Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I don't find a conversation which begins with the blanket ignoring of good scientific evidence very interesting. More interesting to me us the desperate state of mind that would drive someone to do just that. What is so "attractive" about an implausible theory

"What is so "attractive" about an implausible theory"

This is what I'm outlining in this thread, and it if doesn't work for you because of the carbon dating issue, then that's fine.

John2 wrote:Spin,

You wrote:

"but you know how it is when you're committed to some interpretation, as the translation you're citing from does"

For the record, I'm not committed to Eisenman's theory. While I think it is persuasive, as I said above I like looking at things from different angles and try to keep an open mind.

If you say so.

John2 wrote:"Do you want to argue that the Romans were the only ones who had insignia with them when they entered Jerusalem as occupying forces or maybe performed rites before them?"

No, only that the only reference I am aware of that anyone offered a sacrifice to them is Josephus' reference to Titus' soldiers.

Hence the apparent tunnel vision?

John2 wrote:As for the translation of אתות as "standards," this is the way I've seen it generally translated (not to imply that this makes it "right"):

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&h ... gws_rd=ssl

So I will take what you've said into consideration.

Check Num 14:11, Deut 26:8, Josh 24:17 etc, for the usual use of אתות.

John2 wrote:As for the Seleucids using eagle imagery, I wasn't aware of that. I was casually going by the idea that the Seleucids are not represented by an eagle in Daniel 7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_kingdoms_of_Daniel

So that's another interesting thing you've given me to chew on in this discussion.

The logic is erroneous. The elephant, ie the fourth beast, represents not just the Seleucids but the Macedonians (& Greeks) as well, for it was Alexander who put an end to the Persian kingdom, so you shouldn't expect an eagle used there. The Seleucids were only a part of the fourth beast.

John2 wrote:However, the Habakkuk Pesher says that the Kittim had "come from afar, from the islands of the sea," which resembles Josephus' reference in the first century CE that "all islands, and the greatest part of the sea-coasts, are named Cethim by the Hebrews" (Ant. 1.6.1).

I've already dealt with the issue. By the time of 1 Macc, the Kittim had widened to indicate Macedonians as the enemy. Note the notion of the term widening? Josephus was writing two centuries after 1 Macc and more than two and a half after Daniel's visions.

There is really no precise Hebrew word for "isle". It is intuited from the word that indicates "coast" (איה). Look at Jer 2:10 (& Eze 27:6): the KJV has "isles of Chittim" (Heb: Kittim), but the NRSV has "the coasts of Cyprus". When do you think Jeremiah was written and what do you think "Kittim" referred to in that era?

Kittim is related to coasts, not strangely as the city was located on the east coast of Cyprus and goods from there came to the Levant by ship. The translator you use for some reason believes that it must be "isles" rather than "coasts". Why would you imagine he'd believe that other than that he had already decided what "Kittim" referred to? Conclusion driven translation is typical in the field of religious studies.

I come with amusement to a response you gave to Stephan Huller (no longer Stephan Happy Huller ) -

Your rejection of Eisenman's theory, which thus far is solely based on carbon dating, is duly noted.

You remind me of a car salesman trying to sell a fabulous new car which has square wheels. It doesn't matter how wonderful the engine is, or the chassis, or the cool interior, or the features. It still won't get you anywhere.

Spin,

Fantastic post. You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you.

@John2,

Thanks for starting this post. I enjoy reading the comments.
I am currently reading James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Robert Eisenman.

At first I thought Eisenman was off his rocker mainly because Geza Vermes said the 'Wicked Priest' was clearly Jonathan Maccabaeus and although the name of the Teacher of Righteousness remained unknown he surely would be the priestly head of the Hasidim. Geza wrote; only the sensation-seeking media have been taken in by the theory of R. H. Eisenman.

But thanks to James Tabor and his book; "The Jesus Dynasty", I decided to give Eisenman's theory a look. I think he has something.
As far as the carbon dating debunking Eisenman, I have yet to see the evidence for that. Instead, Eisenman makes a strong case about why some test results can't be trusted and some are in fact consistent with his theory.

Eisenman wrote: "Yet in trying to press the Habakkuk Pesher back into the First Century BC, as opposed to the First Century CE - this time, even in the face of paleographic evidence to the contrary (from my perspective, to attack positions such as those researchers like myself are identified) - these same analysts ignored the fact that the dating of the Psalm 37 Pesher, having relatively-speaking been handled and cleaned less and therefore probably more reliable and secure, came out to be the second half of First Century CE! (precisely the timespan we would have given it on the basis of "the Internal Data"...Eisenman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ei ... 33599.html

All that to say, I thank you John2 for looking at it with an open mind and hope to comment more on it later.

Respectfully,

John T

Try this, John T. (Doudna published on C14 in DSS after 50 years.)

@ spin,

Yes. I read have that article, actually more than once. However, I do not see the smoking gun. Of course I could have missed it so, perhaps you can highlight it for me? All that Doudna does is give an account of his bickering back and forth with Eisenman about the merits, accuracy and methods of c14 testing.
I went to another cite (wiki) for the C14 results and they are inconclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dat ... ea_Scrolls

I am one for reading the fine print and found these notes interesting: “When 4Q258 (#24) [Community Rule] was tested at Tucson its result was so anomalous (129-255 or 303-318 CE) that the laboratory was asked to retest another sample from the same document. The second test (#21) yielded a result (50 BCE-130 CE) that was deemed more satisfactory.”

More satisfactory to whom and why?

Here is another interesting note: “Many of the date ranges provided are actually two date ranges, for example 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.”

I read that as an admission that the calibration curve and testing methods still needs some work. I’m not saying I know that the personal feud/disrespect for Eisenman has caused scientists to cook the books to get the results they wanted but it could be. Instead, my understanding is C14 measures the length of time since the time of death. I have no clue as to how scientists can separate the time of death for plants or animal hides and the ink used in writing the scrolls to when they were actually written, can you?

What am I missing in your article other than a dislike for Eisenman?

Respectfully,
John T

John T wrote:@ spin,

Yes. I read have that article, actually more than once. However, I do not see the smoking gun. Of course I could have missed it so, perhaps you can highlight it for me? All that Doudna does is give an account of his bickering back and forth with Eisenman about the merits, accuracy and methods of c14 testing.
I went to another cite (wiki) for the C14 results and they are inconclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dat ... ea_Scrolls

I am one for reading the fine print and found these notes interesting: “When 4Q258 (#24) [Community Rule] was tested at Tucson its result was so anomalous (129-255 or 303-318 CE) that the laboratory was asked to retest another sample from the same document. The second test (#21) yielded a result (50 BCE-130 CE) that was deemed more satisfactory.”

More satisfactory to whom and why?

They were ideologically loaded. 4Q258 showed that it was contaminated and the second result was sufficient to show that, though it wasn't sufficient to provide a trustworthy dating. Both 4Q258 datings must be disregarded.

John T wrote:Here is another interesting note: “Many of the date ranges provided are actually two date ranges, for example 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.”

I read that as an admission that the calibration curve and testing methods still needs some work.

Sorry, this is totally ignorant. You need to know how carbondating works. There is a raw figure provided by the chemical analysis of the carbon ratio between C₁₂ and C₁₄ in the sample. It is then compared with a known calibration scale constructed from known measurements from tree rings and other sources. That scale is not a straight line. Where the raw data measure cuts it, it may cut through two or more parts of the calibration scale.

John T wrote:I’m not saying I know that the personal feud/disrespect for Eisenman has caused scientists to cook the books to get the results they wanted but it could be. Instead, my understanding is C14 measures the length of time since the time of death. I have no clue as to how scientists can separate the time of death for plants or animal hides and the ink used in writing the scrolls to when they were actually written, can you?

What am I missing in your article other than a dislike for Eisenman?

The published Atwill/Eisenman paper makes mistakes with the data. It's been too long since I dealt with Atwill on the subject and the discussion is lost over at what used to be FRDB. Otherwise I could point you too it. The upshot is that as 1QpHab is almost wholly dated before the turn of the era (BCE to CE), Eisenman's analysis falls on its ass. The contamination noted with cleaning agents, such as castor oil and a leather cleaner used (ie new carbon sources absorbed into the fabric) produces younger results, so the dating of 4QpHab cannot be argued to be younger by claiming contamination. It can only be older. We are thus left with the current carbondating ranges, ie it's too old for Eisenman and no amount of wangling will change that.

Pfffff. Why do people (pretending to be disinterested parties) need a stupid theory to be true in spite of the evidence? It's just a mucking idea that came into Eisenman's head. There's no other supporting evidence. It's the product of active imagination. Nothing wrong with that but it starts with nothing going for it. Then there is the carbon dating. Any reasonable person would simply walk away from the table. The theory has nothing going for it and everything going against it.

Spin wrote: Sorry, this [my understanding of radiocarbon dating] is totally ignorant. You [John T] need to know how carbondating works.

********************

I do not think I'm totally ignorant on how it works. I over simplified but I think I understand the basic theory, if my source is wrong please let me know why.

"When an organism dies (whether plant or animal) its intake of carbon atoms ceases. The starting ratio of radiocarbon to stable carbon is locked in at that point. From then on, the ratio of radiocarbon to stable carbon will decrease, because the unstable radiocarbon atoms will slowly decay. After about 50,000 years, the radiocarbon concentration remaining is too small to be measured for the purpose of radiocarbon dating."...http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/ans ... method.php

Regardless, I didn't claim to be an expert on C14 dating. However, my question to you remains: How C14 dating can tell when ink was put to paper or animal hide?

***************************
spin wrote: The upshot is that as 1QpHab is almost wholly dated before the turn of the era (BCE to CE), Eisenman's analysis falls on its ass."

***********************

Yet, scholars disagree on your claim especially if you factor in all of the factors.

I'm sure spin is familiar with this dissenting view from Dr. Barbara Thiering:

"The other document concerning him in the group tested was 1QpHab, at 88- 2 BC. The necessary other explanation was readily found, in an important fact that had been overlooked, that the Essenes "do not change their garments or shoes until they are torn to shreds or worn threadbare with age" (Josephus, Jewish War 2,126). This means that they had no objection to old materials, and may even have respected them for religious reasons. Some would have used venerable material because of their content, eg 1QS, the Community Rule. In other cases the reason would be the scarcity of writing materials in particular circumstances. Given the long and demanding process of preparing the vellum, it would frequently be the case that old existing materials would be used. In 2 Timothy 4:13 Paul shows that parchments were precious."...http://www.peshertechnique.infinitesoul ... ssues.html

Now, don't get me wrong spin, I believe most of the DSS scrolls are much older than 62 A.D. However, I don't see the smoking gun that closes the door on Eisenman for questioning the dates of the most important scrolls regarding his theory.

Respectfully,

John T