Ted Hoffman

Rick writes in Higher Criticism" and Selective Skepticism:
I haven't read Renan. I am just beginning to follow the Dead Sea Scrolls project that Kirby initiated. I haven't read Eisenmann either but I would like to say a few things here.

A scroll cannot rejuvenate a theory: it can offer it support. 'Rejuvenating' involves a theorist actively reviving and bringing to life a dead or dormant theory via exposing fresh perspectives and evaluating evidence in innovative or novel fashion.

I have picked the following from Price's review regarding Christianity being an Essenism that survived:

1. That James the Just was an Essene - based on his ascetic practices and wearing a linen dress.

2. James was regarded as the bulwark that held at bay God's raging wrath towards the Jews - this is supported by Origen's mention of the lost reference of Josephus - in which Josephus blamed the destruction of Jerusalem upon the death of James the Just.

3. James was killed for violating ritual by entering the Inner Sanctum on the day of atonement. For this infraction, as an Essene the mishnah required that he gets executed for this blasphemy.

4. James had very little to do with Jesus and was only later Christianized (coopted by later Christians). This is supported by the known passage where he was invited by the High Priest during passover to address and pacify the people whose growing faith and expectation in Jesus as a coming messiah was becoming a cause of concern.

Price writes: "Eisenman's James would pretty much make sense as a major religious figure in his own right, not standing in the shadow of Jesus. This is the impression we gain from Hegesippus and others anyway: how could the Temple authorities ever have asked James to quell the popular enthusiasm over Jesus if they knew he himself was a Christian leader? And if he was a prominent Christian leader how could they not have known it? They knew him as a pious Jew, as did Josephus. "

5. Eisennmann argues that James the Just was a Qumran teacher of righteousness and he alludes the Galatian reference "James the Brother of Jesus" to this co-optation.

Price indicates that even in Eisenmann's reading of the Dead Sea texts, there is very little about Jesus. He adds "His[Eisenmann's] reading of the sources on James makes sense of this. Jesus would not have occupied a Christological centrality in the original context of an "Essenism" which eventually fragmented along the lines of factional loyalties to Jesus (Ebionite Christianity), John the Baptist (the Mandaean sect), and James the Just (the Qumran sect). For a similar scenario on Gentile soil see 1 Cor 1:12. "

Now, Rick asks: "Where is the mention of Eisenman's arbitrary redating of the Dead Sea Scrolls?"

Lets first review how Eisenmann regards the dead sea scrolls.

The Dead sea scrolls indicate that "the Liar" was an adversary of James (we learn that this "liar" was Paul with his anti-halaka stances and "anti-Semitic outbursts, his Mystery Religion affinities, Gnosticizing exegesis, and his utterly non-Jewish view of the Torah as a burden was an adversary of James" [Price]) perhaps because James (identified in later documents as the leader of the Jerusalem church) was identified as the Teacher of Righteousness and was zealous for the law (unlike Paul - the "wicked priest").

I have read literature elsewhere that indicate that "Teacher of Righteousness" was actually an office, perhaps comparable to today's "professor of law".

Kerry A. Shirts in his Senior Thesis for his Bachelor's Degree in History, writes:

"In the Syriac Apocalypse of Paul, the apostle is introduced to Enoch, being told when he is asked, "Who is this weeping angel?" "It is Enoch, the teacher of righteousness." This seems to present the Teacher of Righteousness clearly with an office." This could explain Jame's influence and authority.

On dating and Eisenmann, he writes:

"A much more serious attempt at bringing light to the dating of the scrolls is brought by Robert Eisenmann who contends that James the Just, the brother of Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness. Herschel Shanks explained in the Biblical Archaeology Review, that the carbon-14 tests have validated and added extra support for the paleographical dating of the scrolls. Eisenmann contends he wasn’t allowed to participate in the testing procedures. He contends that the Testament of Kohath dates around mid-first century C.E. The paleographers date it to 100 B.C.E. while the carbon-14 tests on this document dated it to 300 B.C.E.! The testers admitted that chemical contamination fouled up the test on the Testament of Kohath, which Eisenmann wants retested, though it likely won’t happen, according to Shanks. Now, since new scroll fragments are being released, Benedict T. Viviano has noted they contain "Beatitudes" very similar to Jesus’ beatitudes, both sets being complementary which sharpens our focus on the New Testament context, never before available. Michael O. Wise and James D. Tabor have translated a fragment describing a messianic figure in the scrolls who will be resurrected and bring about the resurrection for all.

This description clearly fits the biblical Jesus. The debate over a "pierced Messiah" is growing as the argument is over the translation of one crucial line in a fragment, bringing the scrolls ever closer to the New Testament. And now the scrolls are bringing new meaning to Jesus’s baptism and the symbol of the dove at that event that can only be described as incredible. The scrolls are illuminating the New Testament Pharisees and Sadducees, as well as every one of the Gospels. The recent reprinting of James H. Charlesworth’s John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, an anthology of scholar’s views of the parallels between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, is testimony to the effect that the most interesting study of the scrolls is yet to come. With them we may yet have a chance to identify the Teacher of Righteousness. James H. Charlesworth’s study of parallels between the Gospel of John and Qumran is an interesting indication."

Dale C. Alisson, in The Baptism of Jesus and a New Dead Sea Scroll "notes several doctrines similar in both Qumran and the New Testament Christianity, the eschatalogical view of world time, ...and a doctrine of the resurrection"

Eisenmann, a historian and Professor of Middle East Religions (it seems he is a Mulsim), published in Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians & Qumran that "the scrolls were produced by a militant splinter group of Sadducees who who became the zealot movement out of which John the Baptizer & early Christianity arose."
The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Scrolls also contain the Beatitudes that are very similar to Jesus' beatitudes.

To Summarize,

• Eisenmann identifies characters like Paul and James the Just with some characters in the DSS this dates the DSS later than conventionally dated (though Carbon 14 dating placed them within third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E. http://www.crystalinks.com/dss.html).
  
• There are clear links between the DSS and New Testament Christology as identified by Dale Allison and others plus Eisenmanns many tomes. What scandalizes scholars is Eisenmann's idea that the scrolls, which were written by ascetic Jewish sect, the Essenes, is entirely isolated and independent from xstianity and that they later got 'Christianized'.
  
• Eisenmann's 'theory' theologically disconnects DSS from Christianity - Christians (Miller,Turkel) and Christian Scholars are jittery about this and feel he wants to rob them of their 'roots'.
  
• Eisenmann argues that Xstianity co-opted James into Xstianity (Josephus' 'lost reference' may not be happenstance after all )
  
• Xstian scholars assume that since there is no presence of Jesus in the scrolls, the DSS must pre-date Jesus. This is the working of HJ minds and Eisenmann unseats their working assumptions.

Could someone explain to me what, exactly is ARBITRARY about Eisenmann's dating? (especially given its within the Carbon 14 date range)

Rick also claims:
This is what Price writes:
Roman Mithraism had the taurobolium. There is no reason to assume that Price is not referring to it.

Rick Sumner

By your own admission, you aren't familiar with Eisenman, so there's not much point in elaborating on him here. Eisenman dates the Dead Sea Scrolls on internal "evidence" that works with his theory, not on evidence that is present. In other words, he decided he was right and then shaped the evidence to fit. That is arbitrary. You want to contest the dating, you can take it up with Jull et al It's a nutty fringe theory I will not indulge. Perhaps Spin will take the time to explain to you why it's an insane dating, as he's done with others in the past. I won't. The dating of the DSS is, for all intents and purposes, a *fact.* This is a rare event in this field where there is no wiggle room. Hard science doesn't lie. Eisenman lists a number of problems with the science behind the dating, he is able to cite a phycisist who agrees with him for precisely zero of them. There's a reason for this.

And I'm the last person who would ever contend that the Dead Sea Scrolls have no importance in the study of Christian origins. Citing scholars who agree with that is useless as a rebuttal to me.

Roman Mithraism did not have the Taurobolium. There is absolutely no evidence indicating that it was practiced by anyone other than the cult of Cybele and Attis. We have a great wealth of iconographic depictions of Mithraic initiation ceremonies. None of them depict the Taurobolium as an event. Mithraeums were caves. There is no grate for initiates to stand under. Nowhere for the bull to be slain, with the blood running down over the initiate. It simply isn't there.

There is absolutely no classical evidence of a Mithraic taurobolium. Cumont simply made it up based on what he thought a Mystery School should look like, rather than based on what it did look like.

If you wish to challenge that, you're going to need classical sources. Citing contemporary sources will do you no good, as they all rely on Cumont.

For those unfamiliar, the Taurobolium was something of a "baptism" carried out in bull's blood.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Lest someone attempt to apologize for Price by contending that the Taurobolium error is an understandable mistake, I'll draw an analogy with a field most here will be more familiar with.

It would be an understandable mistake if someone unfamiliar with Biblical archaeology cited Albright as a response to Finkelstein. It wouldn't be so understandable if it occurred in the JBL. We have a similar situation here. Cumont is outdated, his views almost entirely gone from the contemporary academic landscape of Mithraic scholarship. Responding to J Z Smith with allusion to Cumont is akin to responding to Finkelstein with allusion to Albright. It's a mistake made by people operating outside their field, and indicates pretty strongly that Price wasn't qualified to write the review in the first place.

Given the apparent lack of familiarity with the field, one must wonder how Price reached the conclusions he did, if not a priori.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Chris Weimer

Get "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise.

Actually, he refers to James as an Ebionite, and did believe in the Messiah, and probably Christ.

Fragment of 4Q434, 436 confirm this, and actually further propagate the argument, especially Fragment Three with Christianlike vocabulary such as "He will lift up his throne forever and ever." and "against the sons of Man you saved them for your own sake."

Well, the Ebiomites were eschatological/soteriological, as all Jews were. There are references to the Messiah among them, but it had little to do the Paul's Christianity, Mark's Christianity, or even Peter's Jewish Christianity, the closest towards James'.
Actually the Teacher of Righteousness was not an actual office, but an honorary title given to great Jewish philosophers, if we are thinking of the same thing here. What word are you using to translate it? I'm using MSKL.
Yes they were similar to Jesus', but not terribly so. The 4Q434 goes on and on about God saving the meek, poor, and pious, but the "beatitudes" he was referring to is foremost called the "Demons of Death", as it also curses those who are not in accordance with Ebiomite philosophy (poor in spirit etc...) and both seem to be borrowed from Ecclesiasticus. (DSSU, Wise & Eisenmann). But it's not brand new information. Ecclesiasticus has been available for some time now.

Toto

Eisenman was clearly wrong on the dating of the DSS. (I'm not sure if he even holds to his ideas any more.) But a lot of people have been wrong about the DSS, and probably continue to be wrong. This means that he was wrong to identify James and Paul with figures described in the DSS. He also relies on Hegesippus for the history of James.

There may still be some value in his work, but I will let Vork speak to that.

He is not a muslim. His training was in Islamic texts.

Robert Price does not describe himself as a Biblical skeptic. His approach is not generally "skeptical" and indeed he is not very skeptical about some issues - he accepts Secret Mark, for example. He is probably wrong about some things, but he is also extremely well read, thoughtful, and a charismatic speaker, and has many insights about Christian texts. I don't think that he claims any special expertise on Mithra, so a mistake there should not invalidate the rest of his work.

Vorkosigan

I think the real issue here is that word "arbitrary" that Rick used. It's a strange word to describe a process of deduction that is clearly scholarly and learned, even if wrong.

Eisenman does not do this. He has to choose between two sets of evidence, the C14 dates, and the internal evidence of the texts. He chose the textual evidence over the C14 dates for reasons that seemed compelling. That does not make him arbitrary, but instead speaks to the limitations of the C14 dates, and of scholarly work in general.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

We are concerned with definition #2

ar·bi·trar·y Audio pronunciation of "arbitrary" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärb-trr)
adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary

And that is precisely what Eisenman did. First he dated the texts on "internal evidence." Then he demanded c-14 tests. They said he was wrong. So he asked for more. They said he was wrong too.

Herein lay the problem: We can only presume that if the tests he asked for had said he was right, he would have accepted them. C-14 was quite acceptable until it said he was wrong.

And if Jacob Aliet's issue is with my assessment of Eisenman I can only suggest he re-read the post at Ebla he is responding to, because he has utterly missed the point.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Nobody said anything about invalidating the rest of his work. What was said, if anyone had bothered to read the post on Ebla that Aliet is responding to was that "bias occasionally raises its head across the board." Price's conclusions about Smith's work were reached a priori. They must have been, because, as you noted, he's clearly not a scholar of Mystery Schools.

And if he has no special expertise on Mystery Religions, why is he reviewing Smith's book in what is supposed to be a peer-reviewed journal? Smith *is* an expert.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Rick,

Evidently, Price was wrong about the Attis cult borrowing the taurobolium from the Attis cult.

The word 'arbitrary', however, is still a hyperbole. Even in this case where you do not accept Eisenmann's working hypothesis.

Amaleq13

He asked for them? Ouch.

Unless he offered a reason to reject the c-14 test results, I don't see how his rejection of them can be considered anything except "arbitrary".