shaerk

After the slog which is "James the brother of Jesus" I felt that I had found a sure thread in which to "disprove" Xtianity in my own mind.

Then I read reviews of the book and, logically, came to the dating of the scrolls dilemma both of which cast doubt on his theories.

As there is no lack of expertise one this board, given the discussions I have read, I would like to ask: How much credibility should be assigned to Eisenman's work? and further Are there any other theorys into the Qumran texts that are more likely candidates?

Hope I'm not flogging a dead horse.

shaerk

Hrrmm... Appear to be doing just that.

spin

Oh frabjous day. Slogged through "James the brother of Jesus"!? Brave soul. So many pages, so little coherence. White mice in skinner boxes usually get better pay-off, don't they?

About as much as should be assigned to Thiering... or von Daniken or Swifty's tip in the third race.

Eisenman choaks on carbon-dating. Pesher Habakkuk, a scroll which talks about the Teacher of Righteousness, is carbon-dated to the first century BCE. Goodbye Eisenman. This is why Eisenman disowns C14. Of course you can fabricate C14 results simply by adding modern carbon, but that would make make an item seem younger, not older as in the case of Pesher Habakkuk.

Incidentally, Eisenman seems incapable of proving anything. His approach is to pour so many vaguely related facts and opinions through his pages into the unsuspecting reader's brain, that the reader is confused into thinking that Eisenman must know what he's talking about and is therefore probably correct in whatever he was trying to say, which I lost somewhere along the way.

Scholars have numerous theories, some more grounded in reality than others, but there are still too many unknowns regarding the texts and their significance

With Eisenman you are.


spin

Rick Sumner

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

This is precisely the problem with Eisenman--he starts with such a shaky foundation, and then babbles for a few hundred pages, until you've forgotten how shaky his foundation is.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

shaerk

Thankyou for the reply.

Rather annoyed now.

offa

Do not fear these experts (Spin and Sumner). They gang up on you. Both Eisenman and Thiering give sources. They have the courage to write what they believe. Spin will pull up "spin" and dwell on it. His buddies will line up behind him. Read and make your own choices ... it is your own mind ... make it up.

offa

spin

To show that C14 doesn't falsify their positions? Ha-ha.

Eisenman simply doesn't accept the C14, so you can forget about him. Thiering claims that Pesher Habukkuk was written on an old skin. How does she know? Naturally, she ain't got a clue.


spin

Rick Sumner

Well, I'm rather flattered that you think to group me with spin, but I'm a far cry from an expert.

Nah, I'd have commented on it if spin hadn't--as I have many, many times. No lining up necessary.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

offa

Spin and Rick, you are o.k. I very much enjoy reading what you write. I am and have been reading Eisenman. I am having a problem with following him. But he gives references that I enjoy, as does Thiering. Yes, you have to wade through some stuff, but the references are interesting. They give the same references and draw different conclusions! My favorite, by far, is Josephus. Just enjoy. And, again, you are o.k.!

Chris Weimer

well, not all of Eisenman's works are false. If you read through "DEad Sea Scrolls Uncovered" as well as James the Bother of Jesus, it starts to form a coherent bond, albeit one that lacks a lot of additional needed resources. As with anyone's work, always keep in mind that they fill in a lot of gaps in order to make their theories smooth, and in order to correctly identify history from speculation you must always be eclectic.I'm still working on James, but almost done, and from my own work on it, it makes a lot of sense. But we'll see.