Thanks Ish, for all this awesome typing. I know how tough it is. I'll be looking to some of these books...

BTW, I store all the Amazon book connections I use in a huge file, so I can call them up when necessary. I'll be saving these somewhere as well.

Michael

Michael, no problem. Honestly, I wish that I had had someone to present these books to me.

One of the first DSS books I found and read was Golb's book (and I found it very good) and some of the others (Eisenman,Thiering,etc.) because they are "popular" and easy to find. I assumed at first that they represented the scholarly community as a whole. They don't. This happens with books on the Historical Jesus as well.

I feel that many of the books I have presented (and quoted from) are by relatively moderate, mainstream scholars, and I think they are very informative.

If you read any of them and disagree, please let me know, because I like to know their weaknesses as well.

Thanks,
Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 12, 2001).]

Ish, I do have The Dead Sea Scrolls in English by
G.Vermes and I have read it, but, I probably need a little
refresher on it. I have Holy Blood Holy Grail and
the Dead Sea Scrolls Deception. I will join with
you regarding an unfavorable critique of Baigent. I was
disappointed with the latter book. However, I like to
research bibliography and his books have a bibliography.
As far as Thiering is concerned I read a bibliography
somewhere about her book Jesus & the Riddle of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and I thought, what a ridiculous title.
I was in a book store in Gulf Port MS. and there it was.
I cracked it open and began reading it. I have it by my
side right now and it is in pathetic shape. I bought it
in September of 1993. Her ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS include The
Dead Sea Scrolls in English and The Nag Hammadi Library
in English. Dr. Thiering gives an extended bibliography
and I possess most of those books. She acknowledges Paleography
and the radio-carbon process. She questions specific sources
and specific Scroll fragments. The Scrolls are not all from
the Hasmonean Era. She questions Josef Milik's use of Paleography
on one specific script (page 15 of Jesus and the Riddle
of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

On page 417 The Book that Jesus Wrote Thiering
writes the following [i] Recently announced radiocarbon
datings (1996) have given strong support to the Christian
dating of the Teacher of Righteousness, who is the
subject of the pesharim and the Damascus Document.
See Atigot, vol. XXVIII, Israel Antiquities
Authority, Jerusalem, 1996. The Essential document given
the test is 4Q171, the Pesher on the Psalms, of which the
subject is the current danger to the Teacher from
his enemies. There is only one edition each of the
pesharim; it cannot be a copy of an earlier work. Its
radiocarbon date is announced to be AD 6 +/- 23 years, with
one stigma calibration AD 22-78, 2 sigma AD 5-111 - that
is, the animal whose skin used for the writing material was
not killed until the first century AD. Consequently the
Teacher, who was still alive at the time of the
writing, lived in the first century AD.

So, Ish, your biblical scholars do not question her specific
writings but, instead, her overall scope. She gets unfairly
lumped in with Baigent and Eisenman.

Now, please read this. I borrowed "pesher" from Thiering.
My "pesher" is how I understand Scripture. I remember my
father remarking at a gas price of something like 39.9
cents a gallon. His remark was "call it 40 cents a gallon
and quit lying like a Jew!" I consider the Bible as Jewish
lies or, stretching the truth. You find me one of them
scholars who can tell me where it says that Jesus' feet
were pierced or find me a virgin that was not a Hebrew and
you may put me on the correct path. Also, I have nothing
against Jews and I love to read their stories, and, BTW,
those Jews of Scripture do not exists today. Our residents
of the Holy Land are too far removed from those scholars of
old.

Offa?
I read Laurence Gardner's 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' is he in the same ballpark as Baigent? What's your opinion of him?
thanks.

Wow! Great post, Offa. You gave relevant quotes and references! Much better...

I have to admit that I've not read anything about radiocarbon datings in 1996. Some of the books that I have read date later than 1996, but I can't seem to find any mention of it.

This could possibly be a re-reporting of the 1994 findings from Tucson, AZ that were originally reported in the the Radiocarbon Journal. ("Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert", Radiocarbon 37 (1995))

This publication also has a couple of previous articles on the issue:

• "Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls", Radiocarbon 34/3 (1992)
• "An Assessment of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls", Radiocarbon 35 (1993)

I do know of at least one report in the IAA's (Israel Antiquities Authority) publication Atiqot (with a 'q' and not a 'g') that Offa mentioned:

• "Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls", Atiqot XX (1991).

All of these articles are mentioned by scholars to support a pre-Christian date for the scrolls that are important to Thiering and Eisenman as Vermes states in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (pp.13-14):

"Nevertheless, Arizona has scored on one highly significant point: the Habakkuk Commentary, chief source of the history of the Qumran sect, is definitely put in the pre-Christian era between 120 and 5 BCE. In consequence, fringe scholars who see in this writing allusions to events described in the New Testament will find they have a problem on their hands."

I don't suppose that Thiering gives the title and author of the article in Atiqot XXVIII, does she?

Regardless, I imagine that she could simply be putting her own "spin" on whatever is reported in this article.

This discussion list contains some threads where a person (Ian) is arguing directly with Thiering over the issue of dating the scrolls(The Limitations of C14 Dating).

One might be able to find some other relevant information in the thread that Ian mentions in this discussion(Orion Dead Sea Scrolls discussion list).

The scholars I quote do question the specifics of her writings, especially Stegeman's The Library of Qumran and Larson's article in NEA.

I don't personally think she is unfairly lumped with Eisenman et al. Her work is built on wild assumptions as are theirs.

-----
Finally, I want to deal with the "Teacher of Righteousness" issue. Both Thiering and Eisenman ignore or reject more than just paleographic and radiocarbon evidence in identifying the "Teacher of Righteousness" ("Wicked Priest", "the Liar", etc.) with New Testament figures.

They ignore the internal evidence in one of the most important documents to their theories, the Damascus Document, as mentioned by Offa. This document tells us a lot about the Qumran community that Thiering and Eisenman are trying to relate to Christianity.


Here is their problem straight from the source:

Damascus Document (Col.1, vv.1-11)


Listen now all you who know righteousness, and consider the works of God; for He has a dispute with all flesh and will condemn all those who despise Him.

For when they were unfaithful and forsook Him, He hid His face from Israel and His Sanctuary and delivered them up to the sword. But remembering the Covenant of the forefathers, He left a remnant to Israel and did not deliver it up to be destroyed. And in the age of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after He had given them into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, He visited them, and He caused a plant root to spring from Israel and Aaron to inherit His Land and to prosper on the good things of His earth. And they perceived their iniquity and recognized that they were guilty men, yet for twenty years they were like blind men groping for the way.

And God observed their deeds, and that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart.

(The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls In English by Vermes)


Now, carefully notice from the document that God "visited them" and "caused a plant root to spring from Israel..." (this is Teacher of Righteousness as is made clear a few sentences later) exactly 390 years after the fall to the Babylonians. The Babylonians captured Jerusalem in 586 B.C. and this is firmly established by archaeological evidence.

Next, for 20 years after the 390 years they were "groping for the way". At this point in time, God saw that they were searching sincerely and "raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness".

If you do the math: 390 + 20 = 410 years of total time passed from 586 B.C. until the Teacher of Righteousness came. So, 586 B.C. - 410 years leaves us somewhere around the year 176 B.C.

Therefore, the Teacher of Righteousness, according to internal evidence dates to somewhere in the 1st to 2nd centuries B.C., well before the Christian era.

Lest you think this is bunk, I simply investigated what Larson said in Are the Dead Sea Scrolls Christian? (NEA 63:3, p169):

"...all the evidence we have concerning the Teacher of Righteousness indicates that he lived in the second century BCE and not the first century CE. Thus, the Damascus Document states that the Teacher of Righteousness began his leadership of the Qumran group 410 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the year 586 BCE. ...The end result of all of this is to make a first century date for the Teacher of Righteousness impossible."


Hope this was at least somewhat interesting to someone...

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 13, 2001).]

marduck;
I read Laurence Gardner's 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' is
he in the same ballpark as Baigent? What's your opinion of
him? thanks.


No, I have not read 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail'. I have
'Holy Blood Holy Grail' because of the bibliography and some
day I might reread it. I just love 'Le Morte D'Arthur' by
Malory and that is probably why I picked up Baigent's
Grail story almost twenty years ago. I enjoyed it as a little
bit historical. Baigent was the first person I read that came
out bluntly with the Mary Magdalene-Jesus Christ husband-wife
story. As an atheist that did not shock me. My conclusion was
that Baigent's bloodline was not the bloodline of Christ but
the bloodline of a Herodian princess, that is, Herodias. She
qualifies as a daughter of Eve through her grandmother Mariamne.
The only problem is, I can not detect any off-spring of her's
other than Salome and Salome remained in Judea. Baigent mentions
a "Fisher King" and this is also relevant because of the fishermen
stories related to lake Galilee (the Dead Sea). Antipas was
involved in this practice of receiving monies for saving one's
sole, that is, being a fisherman for one's sole.

So, I enjoyed Baigent much like I have enjoyed over a hundred
western novels. I was quite disappointed in his "The Dead Sea
Scrolls Deception".

thanks, offa

Ish;

Wow! Great post, Offa. You gave relevant quotes and
references! Much better...<P>I have to admit that I've not
read anything about radiocarbon datings in 1996. Some of
the books that I have read date later than 1996, but I can't
seem to find any mention of it.


Uh oh! I am not sure I want to play in your home ballpark Ish!
Sounds like this is right up your alley. I enjoyed your post.
I just worked a 14 hour construction day and I refuse to
crack a book (I'd love to). It may be Saturday evening before
I can post a sober reply. The 390 years and so on may be referenced
from another date. You see, Babylonia may not be Babylon. There
are times in Scripture that the Rome is referred to as Babylon.
I have to do a little research.

Regards, offa

P.S. It is difficult for me to give references because I write
my own stuff and biblical scholars are a dime a dozen. I sure
as hell am not a biblical scholar ... I am an atheist!

I had an unusual chance to go to the library the other day, so I looked up the article in Atiqot 28 mentioned by Thiering.

The article, Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert (p.85), seems to do more damage than good to Thiering's theories.

Anyway, it turns out that my guess was right, the article seems to be a re-reporting of the tests done in Arizona in 1994:

"This is a report on a new set of C14 measurements performed at the Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectometry (AMS) facility... All except three of the tested scrolls were sampled on March 21 and 22, 1994" (p.85 w/my emphasis)

The three not tested were of no interest to Thiering; they were: 1QIsa(a), Kefar Bebayon, and 5/6 Hev 19.

Thiering's theories seem to have been significantly damaged by the tests.

Geza Vermes is quoted in the article as saying this about the Habbakuk Pesher (very important to Thiering):

"If the carbon-dating establishes a terminus ad quem prior to ca. 30 CE, this will damage almost beyond repair the hypothesis proposing a Christian connection."

Well, the tests did establish a terminus ad quem prior to circa 30 CE for the Habakkuk Pesher. Here are the dates given from the test:

1QpHab:
1(sigma) 104-43 BCE
2(sigma) 153-143 BCE (3%)
120 BCE - 5 CE (97%)

Thiering's hypotheses seem, therefore, to be "damaged almost beyond repair."

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 15, 2001).]

Offa, hope you're work load lightens up.

If you wouldn't mind, when you have time, I'd like to discuss the term "pesher" a little more with you. I believe that you said most of your information on "pesher" comes from Thiering. Are you following her "rules" for interpreting the New Testament as if it were a "pesher"?

Thanks,
Ish

To Ish,
The workload is a necessary evil because of the iffy weather. Contracting and construction demand long hours. I enjoy my work now much more than that of a 40 hour a week central office telephone man that I once was
... eons ago!

I try to distance myself from Thiering. Somebody wanted references so I dug them up.
With my line of thought my references are scarce. I read Thiering to gain an insight away from dogma and she offers excellent bibliographies.

I have repeated over and again ... I borrowed the word pesher from Thiering. My teacher is Josephus. Pesher is "interpretations of dreams" and since I know that dreams are actual events "Pesher" is my interpretation of those events.

I intend to discuss your reply, above, this weekend (Saturday late after a nap). I have recently finished reading "The Bible Unearthed" and was quite disappointed. I found a gem or two that I would like to discuss.

Also, there is another discussion going on about a lunar eclipse and my input was that it was an intercalation and I plan to start a discussion on intercalations real soon.

Also, I want to discuss John Allegro and how disappointing he turned out to me, even though he did give me one gem.

Thanks, offa