John Deere

rlogan:

I've sent it. If you haven't gotten it please let me know.

Joe

Johann_Kaspar

How do you support this claim?How did they do it? What is your evidence that escaped everybody for almost 2 millenia?

Will you send me your book, so that I can review it?

rlogan

Got it.

Thank you.

Will review.

John Deere

Johann:

Support is in book, don't know why everyone else missed the satirical relationship between Jesus's ministry and Titus's campaign.

I'm not going to send a free one but if you don't want to spend the $8 then check your library.

Joe

John Deere

Spin vs. Joe - the ludicrous conclusion

I now know why Spin did not send me Doudna's data and analysis showing that the two sigma range of 1QHab did not extend into the first century CE, or as Spin put it "certainty minus 5%" that 1QHab was written prior to the first century, according to the recalibrated C14 results.

He did not send it because there is no such data. An alert reader of our exchange emailed me the absurd truth - Greg Doudna published his recalibrated dating of 1QHab in "The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, Leiden p433-453. His results were not, as Spin had claimed, with the 2 sigma range totally within the first century BCE. Only his one sigma range was prior to CE. His 2 sigma c14 range extends well into the first century and was the same as the one presented in my article - which I had written 5 years ago and had simply forgotten Greg's results. This is why I had asked Spin to send them to me and, evidentally, why he did not. Greg argued for the first century BCE origin of 1QHab, not on the grounds that its c14 two sigma range was in that century, but rather through paleographic analysis.

This was a good lesson and I will no longer respond to anyone asking questions in an insulting manner<edit>.


Joe

Amaleq13

Joe,

I'm certainly not going to pretend to understand the "sigma" aspect of your disagreement with spin but I did find this article by Doudna on the subject of dating the DSS.

On the subject of carbon dating, Doudna writes (3rd page):

"Unfortunately, time does not permit a full discussion here, but the following is a good summary: the existing radiocarbon data, while confirming 2nd and 1st century BCE dates of Qumran texts, do not confirm that Qumran texts are from as late as the 1st century CE. A sound interpretation of the existing data is that true dates of texts from the caves at Qumran as late as the 1st century CE are neither confirmed nor refuted on grounds of radiocarbon data alone. This ambiguity will not always be the case. The picture will become clearer with further radiocarbon data."

"1QpHab, which is almost certainly contemporary to 4QpPsa, radiocarbon dated earlier, in the 1st century BCE (160 BCE-2 CE at 95% confidence [at 68% confidence, 88-2 BCE]). In light of the "outlier" status of the radiocarbon date of 4QpPsa—4QpPsa gave the latest, unrechecked date of all 19 dates (the actual latest turning out to be contaminated, when rechecked)—it is simply wrong to claim that the radiocarbon date for 4QpPsa proves true dates of Qumran cave texts as late as the 1st century CE."

"No actual evidence on archaeological, palaeographic, or radiocarbon grounds justifies the existing scholarly certainty concerning 1st century CE/ First Revolt Qumran text deposits. In fact, there have been signals all along suggesting that the Qumran scroll deposits are earlier than commonly supposed. But these signals have not been appreciated."

Am I wrong in understanding Doudna to be in agreement with spin in regards to denying that a 1st century CE dating is valid?

Toto

Joe - have you read Doudna's results, or are you relying on an anonymous source? Your source seems to disagree with spin's reading of the identical book here, and with Doudna's article at bibleinterp.com

This should be a simple matter, if you have access to that volume - Amazon has not scanned it in, unfortunately.

Johann_Kaspar

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Exactly what I was thinking. I could have gambled that you will answer: "read my book". Well, you failed to answer. You are not here to discuss, but only to promote your book. QED

I hope the moderators will notice the fact.

I asked about evidence of making the gospels known while they (the Flavians) were alive, THIS fact escaped everybody for 2 millenia, and and my question was and is still not about your fake "relationship". Do you have understanding problems?

I asked you also about evidence in the gospels that the pro-Roman Jews are the good ones and the rebelling the bad ones...

I understand that you are quite embarrassed to answer. Now I am waiting, after the "read my book" answer, something like: "we are in a loop"... :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Last but not least I see that your deductive skills are limited. Unless your book will be translated into French, there is no way for my local library to get it.

Johann_Kaspar

:thumbs:

rlogan

I wish I had read this before getting into the thread, because it was pretty confusing entering in the middle of the argument without a good review article like this.

Thanks Amaleq13. Hope things are OK down south there.