that's not true. The carbon dating of the Habakkuk Pesher makes Eisenman's (you pretend it is your interpretation) impossible because the marriage of Agrippa and Berenice is outside the range. Indeed your ideas seem to be absolutely in lockstep with Eisenman who (as I noted earlier) wrote:

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.

Indeed in James the Brother of Jesus (http://books.google.com/books?id=XhJcW8 ... st&f=false) and elsewhere in his writings Eisenman clearly points to Agrippa and Berenice as the specific 'late Herodian' example he has in mind. In his most recent book James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher he delineates Appendix A to this very argument. But won't work because of the C 14 evidence. Surely you can see this. Although judging by your perplexing devotion to this theory I should know better.

But this is the whole problem with Eisenman. The Habakkuk Pesher carbon dating makes the wheels fall off his argument. But with regard to all of these 'interpretations' of the DSS surely you can't argue that my characterization of them as 'vague' isn't appropriate. There is nothing in any of this that rises to Eisenman's own claim that they 'can only' refer to the Herodians and the late Herodians i.e. Agrippa and Berenice in particular. It's just wishful thinking and the carbon dating and the paleographic evidence bursts the balloon. There is nothing in any of this which is worth serious consideration by anyone.

John T wrote:
Where in the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab) does it prove that James the Just could not be the Teacher of Righteousness? I understand your logic but to validate your theory you must provide the proof.

John, I think you mistake two kinds of claims, i.e. an assertive claim vs. a claim that the truth of an assertion is in doubt. The claim that James the Just is the Teacher of Righteousness is an assertive claim. The person who propounds it has the positive burden of proof. To raise doubts against this claim is not to make an assertive claim. The person who raises doubt has only the lesser, negative burden of establishing the doubt.

Unless there is something stated in a text of the DSS that denies that James is the ToR, it is incongruous to imagine someone constructing a "theory", as you put it, to this effect. It's as incongruous as it would be to construct a theory that the text denies that Bar-Kochva or Gamaliel II could be the ToR. The dating rules all such identifications out, so there is not a range of data to support theories about them.

Stephan,

You wrote (in response to my comment: "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"):

"But that's not true. The carbon dating of the Habakkuk Pesher makes Eisenman's (you pretend it is your interpretation) impossible because the marriage of Agrippa and Berenice is outside the range."

Regarding Agrippa and Bernice, they were not married. They were siblings who were rumored to have had an incestuous relationship. And I did not cite their relationship as evidence of Herodian niece marriage and taking another wife while the other one was still alive. Regarding those infractions, I have mentioned only Herod and Antipas. For example:

"In addition to the prohibition of niece marriage ... 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).

Compare this with what Rocca says in Herod's Judea:

"Herod's first wife was Doris, whom he married in 47 BCE and divorced prior to 38 CE ... She was recalled to the court in 14 BCE ... Herod's second wife was Miriamme the Hasmonean, whom Herod married in 38 BCE ... The subsequent eight consorts were wives ... Josephus is quite specific in stating that the last Hasmonean rulers each had only one wife. The same also applies to all of Herod's sons. Antipas, for example, divorced a Nabataean princess in order to marry ... Herodias" (pg. 76)."

And I had provided a link that mentions that Herodias was Antipas' niece:

"He [Antipas] was first married to Phasaelis ... Later, he divorced her in order to marry Herodias. She 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

Though I'm uncertain when this marriage took place, this link also says:

" In his father's testament, Herod Antipas was appointed tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea ... The Roman emperor Augustus confirmed this decision and Antipas' reign could begin (4 BCE)"

However, Herod's entire reign falls within the carbon dating of the Habakkuk Pesher.

I mentioned Agrippa and Bernice as an example of the general pattern of "fornication" that began with Herod.

And again, I don't agree with everything that Eisenman says. I am discussing the specific points of his theory that I find worthy of consideration, and I think it's enough to focus on them.

So to answer my original question you have no specific proofs for your assertions. Your examples are all, in a word, "vague." You have yet to find any real evidence.

I don't think my examples are vague. The DSS are generally anti-fornication and specifically anti-niece marriage and taking another wife while the other one is still alive, and these prohibitions revolve around and are directly tied to OT verses and statements that pertain to kings. The available options for who these kings could be seems to be the Seleucids, Hasmoneans or Herodians. Given the evidence that Herod and Antipas did precisely these things (and for the general pattern of "fornication" in their line), I think the Herodians are a very good match for who these prohibitions were directed at.

I think the problem here is that while the DSS can certainly be vague, in that they frequently use allusions and do not name names, the issue of vagueness that you and I are talking about (in this case) is whether or not the *similarities* between what the DSS say and the Herodians are vague, and I don't think that they are, given that the Herodians engaged in these specific practices that are condemned and aimed at kings in the DSS. Now, do these similarities make this identification absolutely certain? No. But they're certainly not "vague."

BTW, this is all I have time for today, Stephan, so I will have to check back for any responses when I have more time.

I ask again then, if they are not "vague" examples please provide a specific example from the DSS where the enemies of the community HAVE to be Herodians. Eisenman promised us that in the cited essay but then the C14 evidence refuted his example of Berenice and Agrippa.