Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 05-18-2010, 10:14 AM

It is still quite unclear to me exactly what passages in Josephus' War make reference to actual escapes through tunnels, drainage or otherwise.

It should also be noted that there was quite a bit of work done on the city in midieval times, especially by the Templars.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant Gnostic

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

[...]

However, I am not so sure about the secret tunnels leading out from under the temple to points beyond the Roman pickets. There were surely tunnels under the temple mount, some of which are still there and relatively unexplored (several European explorers went spelunking in some of them in the 1800s, up to their waders in offel and sewage). Nowadays there are jurisdictional issues (under the Muslim dome of the rock) and concerns that excavations might weaken the mount or be a pretext for a surprise attack to take the temple mount over. Anyhow, if there were tunnels, why did not any of the defenders of the city take the passage out, especially Simon bar Giora?

[...]

It doesn't look to me like anyone had ready access to tunnels out of the city, or Simon would have taken advantage of them, and so many would not have subsequently been found in the underground tunnels that did exist.

DCH

Could be. But see this article on a tunnel excavated a few years ago.

fitter · 05-18-2010, 10:14 AM

An outrage - I wonder if this weird KSTP news article on a museum exhibit is part of the same "fraudulent scheme to influence a debate" (the Manhattan D.A.'s words) as some of the other efforts we have seen.

Here is another version of the article. It says it is written by "Maja Beckstrom." Must I believe this author received her information from a credible source?

For example, here is what she writes:

Quote:

"We could just tell one side and create a tight little story about who created the scrolls, but that wouldn't be telling the science," said Ed Fleming, the museum's curator of archaeology, who worked with other staff and Israeli authorities to design the exhibit.

This must be wrong, because I read in a Los Angeles Times article about another "Dead Sea Scrolls" exhibit that it is better not to "confuse people with so many competing theories."

What I don't understand, is that the person who, from what I read in that Los Angeles Times article, properly avoided confusion in San Diego, will be giving a lecture at this St. Paul exhibit on June 10. The Chicago guy who says these "Dead Sea Scrolls" are the "Jerusalem Library" gave a lecture on May 6. That lecture must have been rather confusing. Hopefully the June 10 lecture will prevent further confusion.

First they say not to confuse, then they confuse. This makes no sense to me.

XKV8R · 05-18-2010, 04:32 PM

thus it all begins again.....

(and we were doing so well for a few months there. what changed? ;-) )

the minneapolis exhibit is not the first exhibit to address alternate theories. see here: http://robertcargill.com/2010/03/15/...ls-exhibition/

and like i said, we've been through this before. 'ignorant gnostic' is (or at least was) one of the golb sons trying to drum up support for dad's papers and lectures. if i may cite from the ny district attorney's filings in the case of the people of the state of new york vs. raphael golb:

“your contribution was posted 2 minutes after my own posting–wouldn’t it have been better to wait a while to avoid the impression that we are collaborating or are indeed one and the same person?” – Joel Golb to Raphael Golb

“I really don’t think I ruined anything by coming on — the tone of my thing was quite different from yours, along with links. It’s part of Gadda’s persona to always come on late at night with jabs at these people, quoting the New York Times and similar sources. Why shouldn’t he have picked up on Ignorant Gnostic’s statement?” - Raphael Golb in response to Joel Golb

dr. golb's former student, dr. wise, is overseeing the minneapolis exhibition, and he invited dr. golb to give a lecture. and this is perfectly legit. why not? it's good to hear all points of view. besides, students often honor their teachers with opportunities when possible, just like good professors pass opportunities on to their students. it's all good.

but since dr. golb is speaking, we are now graced with timely notifications here on this space of any press clipping that mentions norman golb. fun, no?

and we can have the same debates.
and we can mash up the same issues.
and we can do the same thing on and on and on, over and over again.

three words: one. trick. pony.

(i expect we'll see more of this as we build to september 13, 2010, when this should really get fun...)

mountainman · 05-18-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XKV8R

three words: one. trick. pony.

What sort of horse are you running in this race Dr. Cargill?

XKV8R · 05-18-2010, 05:00 PM

i'd like to say that i'm just watching this particular race from the stands.

to be sure, i do have my own thoughts about qumran. and i've published them. and i've debated a few of them here.

but in keeping with my recent m.o. in this space, methinks i'll just stick to pointing out when a horse is not really a horse, (of course...)

Ignorant Gnostic · 05-18-2010, 06:09 PM

Fitter: Perhaps the St. Paul museum directors were unconvinced by Michael Hager's attempts to justify what happened in San Diego, where "religious scholars" (Hager's words) were allowed to set the agenda of a natural history museum exhibit. There is some commentary on this here.

I have found another article on the St. Paul exhibit. It clarifies that the museum appointed two science advisers of radically opposing viewpoints, and had them develop the exhibit together. That sounds like an interesting way of resolving such disputes--it certainly avoids the pitfall of having one side control the content of an exhibit--and it encourages the curators to give meaningful treatment, rather than mere lip service to both of the two salient opposing perspectives.

Sounds like the museum equivalent of the Cambridge History of Judaism, which also presents the two opposing theories side by side. I.e., the editors of the Cambridge History of Judaism decided to publish two accounts of scroll origins, one representing each of the two salient theories (some have sought to disseminate inaccurate information on this basic editorial choice). And now a major museum also juxtaposes the same two salient theories.

Some have suggested that there are actually three theories, the third being that a sect lived at Qumran and brought in texts from "elsewhere." Others, however, hold that this is really nothing more than a variation of the sectarian theory, invented to preserve the theory in face of the evidence pointing, they claim, towards intense scribal activity in an urban center as the source for so many texts. Interesting debate.

XKV8R · 05-18-2010, 06:39 PM

now that's just too funny. one alias talking to another.

enjoy playing with yourself (electronically, of course).

(seriously, way too funny. almost bloggable, but that would give you exposure, so no.)

seriously, still laughing.

have a nice day.

arnoldo · 05-19-2010, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The article is interesting for its discussion as to the various theories concerned at identifying the people who authored, gathered and buried these manuscripts "out of town" at a "remote site" probably as an attempt to preserve these manuscripts from one or more parties who would seek to destroy it. The early "Essenes theory" for example (see bolded bit below) is now not a "favorite" with the book makers.

Quote:

But most of the scrolls are not Scripture. They include never-before-seen Jewish religious writings and texts like Enoch and Jubilees, which became part of the Roman Catholic, but not Protestant and Hebrew, canon. And there are many documents that seem to be written by an unnamed Jewish sect that rejected the leaders of the Jerusalem Temple.

"They believed the End of Days was imminent," said Alex Jassen, an assistant professor of early Judaism at the University of Minnesota and a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar who also acted as an exhibit adviser. "They were the die-hards who said, we are going to go live in the desert, where we will not be subjected to what they call the 'polluted Temple.' Now, who these guys are, that's the million-dollar question."

Early scholars thought they were the Essenes, a group referred to by several Roman-era writers. Excavations in the 1950s at the nearby ancient Israeli settlement of Qumran turned up inkwells and other artifacts that seemed to support the idea of a community of celibate, male scribes. But Fleming of the Science Museum believes the Essene theory is "unraveling."

"Really there is no serious evidence, in my mind," he said.

Handwriting analysis suggests the manuscripts were written by several hundred people, too many to have lived in one location. And the texts represent more than one community's point of view.

Jassen subscribes to a variation on this theory - that a religious group lived and wrote at Qumran but also brought manuscripts from other groups and places. When the Romans threatened their community, they hid their library in the caves.

"I think the evidence seems to be pretty strong that this is a unified collection that represents the distinct library of a community of ancient Jews who were quite devout in their observance of Jewish law and ritual," he said.

The DSS may've been a product of a first century jewish sect like the sect which resulted in the christian sect. In a different post I listed some possible parallels between these sects.

Quote:

What parallels, if any exists between the jewish sect which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls and the jewish sect which may've led to christianty?

Some possible parallels;

Both produced texts which were possibly subjected to change over time

Both proclaimed a new covenant of sorts (the DSS sect wrote concerning a renewed covenant)

Both had a leader which may/may not have been historical (the DSS sect proclaimed their leader " The Righteous Teacher")

Both had leaders who were alleged to have confronted the religous authorities

Both did not necessarily believe that sacrifices in the temple were required (the DSS sect offered prayers instead of sacrifices until temple purification was completed)

Both practiced water purification rites

More info on the dead sea scrolls is available in the following scholarly podcast.

http://msatlow.blogspot.com/2009/09/...-dead-sea.html

fitter · 05-19-2010, 02:15 PM

So now there's something wrong with "religious scholars"?

Yes, these texts were written by one sect. And "science" is a strange pretext for confusing that reality.

Toto · 05-19-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitter

So now there's something wrong with "religious scholars"?

Who said there was?

Quote:

Yes, these texts were written by one sect. And "science" is a strange pretext for confusing that reality.

Could you clarify what this comment relates to?

05-18-2010, 04:32 PM	#13
XKV8R Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: ucla, southern california Posts: 140	ignorant gnostic, or ignorant readers? thus it all begins again..... (and we were doing so well for a few months there. what changed? ;-) ) the minneapolis exhibit is not the first exhibit to address alternate theories. see here: http://robertcargill.com/2010/03/15/...ls-exhibition/ and like i said, we've been through this before. 'ignorant gnostic' is (or at least was) one of the golb sons trying to drum up support for dad's papers and lectures. if i may cite from the ny district attorney's filings in the case of the people of the state of new york vs. raphael golb: “your contribution was posted 2 minutes after my own posting–wouldn’t it have been better to wait a while to avoid the impression that we are collaborating or are indeed one and the same person?” – Joel Golb to Raphael Golb “I really don’t think I ruined anything by coming on — the tone of my thing was quite different from yours, along with links. It’s part of Gadda’s persona to always come on late at night with jabs at these people, quoting the New York Times and similar sources. Why shouldn’t he have picked up on Ignorant Gnostic’s statement?” - Raphael Golb in response to Joel Golb dr. golb's former student, dr. wise, is overseeing the minneapolis exhibition, and he invited dr. golb to give a lecture. and this is perfectly legit. why not? it's good to hear all points of view. besides, students often honor their teachers with opportunities when possible, just like good professors pass opportunities on to their students. it's all good. but since dr. golb is speaking, we are now graced with timely notifications here on this space of any press clipping that mentions norman golb. fun, no? and we can have the same debates. and we can mash up the same issues. and we can do the same thing on and on and on, over and over again. three words: one. trick. pony. (i expect we'll see more of this as we build to september 13, 2010, when this should really get fun...)

05-18-2010, 06:39 PM	#17
XKV8R Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: ucla, southern california Posts: 140	lol now that's just too funny. one alias talking to another. enjoy playing with yourself (electronically, of course). (seriously, way too funny. almost bloggable, but that would give you exposure, so no.) seriously, still laughing. have a nice day.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-18-2010, 05:00 PM	#15
XKV8R Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: ucla, southern california Posts: 140	i'd like to say that i'm just watching this particular race from the stands. to be sure, i do have my own thoughts about qumran. and i've published them. and i've debated a few of them here. but in keeping with my recent m.o. in this space, methinks i'll just stick to pointing out when a horse is not really a horse, (of course...)

05-18-2010, 06:09 PM	#16
Ignorant Gnostic Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: East Coast Posts: 11	Fitter: Perhaps the St. Paul museum directors were unconvinced by Michael Hager's attempts to justify what happened in San Diego, where "religious scholars" (Hager's words) were allowed to set the agenda of a natural history museum exhibit. There is some commentary on this here. I have found another article on the St. Paul exhibit. It clarifies that the museum appointed two science advisers of radically opposing viewpoints, and had them develop the exhibit together. That sounds like an interesting way of resolving such disputes--it certainly avoids the pitfall of having one side control the content of an exhibit--and it encourages the curators to give meaningful treatment, rather than mere lip service to both of the two salient opposing perspectives. Sounds like the museum equivalent of the Cambridge History of Judaism, which also presents the two opposing theories side by side. I.e., the editors of the Cambridge History of Judaism decided to publish two accounts of scroll origins, one representing each of the two salient theories (some have sought to disseminate inaccurate information on this basic editorial choice). And now a major museum also juxtaposes the same two salient theories. Some have suggested that there are actually three theories, the third being that a sect lived at Qumran and brought in texts from "elsewhere." Others, however, hold that this is really nothing more than a variation of the sectarian theory, invented to preserve the theory in face of the evidence pointing, they claim, towards intense scribal activity in an urban center as the source for so many texts. Interesting debate.

05-19-2010, 02:15 PM	#19
fitter Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: West Coast Posts: 19	So now there's something wrong with "religious scholars"? Yes, these texts were written by one sect. And "science" is a strange pretext for confusing that reality.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.