Eisenman and the DSS

[Stephan Huller]

He seems to have so many "vague" remembrances of stupid things that Eisenman said and only Eisenman we can only be dealing with one person. "John2" has only one interest ... to make Eisenman an authority on the DSS again. This is a feeling Wise and the team of translators he once worked with would certainly endorse.



At least pretend you read someone or something else "John.". No one cares this much about the former Beat poet turned professor of ancient religion.

[Stephan Huller]

If John2 continues to relentlessly beat the Eisenman drum I will bring up 1992

[John2]

Stephan,

You wrote:

"He seems to have so many "vague" remembrances of stupid things that Eisenman said and only Eisenman we can only be dealing with one person."

If you are now implying that I am JohnT, I am not. In any event, I haven't mentioned any "vague" remembrances of anything Eisenman has said here.

[John2]

Stephan,

Additionally, I've cited other scholars on other relevant threads. When someone mentioned the DSS on one of these threads, it led me to discuss Eisenman's theory. When Maryhelena suggested that I start an Eisenman thread, I did. This is the first thread I've ever started on the internet, and I've frankly been appalled by your manner of discourse.

[John T]

@John2,

I'm sorry Stephan and others may have you confused with me.
We both arrived on this forum about the same time and we both prefer to argue the merits instead of defaulting to ad hominem attacks, hence the confusion for some. Still, I would like to make something clear, you are far more knowledgeable on this subject than me and a much better writer, so it won't take long before they can quickly tell us apart.

Until then, I don't mind if they call me John the "'Vague" or John the "Ignorant".

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

Socrates once said, "I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others."

I only hope the haters of the Eisenman theory can handle more questions without taking it as an offense.

Now if I got this right, the writers of the DSS did not put their name to paper/vellum and C14 can not tell us when ink was put to writing.
Yes, I'm fixing to go somewhere with this.

Respectfully,

John T the vague/ignorant

[Stephan Huller]

I don't hate the Eisenman theory. If it were true it would be quite elegant and beautiful. I don't hate Eisenman either. I spent some time on his boat, went out to lunch with him (I forget who paid, probably me but who's counting). He's a remarkably interesting and intelligent person. The theory just can't work. That's my problem. In spite of his being a delightfully wonderful man who's worthy of respect the carbon dating makes his theory untenable

[John T]

@Stephan Huller,

You stated Eisenman's theory can't work based on carbon dating.
Please explain how carbon dating determines who/when the Teacher of Righteousness is/was and how that "makes his theory untenable"?

I thought Eisenman's theory was that Ananus was the wicked priest and James the Just was the Teacher of Righteousness?
What does C14 dating have to do with it?

Do I have that wrong?

What am I missing here?

Respectfully,

John The Ignorant

[Stephan Huller]

OMG Bob can you stop it with the imaginary tag team acolytes! What's with the line up of Johns?

[spin]

@Stephan Huller,

You stated Eisenman's theory can't work based on carbon dating.
Please explain how carbon dating determines who/when the Teacher of Righteousness is/was and how that "makes his theory untenable"?

I thought Eisenman's theory was that Ananus was the wicked priest and James the Just was the Teacher of Righteousness?
What does C14 dating have to do with it?

James the Just is supposed to have lived early to mid first century. 4QpHab is C14-dated to the previous century. Once the quibbling over the C14 has fallen apart we are left with assertions about the time of writing on the vellum, ie claiming that there must have been an enormous gap between the time of animal death and time of writing, when the only reason to make such an assertion is because there is no other possible way of dealing with the evidence than by unfalsifiable trickery.

Do I have that wrong?

What am I missing here?

Respectfully,

John The Ignorant

[John T]

Stephan posted: "OMG Bob [Robert Eisenman] can you stop it with the imaginary tag team acolytes! What's with the line up of Johns?"
***************************

I don't know about John2 but this John is not an acolyte of Bob. However, I am a neophyte to the reality of James the Just, thanks to Robert Eisenman.

Respectfully,
John The Ignorant