Eisenman and the DSS

[spin]

What we have learned so far:

1. The Commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab) does not give a date as to when it was written.
2. 1QpHab does not say who wrote the commentary.
3. 1QpHab does not say (despite the claims of Spin to the contrary) that the Teacher of Righteousness was already dead at the time of the writing of 1QpHab.
4. The only historical event in 1QpHab that can be independently verified is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D.

So, Spins's claim that the Teacher of Righteousness could not be James the Just based on the context of 1QpHab, remains unproven.

When you write shoddy sentences like that you just misrepresent what you are trying to say, if anything more than the confusion imparted.

That leaves Spin with C14 carbon-dating.

I haven't even looked at anything but the carbondating in the context of the pesher's indications regarding the teacher of righteousness, so you are more rhetoric than content.

Spin posted: "As there is no question regarding the carbondating of pHab, whose range extends to 2 CE, it is not worth considering the possibility that the teacher of righteousness was still alive 70 years later."

Well then, if Spin insists on going by C14 carbon-dating then let's do it. So, what other items from the same area were tested along with 1QpHab?

1. 1QS Community Rule was dated 203 BCE-122 CE
2. 1QH Thanksgiving Scroll was dated 47 BCE-118 CE
3. 1QApGen Genesis Apocryphon was dated 89 BCE-118 CE
4. Qumran 1Q linen was dated 167 BCE-233 CE

Those dates do not rule out James the Just but instead can be used to help support the Eisenman theory.

Can you focus little? We are talking about the carbondating of 1QpHab, not other samples.

Now let's talk about Spin's outlier 1QpHab.

Try to be serious for a moment. You cite four carbondatings then foolishly claim that pHab is an outlier. You should note that pHab's C14 dating is wholly contained in two of those date ranges and has a good overlap with the other two. Your claim of 1QpHab somehow being an outlier even on your selection is plainly false.

OK, to show that you are not reasoning-challenged, please cite the rest of the datings. As is you seem to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the task in front of you. And let me help you: a good complete presentation of all the C14 data can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, eds Flint & VanderKam, Vol.1, 1998, Doudna G.'s chapter, 430-471. There are 37 samples recorded there, of which about ten are not Qumran scroll fragments. Your task is somehow to show from the full range of C14 data that we shouldn't take 1QpHab's results as significant. (A few other texts have been arbitrarily tested since Doudna's article, but they won't change the authoritative weight of that work.)

Once again, here is the footnote containing the caveat that the researchers had problems estimating the date for 1QpHab: "the Habakkuk Commentary (#13), which is given as 160-148 or 111-2 CE. The section of the calibration curve for the 14C age of the Habakkuk Commentary is complex, so that the 14C age of 2054 cuts through a few spikes on the curve, providing two date ranges."...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dat ... ea_Scrolls

So, Spin's claim that there are no doubts about the accuracy of the C14 carbon-dating of 1QpHab, is patently false.

The assertion is still as empty as the first time you made it. You haven't improved on it. You don't do anything to ameliorate your problem which sees the text too early for your needs.

Spin reminds me of Algore demanding a recount of votes based on chads, then when he gets an outlier that suits his purpose he claims we should stop counting because he got what he wanted. I wonder if Spin also believes like Algore, in the same fake data used to support the hoax of man-made global warming?

And you remind me of one of those sub-plot characters in a Shakespearean play who pretends to know things and, when challenged, blathers.

Now that Spin has had his chance to make his best case, he has been proven to come up woefully short.

John T is clearly not up to the task of providing intelligent commentary on the carbondating of 1QpHab and its implications for the teacher of righteousness referred to in the text as having been devoured by the wicked priest. John T is overburdened with the desire to make that evidence go away so that he can believe that James is the teacher of righteous. Sadly, I am underwhelmed by his lack of expertise.

Perhaps now we can focus on the real reason (which he briefly mentioned earlier) as to why he can't stand the thought of James the Just being the Teacher of Righteousness?

The real reason is transparent: carbondating puts 1QpHab in the first century BCE along with the teacher of righteousness mentioned in the text. That fact is so self-evident, it is crass foolishness to continue to believe that the teacher of righteousness was alive at the time of the Jewish war.

John the Ignorant

[John2]

Regarding carbon dating, it's fine with me if anyone is satisfied that it dates the DSS with absolute certainty and consequently doesn't want to spend their time discussing theories that use texts that fall outside its ranges. And it's fine with me if anyone thinks Eisenman (or anyone else) is deserving of scorn for doing this.

I understand that this is how Stephan and Spin feel (and many other commenters and scholars that I've read over the last twenty years or so), and I respect that point of view.

I've enjoyed talking with Spin and learning about his take on the Menelaus-Wicked Priest theory. That has been the biggest take away in this so far for me. I'm still mulling over its ramifications. This is why I joined this forum, to get some different points of view. And even though Spin thinks the carbon dating issue kills Eisenman's theory, I'm grateful that he's been willing to share his alternative (and well thought out) explanations for what the DSS say.

What I've gotten from Stephan is that there is only one way to interpret the external data and that I should shut up. And I've been polite in the face of what strikes me as a hostile tone and his crude remarks and allegations against my motives, identity and sanity. I understand that he doesn't like Eisenman or his theory and that he's satisfied with the carbon dating results, and I'm taking his point of view into consideration. And if he has nothing more to say and doesn't want to hear anyone continue to discuss it, he doesn't have to read this thread.

The highlight of our exchange for me has been the discussion about who the prohibitions against fornication are directed at in the Damascus Document, and I think I made a good case that they are at least directed at kings who did some specific things that the Herodians are said to have done (with two of them reigning within the carbon dating range of the Habakkuk Pesher), in that they mention "the kings of the peoples ... and their ways" and revolve around and are based on a law and a prophecy that pertain to kings. So even if one doesn't agree with Eisenman's theory and is satisfied with the carbon dating range cut off of 2 CE, I think they are a valid option and a line of inquiry that is worth pursuing.

Regarding the idea that 1QpHab may be a copy, even assuming that it is, it doesn't tell us when an original was written. Was it 100 BCE? 50 BCE? Earlier in the year of 2 CE? And where are the other copies of it? Why have no copies of any of the pesharim been found? These things are a matter of speculation. The coin data, however, is certain, and the coins from Qumran are dated up to 68 CE.

When I consider the timeline of Eisenman's theory, based on the internal data the Habakkuk Pesher would be the last pesher written by the DSS sect, in a time of war, with the Kittim on the march and killing old people, women and children, like Vespasian did in 67 CE. In this climate, I imagine that resources would have been more scarce than when the Psalms Pesher was written and the Teacher of Righteousness was still alive (which would be 62 CE according to this timeline). Spin has mentioned the amount of planning and resources it took to make a scroll, so even if one is satisfied that the carbon dating for 1QpHab is absolutely certain (up to 2 CE, plus the "margin of error"), maybe, in this wartime climate, they didn't have the time or the resources to make a new scroll.

It's speculation like this that makes me always prefer to give the most weight to what the DSS say and the coin data, and I'm open to any theory that makes sense of that.

[spin]

"the kings of the peoples ... and their ways"

Couldn't find this (it's always good to cite the exact sources for such things), but when you find "peoples" in translations from the scrolls, it is almost certainly goyim, ie not Jews, so while Herod might not have been accorded highly, his kingdom was of the Jews, not the peoples.

Regarding the idea that 1QpHab may be a copy, even assuming that it is, it doesn't tell us when an original was written. Was it 100 BCE? 50 BCE? Earlier in the year of 2 CE? And where are the other copies of it? Why have no copies of any of the pesharim been found? These things are a matter of speculation.

We don't have very many pesharim, so the sample is small to hope for duplicates. As to copying, a text was copied towards the end of its useful life when a new one would be needed, ie before in later centuries they were placed in genizot (rooms for old scrolls), such as the Fustat Geniza in Cairo which yielded our first Dead Sea scrolls. Conservatively, though a text could survive quite long, let's think of a shorter life of say 20 years, though probably much longer. That moves the previous version of 1QpHab to about 20 BCE.

The coin data, however, is certain, and the coins from Qumran are dated up to 68 CE.

Why do you mention the coin data? I know it quite well. It is useful for understanding the Qumran site development, but what does it have to do with the scrolls from the caves??

When I consider the timeline of Eisenman's theory, based on the internal data the Habakkuk Pesher would be the last pesher written by the DSS sect, in a time of war, with the Kittim on the march and killing old people, women and children, like Vespasian did in 67 CE.

Or like the forces of Antiochus IV circa 167 BCE or Pompey's siege of Jerusalem in 63 BCE.

And there is no strong reason to think that the writers of the DSS were a sect, given the persistent prominence of the sons of Zadok and of Aaron in the scrolls.

In this climate, I imagine that resources would have been more scarce than when the Psalms Pesher was written and the Teacher of Righteousness was still alive (which would be 62 CE according to this timeline).

Nice evidence that 4QpPsa is a copy: an entire line was omitted and reinserted at Col.3 line 5.

Spin has mentioned the amount of planning and resources it took to make a scroll, so even if one is satisfied that the carbon dating for 1QpHab is absolutely certain (up to 2 CE, plus the "margin of error"), maybe, in this wartime climate, they didn't have the time or the resources to make a new scroll.

It was the product of a scribal school—think of it like a factory—so it was just one of many scrolls produced. Thinking any other way would require the logic laid out.

It's speculation like this that makes me always prefer to give the most weight to what the DSS say and the coin data, and I'm open to any theory that makes sense of that.

Carbondating has proven quite useful, so I don't see why you would not consider that as the most relevant starting information for the analysis of any tested scroll, ie before you consider the content of the scroll, you must consider the C14, for it will limit your interpretation of the scroll before you start. And again, you need to make some point regarding the coins. So far it has not been grounded in any tangible analysis of aspects of the scrolls.

[Peter Kirby]

1. 1QS Community Rule was dated 203 BCE-122 CE
2. 1QH Thanksgiving Scroll was dated 47 BCE-118 CE
3. 1QApGen Genesis Apocryphon was dated 89 BCE-118 CE
4. Qumran 1Q linen was dated 167 BCE-233 CE

Those dates do not rule out

All of the above is as irrelevant as saying the sky is blue. Something fully consistent with either hypothesis is not relevant evidence.

[John T]

@Peter,

Are you saying that you don't believe C14 dating on the linen which was found with the scrolls is relevant and/or evidence?

[Stephan Huller]

I don't understand the motivation for going round and round the mulberry bush given the devastating effect that C 14 has on the identification of James as the Teacher of Righteousness. All these other considerations are unimportant. It's like being diagnosed with AIDS and walking around telling people 'I can't have AIDS because I am not gay.' WTF does one have to do with the other?

[spin]

I don't understand the motivation for going round and round the mulberry bush given the devastating effect that C 14 has on the identification of James as the Teacher of Righteousness. All these other considerations are unimportant. It's like being diagnosed with AIDS and walking around telling people 'I can't have AIDS because I am not gay.' WTF does one have to do with the other?

You may remember the Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot that's nailed to the perch in the pet shop. When the prospective client notes that the parrot is dead, the owner points out the beautiful plumage and says that the bird isn't dead, it's just sleeping it off after a good shag. You go round and round with the owner until you say in frustration that the bird wouldn't squawk if you put 10,000 volts through it. Of course he'll try to sell it to the next customer.

[hjalti]

I don't understand the motivation for going round and round the mulberry bush given the devastating effect that C 14 has on the identification of James as the Teacher of Righteousness. All these other considerations are unimportant. It's like being diagnosed with AIDS and walking around telling people 'I can't have AIDS because I am not gay.' WTF does one have to do with the other?

You may remember the Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot that's nailed to the perch in the pet shop. When the prospective client notes that the parrot is dead, the owner points out the beautiful plumage and says that the bird isn't dead, it's just sleeping it off after a good shag. You go round and round with the owner until you say in frustration that the bird wouldn't squawk if you put 10,000 volts through it. Of course he'll try to sell it to the next customer.

'es just pining for the fjords!

[Stephan Huller]

http://www.fastcocreate.com/3033103/lon ... ters-field

[John2]

Spin,

Thanks for the response.

You wrote (in response to my reference to "kings of the peoples"):

"Couldn't find this (it's always good to cite the exact sources for such things), but when you find "peoples" in translations from the scrolls, it is almost certainly goyim, ie not Jews, so while Herod might not have been accorded highly, his kingdom was of the Jews, not the peoples."

It's in CD col. 8. I've already given the exact citation a few times previously so I didn't bother to for that summary.

"The peoples" here is "ha-amim." (There is also something else near it that I expect you will notice, but I'll leave that for a future discussion).

As for the Qumran coin data, I'm only assuming it has something to do with the DSS given their proximity to the caves and the revolutionary ethos of the Scrolls. Also, the large number of coins from the time of Alexander Janneaus seems in sync with the arguably pro-Alexander Janneaus attitude of the DSS, so there seems to be some kind of correlation between the two.

I'm keeping an open mind about Kittim pertaining to Antiochus, given the merits of the Menelaus-WP theory, but I have my doubts about Pompey because, although he conquered Jerusalem and entered the Temple, I'm unaware if he killed old people, women and children, and Josephus says:

"Yet did not he touch that money nor any thing else that was there reposited [in the Temple]; but he commanded the ministers about the temple, the very next day after he had taken it, to cleanse it, and to perform their accustomed sacrifices. Moreover, he made Hyrcanus high priest ... by which means he acted the part of a good general, and reconciled the people to him more by benevolence than by terror" (War 1.7.6).

Regarding the possibility of the Psalms Pesher being a copy, that's an interesting observation to think about.

As for carbon dating, I do take it into consideration. I just think there are too many variables to be 100% certain about them, is all.