Ted Hoffman

I am not sure they arethe same thing. Did the Jews use midrash to write history and non-religious texts?
Are you saying that mimesis is the same as midrash?
Are you saying that paralleling is the same as expansion interpretation of scripture in reference to contemporary events(which are involved in misrash/pesher)?

Vorkosigan

No, I am saying that in principle midrash is essentially the same as what went on in Hellenistic fiction. It's all creation by paralleling, call it what you like -- mimesis, midrash, whatever. For example, Chariton in Chaereas and Callirhoe uses the myth of Ariadne, taken from Plutarch, to structure many of the events in the story. How is this different from midrash? My own feeling is that midrash is an artificial category created to separate what went on in early Christianity from text production elsewhere.

Vorkosigan

John Deere

Spin:

Please answer my questions.

Your statement was:
“Many scholars argue that he didn't know Hebrew himself�

Therefore your citation of Ulrich’s position that “Josephus did not use the Hebrew bible when he cited from the books of Samuel� is irrelevant. Please provide the citation where Ulrich states Josephus did not know Hebrew. Please provide citations of the “many scholars’ who argue that Josephus did not know Hebrew. (seventh request)

Your position on the relative status of 4Q147 has had the following evolution: “obvious outlier� to “fairly clear outlier� to “periphery of the data range� which, ignoring the mathematical definitions, is a completely new concept even from the semantical perspective and begs the question: Why would an element within a group – on its periphery – have no meaning relative to the group? Please explain.

You have not answered my two simple questions needed to clarify your claim that Josephus could not have engaged in typological linkage with the Gospels.

Let me repeat them.

Are you claiming that Josephus could not have been told about the technique from someone else?

Or,

Are you claiming he could not have engaged in the technique because he wrote in Greek – the language the Gospels were written in? (fifth request)

Joe

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Vork.

Atwill,
I think it is misguided for you to stalk or harass spin with the questions you have because spin has written no book and has nothing to prove and nothing to defend. It is spin's duty to throw banana peels at the path of your theory and your job to ensure it doesn't shatter its skull upon slipping. The day spin advances his theory, I will be the first one to try to hammer it to pieces .

You are the one who is advancing a theory: you have to do the job, not spin.
It is my view that you are squandering this opportunity and I happen to agree with spin that if you had an argument, you would use it instead of these incessant demands for answers.
This thread is about your book, not about your little transitory spat. So pull yourself together do the following:

1. Justify the connection of the Essenes with the DSS.
2. Show that outlier status of 4Q171 is NOT fairly clear as spin has stated.
3. Provide reasons why we should believe that Josephus in fact had access to Essene literature.

It is very simple and quite economical to respond directly to these issues (and consequently leave spin with the egg on his face) than maintain this utterly vacuous recitation. Telling us you have asked for an answer fifty times does not help clarify the questions spin asked, or help us understand why you hold the assumptions you do.

spin

It's still supposed to be 4Q171.

If getting the number of a text right can be this hard for John Deere, one wonders if he can say anything useful.

He has shown no knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls beside what can be gleaned from introductory works.

His use of Josephus's Autobiography shows little interest in a critical approach to the text.

As I am not able to access any libraries to supply him with references, I will withdraw the statement about many scholars arguing that he didn't know Hebrew in an effort to get John Deere over his coyness about responding to anything tangible.

Ted, the "outlier" story is one of pedantry. Despite the fact that 4Q171's C14 start date is 40 years after every other start date, John Deere is pushing the specifically statistical significance of the term "outlier", as against a normal understanding of the term. This is why he asks for the mathematics. He's not interested in whether the text appears anomalous, but whether he has to deal with it on mathematical grounds. His disregard for meaning is clear in his efforts to make a difference between my statements: “obvious outlier� and “fairly clear outlier�, as if "obvious" and "fairly clear" were particularly different in effect in the context. I was simply working with a definition of the term that is found in a reasonable dictionary, the Shorter Oxford, for "outlier": "An observation or result of a value well outside the set of values considered likely." When he pushed his mathematical requirement for the term, I changed the word in order to avoid such quibbling to the phrase “periphery of the data range�. It is clear that he knows what is being said and hides in this refuge of terminology.

He has made statements from which I asked him to justify:

1. that Josephus was actually involved with the Essenes and not just trying to impress his Roman audience with his wide knowledge (which is undercut by the dating problem I have already indicated);
2. that, if he was involved in the Essenes, he had access to any Essene literature, given that the Essenes had a system of initiation which excluded people from inner notions (which would be in any Essene texts); and
3. that the texts of the Essenes were reflective of the content of the DSS.

He has had numerous occasions in which to deal with the implications of his statements, but he seems intent on not dealing with them.


spin

John Deere

Ted:

Have you read the book? Spin has admitted that he has not, though this lacuna has, amazingly, not prevented him from being a critic. And if you say yes, rest assured I will question you on the thesis, as based upon your questions I is clear that you have not.

Let me know.

Spin:

One down, two to go.

Please explain why you feel that 4Q171 is " well outside the set of values considered likely".

Please answer my two simple questions clarifying your postion that Josephus could not have engaged in typological linkage with the Gospels.

Let me repeat them.

Are you claiming that Josephus could not have been told about the technique from someone else?

Or,

Are you claiming he could not have engaged in the technique because he wrote in Greek – the language the Gospels were written in? (fifth request)

Joe









Joe

Joe

spin

John Deere's pleading about his book is irrelevant. He makes claims in this thread and can't back them up.

At last he's got the number right. :rolling:

With an initial date 49 years later than the closest other text (which was itself contaminated with glue -- more modern contaminants), 4Q171 is the youngest of the texts and would be a bit over 100 years after a rough mean of initial dates.

(Of the date ranges, about three quarters of the total years are before the range of 4Q171 -- ignoring the other outlier TQah. Two other late dated texts were known to have been contaminated by glue, ie two of those whose initial dates are 50 years prior to 4Q171.)

We should expect with a normal distribution of scrolls copying that the bulk of the scrolls be bunched toward the end of the date ranges to reflect the more likely survival of the more recently copied texts within a library, we don't find any such bunching towards 4Q171, making 4Q171 outside what is considered likely.

The pesher format has a relatively small set of exemplars at Qumran, reflecting a genre which was relatively shortlived, as can be seen with the limited range of topics it deals with. 1QpHab is an exemplar which is dated well within the bulk of the texts. However, 4Q171 is totally after the range of 1QpHab, though the specific nature of the content of these texts precludes a long copying life, as they quickly lose their relevance because of their specific nature. Typologically we should expect 4Q171 to reflect the dating of 1QpHab, though it simply doesn't, being wholly after it, making it well outside what should be considered likely for it.

4Q171 was edited by John Allegro who states specifically that he used castor oil to clean his texts as it made the marl translucent for better reading. Castor oil was shown to skew the dates towards younger (bibliog. can be given). Such contamination explains 4Q171's wayward dating.

Please deal with the matters arising out of your comments in this thread, which you have been asked now six times to clarify:

1. that Josephus was actually involved with the Essenes and not just trying to impress his Roman audience with his wide knowledge (which is undercut by the dating problem I have already indicated);
2. that, if he was involved in the Essenes, he had access to any Essene literature, given that the Essenes had a system of initiation which excluded people from inner notions (which would be in any Essene texts); and
3. that the texts of the Essenes were reflective of the content of the DSS.

spin

Boro Nut

I must admit I don't recall seeing that one. Which part did Sid James play?

Boro Nut

GakuseiDon

:rolling: :notworthy That's funny! :rolling:

Ted Hoffman

Thanks spin, lets hope Deere has a sense of quid pro quo.