Eisenman and the DSS

[Stephan Huller]

John T was created Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am Most active topic:Eisenman and the DSS
John2 was created a little more than 24 hours later Joined:Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm Most active topic:Eisenman and the DSS

They are the only two members who have the majority of their posts in the only Eisenman thread in this forum
The thread was created by John2 when he tried to hijack another thread with nonsense from Eisenman
His second most active thread was "Spin and the DSS" which was created because he wanted to find out who this spin was who was actively pissing on his theory
Given that John2 was created a little more than 24 hours after John T and both take an active interest in Eisenman the fact that the second John took his name viz "John2" from the fact that the same person just created another John the night before.

[DCHindley]

Maybe it has already been clearly stated many pages previously, but could someone be so kind as to tell me PRECISELY where Eisenman is supposed to have asserted that James the Just was the actual Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the DSS? I mean a citation in a paper or book. And which scroll fragment? 4QpHab?

I seem to remember this being one of hundreds of suggestions made in his first book, James the Brother of Jesus, but he almost immediately reverted to the position that James was at very least someone of similar status in his own community.

Back when the issue of carbon dating of the DSS was a hot one, spurred by a hypothesis of Ian Hutchesson that the DSS were all deposited before 62 BCE, I could see him making such a suggestion as well. Up until then, the few C14 samples that had been subjected to analysis had been producing some widely different date estimates.

Then Greg Doudna got involved in developing the science of carbon dating of parchment fragments. At the time, and for many still now, the prevailing theory was that they were deposited around 68 CE. Doudna showed that the oils used by some early scroll researchers to make the parchment more easy to read had contaminated them in a way that could make them seem "newer". If the parchment was prepared in 200 BCE, and contaminated by linseed oil produced circa 1950 CE, it wouldn't take much contamination to throw off the test results by hundreds of years. Then the discussion went on to ways to thoroughly clean the samples of all contaminants without destroying the sample itself.

Luckily, the Museums etc holding the fragments allowed additional sampling and they were sent to multiple labs with very little historical details to reduce the chance that the results would be (un)intentionally affected by the presuppositional biases of the testing lab personnel. I believe that the final results are available online, and they are as accurate as they can be, and still a little hard to interpret.

DCH

[Stephan Huller]

Ding, ding, ding. The other shoe ...

[DCHindley]

Ding, ding, ding. The other shoe ...

Thank you for acknowledging my "tip". Sorry it was only a dollar.

[Hawthorne]

John T was created Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am Most active topic:Eisenman and the DSS
John2 was created a little more than 24 hours later Joined:Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm Most active topic:Eisenman and the DSS

They are the only two members who have the majority of their posts in the only Eisenman thread in this forum
The thread was created by John2 when he tried to hijack another thread with nonsense from Eisenman
His second most active thread was "Spin and the DSS" which was created because he wanted to find out who this spin was who was actively pissing on his theory
Given that John2 was created a little more than 24 hours after John T and both take an active interest in Eisenman the fact that the second John took his name viz "John2" from the fact that the same person just created another John the night before.

parallelomania. John is a very common English name. All conspiracy theory (albeit, a conspiracy of one).

hmmm...on the other hand, what are the odds that two consecutive "Johns" both interested in a fringe theory related to the Dead Sea Scrolls would subscribe to this forum?

On the other hand, it is a bit obvious, isn't it? If someone wanted a sock puppet, wouldn't it make more sense to create an account with a different name? Like, maybe, Nestor? or, Hank?

I need more hands...

[Stephan Huller]

Yes but it isn't just two alleged Eisenman acolytes subscribing to the forum but (a) decide to join the forum on consecutive days (b) chose the same names and then (c) when John2 is threatened John T appears to question how deep my understanding of Eisenman's theory all the while feigning ignorance about Eisenman's theories.

It's quite bizarre. At the very least we have to acknowledge that "John2" was so called based on "John T" being created the day before. A strange.name in itself (surely John2 can't also have a surname that also begins with T). It was a careless mistake. Who creates pseudonyms based on recently created pseudonyms anyway? Only the same person who created the other John the day before. And then the question who creates two sock puppets? Go back to the beginning of this thread to see how many posts John2 kept making to keep the topic alive. He was hell bent on bringing up Eisenman in the forum.

[Stephan Huller]

From the first post " I am persuaded by Eisenman that they refer to events of the first century CE."

" I've already mentioned two things that Eisenman's theory has going for it that seem relevant to this discussion on another thread."

[spin]

Maybe it has already been clearly stated many pages previously, but could someone be so kind as to tell me PRECISELY where Eisenman is supposed to have asserted that James the Just was the actual Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the DSS? I mean a citation in a paper or book. And which scroll fragment? 4QpHab?

James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher, Brill 1986!

And it was a sort of reasonable speculative hypothesis, then when the scrolls were in shackles and no C14 was yet done (other than by Libby).

[DCHindley]

Maybe it has already been clearly stated many pages previously, but could someone be so kind as to tell me PRECISELY where Eisenman is supposed to have asserted that James the Just was the actual Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the DSS? I mean a citation in a paper or book. And which scroll fragment? 4QpHab?

James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher, Brill 1986!

And it was a sort of reasonable speculative hypothesis, then when the scrolls were in shackles and no C14 was yet done (other than by Libby).

I never bought that book. Just as well.

I might have Maccabees etc, but I cannot find it in the mess that passes for my library in the "man cave".

DCH

[maryhelena]

Maybe it has already been clearly stated many pages previously, but could someone be so kind as to tell me PRECISELY where Eisenman is supposed to have asserted that James the Just was the actual Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the DSS? I mean a citation in a paper or book. And which scroll fragment? 4QpHab?

I seem to remember this being one of hundreds of suggestions made in his first book, James the Brother of Jesus, but he almost immediately reverted to the position that James was at very least someone of similar status in his own community.

DCH

If that was all that Eisenman was doing ie referencing James as "at very least someone of similar status in his own community" - then why the reluctance to face the consequences of the carbon dating? If all Eisenman was seeing was a reflection of the DSS ToR in the NT James of Jerusalem figure - then he has no reason, from that perspective, to question the carbon dating.

However:

Robert Eisenman

As far as Eisenman is concerned, James the Just, the individual Paul actually refers to as either "brother of Jesus" or “the brother of the Lord,” is the historical character who exhibits the most in common with “the Teacher of Righteousness" pictured at Qumran and he considers that these events are the ones vividly portrayed in the Habakkuk Commentary.

From that position Eisenman has to challenge the carbon dating.

So....Eisenman, re the two links below, is sticking to his guns.....

As spin noted above, prior to the carbon dating issue: ".. it was a sort of reasonable speculative hypothesis,.." for Eisenman to put forward. The question now arises: Does the carbon dating negate the correspondence that Eisenman has seen between the Josephan James passage and the DSS? Eisenman, in one of the links below, is maintaining that he will go with the internal evidence of the DSS rather than the external, carbon dating, evidence. In other words; Eisenman is maintaining that the internal evidence, the correspondence between the DSS and the Josephan passage is strong enough to warrant discarding the carbon dating. I think he is wrong in this. However, I also think he is right that the correspondence between the DSS and the Josephan James passage can not be thrown out.

In an earlier thread I suggested that what Eisenman has seen in the Josephan James passage is a shadow, a reflection, of the DSS story re the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness. Thus, he is dealing with a reflection not with the historical reality that underlines the DSS 'story'. The dating of the Josephan James passage, around 63 c.e. suggests that the Josephan writer is replaying, remembering, reflecting upon, the historical events that led to the end of the Hasmonean priesthood - events 100 years earlier. The events from 37 b.c.e. to 30 b.c.e. Events from the execution of Antigonus to the execution of his uncle Hycrancus. Josephus replaying, as it were, this earlier Hasmonean history prior to the fall of Jerusalem - 63 c.e. to 70 c.e.

(That the Josephan story includes the names of James and Jesus - all that does is tie the Josephan passage with the NT story - and thus with the DSS story. Greg Doudna identifying Antigonus as the Wicked Priest hung up alive on a cross. My own position views Antigonus as being the historical model for the gospel Jesus crucifixion story)


DSS Teacher of Righteousness and the Josephan James
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=518


Robert Eisenman:
James the Just as Righteous Teacher -- The Radiocarbon Controversy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ei ... 33599.html

Internal Evidence vs. External Evidence Like Carbon Testing in the Dead Sea Scrolls
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ei ... 22313.html

Greg Doudna:
Response to Robert Eisenman in the Huffington Post (Oct. 22, 2013)
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8031.shtml

ALLUSIONS TO THE END OF THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY
IN PESHER NAHUM (4Q169)
http://scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads ... 59-278.pdf