Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

John T wrote:However, my question to you remains: How C14 dating can tell when ink was put to paper or animal hide?

The process of producing parchment was long and involved, hence expensive. One doesn't speculate, buy large quantities, and leave it lying around.

John T wrote:

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

Working hard not to face the inevitable. Scribes, ie the extremely small section of the community that have a use for vellum, are just going to let it conveniently for Barbie sit around in their scribal schools. She seems to be working on the lone penman theory of scroll production, but the scrolls themselves show they were produced in a school. Prepared animal hides were a valuable commodity and would not have—like garments and shoes—been left around maturing before usage. Usage of parchment only happens once something is written on them. This Thiering idea is nuttery.

John T wrote: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.

The locus of the scrolls is before the turn of the era. There may be outliers, but Eisenman's greatest crux, 1QpHab, happily fits within the bell part of the curve and there is not one thing to suggest that this scroll should be removed from its current placement. He has no tangible excuse for manipulating the evidence. Evidence informs argument, not the other way around.

As far as I am concerned, if anyone thinks that it's a deal breaker and a waste of time to consider a first century CE context for the DSS because of the carbon dating issue, then that's fine. I think that carbon dating has too many variables to say with absolute certainty that (some of) the DSS were not written in the first century CE (whether Eisenman's theory existed or not). And even though the carbon dating issue is a deal breaker for Spin, I appreciate that he has also been willing to provide me with an alternative explanation for what the Scrolls say.

And out of curiosity, I've been looking for carbon dating results for the Bar Kochba letters, since they were likely written in the 130's CE. The only thing I've been able to find thus far is in an article written by Atwill, which says:

"Two samples were included in the collection that were taken from scrolls that were known to have been produced at the time of Simon Bar Kochba’s revolt against Rome. They were used as a control to determine the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating. Both of these samples produced errors of over one hundred years.

Sample Calibrated age Paleographic age Amount of Error
DSS-52 Kefar Bebayou AD144-370 AD135 (dated) +122 years
DSS-53 5/6 Hev 21 AD 86-314 AD128 (dated) +100 years"

http://www.csulb.edu/centers/sjco/carbon14.html

I would consider Atwill biased (and Eisenman as well, for that matter), so I reckon this should be taken with a grain of salt. In any event, it's the only thing I've been able to find so far, so if anyone knows of another source for any carbon dating results for writings from the Bar Kochba era, let me know and I will take it into consideration.

And since I haven't found any more information about the biography of Menelaus than what I wrote in a comment I addressed to Spin on my "Spin and the DSS" thread (besides Josephus, who seems confused about his identity), I thought I would cut and paste some of it here.

I've been thinking about the Menelaus-Wicked Priest theory and researching Menelaus and Onias III, and so far I've seen some correspondences between them and the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness.

Regarding Menelaus, he was killed by Gentiles and his body was left without burial (2 Mac. 13:4-7), which is similar to the Wicked Priest being killed by "the violent of the nations" (4Q171) who "inflicted [him with] horrors of evil diseases and took vengeance upon his body of flesh" and "humbled [him] by means of a destroying scourge, in bitterness of soul, because he had done wickedly to His elect" (1QpHab col. 9).

He also outbid his brother to get the high priesthood and kept money that was due to the king (2 Mac. 4:24, 4:27), stole and sold vessels of the Temple (2 Mac. 4:32) and was considered a lawbreaker (2 Mac. 13:7), which sounds like the Wicked Priest, who "betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches" (1QpHab col. 8).

And he had Onias III killed (2 Mac. 4:34), like the Wicked Priest is said to have killed the Teacher of Righteousness in 1QpHab and 4Q171.

But there are some other aspects of the Wicked Priest that I haven't found counterparts for yet in the biography of Menelaus.

The Wicked Priest was "called by the name of truth when he first arose" (1QpHab col. 8) and his "ignominy was greater than his glory" (col. 11), but it looks like Menelaus is always presented in a bad light (in addition to what I cited above, there is 2 Mac. 4:39, 4:43, 4:47, 4:50, 5:5, 5:15, 5:23, 13:3, 13:7). I suppose the fact that the Wicked Priest simply held the office of high priest could explain the references to his being "called by the name of truth when he first arose" and his "glory."

4Q171 also mentions a "trial" of the Teacher of Righteousness:

"Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked [Priest] who [rose up against the Teacher of Righteousness] that he might put him to death [because he served the truth] and the Law, [for which reason] he laid hands upon him. But God will not abandon [him into his hand and will not let him be condemned when he is] tried. And [God] will pay him his reward by delivering him into the hand of the Violent of the nations, that they may execute upon him [the judgments of wickedness]" and:

"Interpreted, this concerns the wicked of Ephraim and Manasseh, who shall seek to lay hands on the Priest and the men of his Council at the time of trial which shall come upon them. But God will redeem them from out of their hand. And afterwards, they shall be delivered into the hand of the Violent among the nations for judgment."

And I don't see any indication that Onias III was put on trial (but maybe the Hebrew for "trial" does not necessarily mean a court trial?):

"Therefore Menelaus, taking Andronicus aside, urged him to kill Onias. Andronicus came to Onias, and resorting to treachery offered him sworn pledges and gave him his right hand, and in spite of his suspicion persuaded Onias to come out from the place of sanctuary; then, with no regard for justice, he immediately put him out of the way" (2 Mac 4:34).

Also, the Teacher of Righteousness is said to have been killed along with "the men of his council":

"Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest whom God delivered into the hands of his enemies because of the iniquity committed against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his Council" (1QpHab col. 9).

But it looks to me like Onias III was alone when he was killed.

So Menelaus gathered riches, died at the hands of violent Gentiles and his corpse was left unburied, and he had Onias III put to death, which is similar to what the Scrolls say about the Wicked Priest. But I haven't seen any indication that he was ever considered a good guy, or that he put Onias III on trial (with a bad temper, at that), or that he killed anyone else along with Onias III.

On the other hand, even if carbon dating ruled it out with absolute certainty, and even if it's only a coincidence, Ananus not only gathered riches, died at the hands of violent Gentiles and had his corpse left unburied, he was said to be a good guy and a bad guy, put James (whether he was really "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" or not) on trial with a bad temper, and killed him along with "some others." So even if Ananus doesn't fit the carbon dating to everyone's satisfaction, It looks like he at least otherwise fits more of the aspects of the Wicked Priest than Menelaus.

Sure. Without specifying what the "problems" are with carbondating you pretend it is perfectly reasonable that we return to wild speculation as the more likely alternative. Whoever this is, you're going out of your way to make it seem like your not hawking a thesis all the while hawking an utterly implausible thesis. It just seems you are trying to wear down spin to continue promoting your - I mean Eisenman's - books.

It's not that carbondating is a deal breaker "for spin." Carbon dating is a deal breaker PERIOD. I am starting to lose patience for this blatant disregard for reality and truthfulness

You can't push aside science and then attack spin's reconstruction of the possible historical markers in the text as a way of returning to Eisenman's thesis. Eisenman's thesis has been refuted. End of story. This is an utterly.dishonest effort at book promotion

Stephan,

I understand that you think the carbon dating issue is a deal breaker "PERIOD." You've made this very clear in your comments on this and my "Spin and the DSS" thread in an inimitable way by saying things such as "WTF is this," "Pfffff" and "Give me a ducking break."

You've also impugned my motives for writing this thread by strongly and repeatedly implying that I am Eisenman, and that, in any event, to have any reservations about variables that exist in carbon dating (as a link I've already provided indicates) and that to consequently even take Eisenman's theory into consideration is "insane," "demented" and "silly."

You've also impugned my motive for wanting to learn more about Spin's point of view on what the DSS say on my other thread, and haven't offered any alternative explantions for what the DSS say for me to think about because you think Eisenman's theory is implausible because of the carbon dating issue.

Have I summed up the situation correctly?

So if you don't have anything else to contribute and you don't want to hear me continue to discuss Eisenman's theory regarding what the DSS say, you don't have to read this thread.

But what is there to contribute to a dead theory? This is what mountainman used to with his fourth century conspiracy theory. "Let's consider this" or "let's consider that." But what was there to consider about Christianity being invented in the fourth century when there was Dura Europos? It's the same thing here with respect to carbon dating

If Eisenman was proven wrong then produce the smoking gun evidence.

So far, all I see is; since Eisenman is from a different school of thought (and disliked for his arrogance) therefore, he is wrong.

Please, argue the merits instead of defaulting to ad hominem attacks and setting up straw-dogs.

Now, I vaguely remember Eisenman saying in his book that unused vellum from era of DSS are still available on E-bay.
If that is true, then how can "spin" justify his spin (I paraphrase very loosely) that vellum; as soon as it was ready was used immediately?

I would think that the most valuable vellum would be saved for future important writings and not used as practice material to train scribes. I wouldn't be surprised if vellum was graded, separated and stored for just such a use.

But what do I know?

So, I ask once again; how does C14 determine when (vegetable) ink was put to paper and or vellum?

Anyone?

Respectfully,

John T

Stephan Huller wrote:... when there was Dura Europos? It's the same thing here with respect to carbon dating...

Hi Stephan,

In that vein... do you know any 'unquestionably Christian' papyri that have been definitively carbon-dated to before 256AD (= siege of Dura-Europos by the Sassanians)?

Cheers
Theo

John T wrote:If Eisenman was proven wrong then produce the smoking gun evidence.

It's already been done. His theory died with the carbondating evidence.

John T wrote:Now, I vaguely remember Eisenman saying in his book that unused vellum from era of DSS are still available on E-bay.

Like you can buy fake inscriptions. Why are you so desperate to resuscitate the Eisenman theory?

John T wrote:If that is true, then how can "spin" justify his spin (I paraphrase very loosely) that vellum; as soon as it was ready was used immediately?

But you just know Eisenman's talking pure shit. How would anyone, let alone Eisenman, know that anything sold on eBay dated back to the era? Did they get it carbondated? Pure bullshit.

John T wrote:I would think that the most valuable vellum would be saved for future important writings and not used as practice material to train scribes. I wouldn't be surprised if vellum was graded, separated and stored for just such a use.

But what do I know?

Good question. Easy answer.

John T wrote:So, I ask once again; how does C14 determine when (vegetable) ink was put to paper and or vellum?

It doesn't. It takes a tendentious desire to separate the production of vellum from its use by many decades. It is an untestable hypothesis, which has no reason to be contemplated seriously other than to make excuses for why your theory has been falsified. And that's the major issue here. The carbon dating range provided by tests on the relevant texts exclude the James theory.