Sometimes I think I would enjoy construction work, but I'd probably change my mind after a 16 hour physical workday.

Fair enough, so when you use the term "pesher" you're not referring to the types of documents found in the Dead Sea caves? ...Habakkuk pesher, pesher on the psalms, etc.?

Ok, Josephus is your teacher. Where does Josephus say (or "signal") that what he is writing is to be "interpreted" in a different way than it is said? Is there a specific area of Josephus that you can quote that would help anyone better understand why he wants us to know that some things he says are to be "interpreted" and not taken literally?

No problem.

Hehe... I guess you've read about Allegro's theory of how Christianity had its beginnings as a "mushroom cult"? He was pretty much ostracized by the scholarly community for that little gem. As you can tell, I also have a rather low opinion of his work. I appreciate the fact that you seem to recognize this as well.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 18, 2001).]

offa (in response to Ish);

haha, Ish, you got me on this one,
... Atiqot (with a ' q' and not a 'g') that Offa mentioned:"
I thought I must have wrote 4g171 and that there was
some kind of parallel nomenclature that I misrepresented.
Yes, I typed "Antigot" instead of Antiqot.
Yes, if I criticize misspellings then I must accept criticism.


Thiering writes Recently announced radiocarbon datings (1996)
so she is not referring to and earlier date. She also is talking
about an animal skin and not a linen fragment.

This discussion is getting a little of track. I posted on Thiering
to show that she does pay attention to Paleography and to
radiocarbon dating.

I want to avoid these kind of discussions because I do not read
Greek or Latin or Hebrew. I have to take for granted that these
findings and datings are correct. I am not going to say that
radiocarbon dating is inaccurate. I am confident that it is.
I do not think I could find the above in my local libraries,
nor would I know how to search. I rely on the internet and on
www.amazon.com.

My pesher is a little like Paleography. For instance,
if a prophecy is fulfilled then it is likely that it was made
after the fact, or, like in the instance of Antiquities of
the Jews, 13-312 it was a planned conspiracy or a play on
words.

Today we are buried in dogma. Can you imagine the trillions of
hours over the centuries that theists have spent brooding over
the bible? Do you realize how the language of our land has been
developed according to what is written? Everybody wants references.
It is easy to get documentation by Theists. Wasn't all the
scholars that interpreted the Dead Sea Scrolls either
Catholic or Jew?

Richard Carrier posted on this topic (May 11th) and his second
paragraph is very interesting. Myself, I respect your input,
however, before this topic I had unfairly lumped you in with
Nomad. I have called him a liar and he will not respond. As
an adversary you are competent

Also, the reason I postponed on this post was because I
wanted to be more focused (not tired). Thank you, and, next
week my co-workers will allow me more free time. I will be
more responsive to any questions directed at me. I enjoy
your posts and I accept criticism as a compliment.

Thanks, Offa

reading this thread, i'm under the impression that Richard Eisenmann is a fraud or something of that sort.

I had the opportunity to take his course on the dead sea scrolls at the local U. He spent half of the time presenting his side of the disputation against the majority of Dead Sea Scholars and the Israeli goverment who forbid him from ever coming back. Eisenmann kept painting himself as a maverick against a horde of incompetent yes-men.

What gives? Could anybody help this befuddled unbeliever?

~WiGGiN~

To Offa, Ish, et al:

I commend you for doing extensive research, offering commentary, and being polite/civil in the way you have presented your views with respect to the Qumran literature. This is the way all of us should conduct our discussions and debates. Thank you.

rodahi

No problem, I was just making sure the name of the article was presented correctly for those possibly intending to look it up. Didn't mean for it to sound like a tit-for-tat kind of thing.

I disagree that we are getting off track. My post was intended to show that Thiering is ignoring paleography and radiocarbon dating.

This is apparently where we lost connection. I really don't understand why Thiering writes "recently announced radiocarbon datings (1996)" either, but then "recently" can be a relative term. Regardless, in this quote, she is specifically referring to the evidence of the article in Atiqot 28 which is dated in 1996. As I stated in a previous post, I found this article and it is a report of the 1994 tests that most of the above books mention as damaging to Thiering's theories. In other words, no one that I am aware of knows of any tests done specifically in the year 1996 and the article that she refers only mentions those done in 1994. Perhaps, since Radiocarbon is a specialized technical journal not necessarily kept in the same libraries as Atiqot, this is the first time that this information came to her attention?

It seems as if the title of the article has confused you a bit because it mentions linen fragments. The linen fragments mentioned are from the cloth wrapped around some of the scrolls and really aren't very relevant to my case. However, the title of the article also mentions scrolls. By scrolls, it is referring to the "animal skins" or parchment scrolls that you mention and Thiering is interested in.

So, my post above about the Atiqot article is quite relevant and shows that Thiering's theories have been damaged.

I'm a little confused by the comparison to paleography. Could you elaborate?

The section of Josephus that you quoted is interesting (I'm assuming you wanted me to pick up on the two different Strato's Towers mentioned), but I'm still not sure I see how Josephus is telling us that what he writes is supposed to taken in a different way that how it is actually stated.

Do you have a method for extracting your information out of Josephus that you could share with us?

Not to my knowledge, but I don't think I could prove it.

Thank you, Offa. I appreciate the compliment. I must say that Nomad and I have somewhat different styles, but I believe he is quite knowledgeable (more so than I) and sincere. I also don't think that he has ever meant to do anything dishonest. I think we've all probably posted things at times that we'd rather take back. I know I have.

I completely understand being tired. No problem.

I have also enjoyed the conversation.

Thanks,
Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 21, 2001).]

Since I'm a Christian, you may not feel that you can take my word for it, but I'll have a quick say anyway.

First, I assume you're talking of Robert Eisenman.

Eisenman is a knowledgeable scholar. He has been involved with the scrolls for many years. The problem comes with the way he puts his facts together. If you read James the Just, you will see what I mean. He links many already debatable theories together in such a way that if one theory is proved wrong, the whole comes crashing down. His work is quite elaborate but unnecessarily so (at least in my opinion). So again, it is the way that he puts the facts together that causes his unpopularity among scholars.

It would have been interesting to be in his class because I believe that he presented some good information. Did he say anything about a conspiracy to keep the scrolls from the public, or has he backed off of that claim now?

Ish

Thanks for answering. Since i'm an existentialist, i do not believe that you are any more of a christian than i am an unbeliever. we are not fully identified with our beliefs. Hence, your word is as good as anyone!

Big surprise. Karl Popper's immortalized here: "all theories are born refuted." From what i gather in Eisenman's course that makes him unpopular is his overbearing, ego-centric and bluster (which personally endeared him even more), as well as his desire to rock the boat and release the findings of the dead sea scrolls to the public long before the other scholars were comfortable with the notion- too many toes around and one's bound to be stepped on.

Oh, I'd recommend this class for anyone, including your average fundamentalist jesus freak

Eisenman's DSS class was the highlight of that semester- i would look forward to that class meet eagerly, and stoked the fires of education (which had been inert for ages).

Once i asked Eisenman about the story of Longinous (the roman centurion who speared Christ)- his quick, rapier response?

Ya wanna know what i think? it's ALL fiction.

~Speaker 4 the death of God~

[This message has been edited by Ender (edited May 22, 2001).]

Well Ender, I knew I should be familiar with Eisenman, know I know why. He was the man that bolted from the "Dead Sea Scholar's" and posted what should have been common knowledge from day one. I ordered one of his books last night (because of your post). Apparently he is another fundie if he does not realize that Longinous was Herod Agrippa I.

thanks, offa