Rick Sumner

Regrettably, I'd forgotten that it's that time of year here in the Stampede City, so I doubt I'll have time to get to the breakdown of Eisenman I'd intended to, though I'll probably get a start on it, at any rate.

A point to ponder in the meantime:

How accurate is this depiction? Is Eisenman's view orthodox enough to be presented in such a fashion--as though it is commonly accepted?

What does Eisenman offer in support of this position?

And, the real clincher, how consistent is this with Eisenman's approach in general?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

I'm a couple of hundred klicks from Eisenman, so I'll get back to you on Monday.

Toto

I checked my copy of Eisenman, and he does not footnote that comment, but it seems to be an allusion to Steve Mason's Josephus and the New Testament

Rick Sumner

He not only did not footnote, he did not provide any supporting argument at all. Not only did he not provide any supporting argument at all, he presented it in such a fashion as to make it appear that a supporting argument wasn't necessary--he misleads the reader into thinking this is a common understanding. It is not.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

No, he doesn't. The first sentence is a widespread consensus on Josephus. The second sentence hinges on how you take the word "objective." It looks to me like Eisenman is making a little joke -- since there are so few objective observers of the NT writings. In that quote Eisenman does not say the understanding is "common;" that appears to be your own judgment. Still, I brought my copy of JtBoJ with me, so I'll be checking later today.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

This is a semantic ad hoc, though a valiant effort. Eisenman presents it as though there is no question of its veracity. He also builds on it without supporting it.

And I didn't say that he said it was common, I said he leads the reader to think it is. When you present something in a scholarly work, particularly prefaced with claims about what "objective" people are doing, and then do not support it, it leads to the impression that it's something of an axiom--generally accepted.

You would have it that he presented a premise for later discussion as a joke, but only a joke insofar as he doesn't support it, not so funny when he needs it.

I think not.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

I have to admit that I never actually got all the way through the book. In what way does Eisenman build on that statement? Does he actually make any use of it?

Rick Sumner

He suggests that the reason the NT authors did not copy Josephus' description of the Essenes is that they are the Essenes (p. 34). Except he hasn't established that they copied Josephus at all.

Incidentally, having just skimmed the first three chapters, I'd suggest I could count on my hands the number of pages that aren't dependent on the late dating of the DSS.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

I think you need to read the whole book. He reads them against Josephus rather closely.

In fact, I think you need to read the book two or three times. I have read it three times so far. It always teaches me something.

Yes, the first part of the book is where he does a lot of discussion of the DSS. It is not necessary to his ideas about James (except, of course, for his argument that James is the Teacher of Righteousness), nor for his thesis about Josephus and the NT.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Rick, the term Eisenman uses is "objective scholars." There's nothing about that phrase that would lead anyone to conclude anything about it being common. There's nothing ad hoc about it.

[quoteAnd I didn't say that he said it was common, I said he leads the reader to think it is. [/quote]

Again, that is your reading of the word "objective."

We'll have to differ there. Since you have only read 3 chapters, how do you know it is unsupported?

Vorkosigan