Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

@ficino,

Thank you for your comments. Apparently, you came in the middle of the debate and are not aware of who said what when. So, your points would be better directed at Spin.
Spin is the one who says C14 proves the Teacher of Righteousness cannot be James the Just. The problem is he didn't prove it but only wants to believe it does.
Spin does indeed have a theory, the "Willy-Nilly" theory. You need to ask him what proof he has for it because it is flat out absurd if you ask me.

Perhaps you don't understand my position finico, I haven't claimed to know who the Teacher of Righteousness is, it is a mystery to me. However, Spin claims he knows for a fact that it is not James the Just, the only problem is he can't prove it other than, Spin says so.
So, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Did that clear things up?

Respectfully,

John the Ignorant.

John T wrote:Spin is the one who says C14 proves the Teacher of Righteousness cannot be James the Just.

In a field with little hard evidence, it makes little sense to ignore what we do have.

Peter Kirby wrote:

John T wrote:Spin is the one who says C14 proves the Teacher of Righteousness cannot be James the Just.

In a field with little hard evidence, it makes little sense to ignore what we do have.

But if he doesn't ignore it he has nothing to talk about.

Peter Kirby wrote:

John T wrote:Spin is the one who says C14 proves the Teacher of Righteousness cannot be James the Just.

In a field with little hard evidence, it makes little sense to ignore what we do have.

Yes, I agree but what is the quality of this hard evidence?
Spins logic looks something like this, C14 + IQpHab + y = Teacher of Righteouness can not be James the Just.

All I'm asking is for Spin to solve for "y" before I can properly evaluate his theorem as proven.

I have even went so far as to point to exactly where "y" might be in the Commentary on Habbakuk but Spin won't go there, why do you think that is?
Maybe I should bow out before Spin gets really, really ugly?

Respectfully,
John the Ignorant

Why does "y" have to be in the formulation? The carbon dating on its own doesn't allow for the proposition. How you continue to pretend to be so dense. Something doesn't feel right about his feigned "ignorance." Sounds like a contrived effort to keep the proposition alive ie "I am too stupid to understand how arithmetic works ..." Bullshit. Even my 7 year old understands the math here

Stephan posted: "The carbon dating on its own doesn't allow for the proposition."

Once again I ask you the same question. How so?

1. What is the proposition?
2. How does C14 disprove it?

Help the ignorant understand.
Additionally, can you do it without ad hominem attacks?

Thanks in advance.

Respectfully,
John the Ignorant

John T wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:

John T wrote:Spin is the one who says C14 proves the Teacher of Righteousness cannot be James the Just.

In a field with little hard evidence, it makes little sense to ignore what we do have.

Yes, I agree but what is the quality of this hard evidence?
Spins logic looks something like this, C14 + IQpHab + y = Teacher of Righteouness can not be James the Just.

All I'm asking is for Spin to solve for "y" before I can properly evaluate his theorem as proven.

I have even went so far as to point to exactly where "y" might be in the Commentary on Habbakuk but Spin won't go there, why do you think that is?
Maybe I should bow out before Spin gets really, really ugly?

Respectfully,
John the Ignorant

The C14 date range for 1QpHab closes the story of the teacher of righteousness with a terminus ad quem of 2 CE. That means here the date for the teacher of righteousness cannot be later than the first text that mentions his death and pHab provides a latest date of 2 CE. The C14 data simply eliminates any figure after that date.

You have tried to wiggle around the C14 by 1) challenging its accuracy, though you cannot get the C14 younger, hence fail, and 2) attempted to separate the production of the vellum from the copying by several decades, an unfalsifiable theory that does not reflect the probably context of scroll production, which adds up to another fail.

We are therefore left with the reliability of pHab's carbondating, which as stated before eliminates any figure after 2 CE for the teacher of righteousness.

(And I don't have access to an analysis of the scribal tendencies to know if pHab was a copy or not. If it is a copy it points to an early original. I'll have to dig up a generic analysis on the pesharim I read a while back, which listed evidence for them all being copies, given scribal errors known as indicators of copying, such as dittography and ellipsis.)

The forum depends on the good will and intellectual honesty of the participants. We've gone over and over the evidence. You just don't want to listen. All you do is troll for Eisenman. That's not cool

Spin posted: "The C14 date range for 1QpHab closes the story of the teacher of righteousness with a terminus ad quem of 2 CE. That means here the date for the teacher of righteousness cannot be later than the first text that mentions his death and pHab provides a latest date of 2 CE. The C14 data simply eliminates any figure after that date."

I would accept that as a valid argument for "y".

However, you haven't shown where 1QpHab mentions his death.

I will make your best argument for you only to a certain point but in the end it is you that must put your finger on it and say here it is, instead of making an assumption that it is there.

Got it now?
I think you always did, hence your default to ad hominem attacks.
Bad form.

John the Ignorant

Stephan,

You wrote:

"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."

I don't agree with Eisenman that the enemies of the DSS community in the examples I've cited (concerning fornication in general and specifically niece marriage and taking another wife while the first one is still alive) "have" to (or "can only") be Herodians. But I do think they are kings, because they revolve around and are tied to a law (Dt. 17:17) and a prophecy (Hos. 5:10) that pertain to kings and a verse that mentions serpents and wine (Dt. 32:33) that is interpreted as meaning "the kings of the peoples and ... their ways."

Taking this into account, I've said that this seems to make the available options the Seleucids, Hasmoneans and Herodians (with the latter line extending past the 2 CE carbon dating cut off range of the Habakkuk Pesher, which is not an issue for me and I understand that it is for you). And I said that I think the Herodians are an option whether one agrees with Eisenman's theory or not, and that two of them fit within the carbon date range of the Habakkuk Pesher (for those who view it as being absolutely certain) who are said to have married their nieces and taken another wife while the other one was still alive, exactly like the DSS prohibit.

But I also have no problem bringing Agrippa and Bernice into this (and I understand that you do because of your view on the carbon dating issue), if nothing else, as an example of the climate of "fornication" in the Herodian line that, if the DSS sect continued to exist after 2 CE, certainly would have been condemned by them as fornication.

So of the three (apparent) options, I think the Herodians make the best match (even if we only count Herod and Antipas), because I am unaware of any Hasmonean king who did these things, and the Seleucids seem like an odd fit given that the law and prophecy cited in the DSS pertain to Israelite and Judean kings (and other allusions that indicate these kings were people who did not properly observe Jewish laws). I also can't think of a good answer (not to say that there couldn't be one) for why the DSS sect would be concerned about the marital practices of Seleucid kings.