John Deere

Dear Steve:

I believe that the messianic movement of Palestine grew directly out of the Maccabee family, which would have been akin to what is a caliphate family in Islam today. Like you, I do not believe that the DSS were written by a minor sect but rather are simply various bits of literature that were important to the movement. For a discussion on this see the article Eisenman and I wrote that was published in Dead Sea Discoveries 11/2 (2004) 143-157. When the Romans decided to 'evaporate' the real messianic movement they destroyed all of its literature, which is why someone buried the Scrolls in caves. Someone was trying to preserve it from Roman destruction.

I have not received any criticism to date that has had any impact upon my thesis. I suspect the theory will - over time - become the dominant paradigm in Christian studies as it has the greatest explanatory power. In other words the thesis can explain virtually every concept in the NT, something others can not.

As you have read the book, what are your thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis?

Joe

spin

The thick plottens.


spin

John Deere

Spin:


Good to hear from you. When last we communicated I had asked you to respond to my following post. You declined at that time, but the above witticism suggests you have recovered some of your strength and perhaps you will be able to comment now. I wrote:


"Insteading of more child like insults, simply explain exactly what you feel is inaccurate within the following passage from the paper that relates to your claim that I "tarted up" the analysis. Let me help as you seem to have trouble articulating exactly where the errors you claim exist occur. Is the equation incorrect? Were multi-samples actually taken?


"Where 1QpHab and 4Q267 are concerned, the 1998 recalibration was particularly significant as it brought both of those Scrolls’ two-sigma time range well into the First

Century CE. There is, however, reason to believe that the reported standard deviations in the C14 measurements of the Scrolls do not represent the true variation within these
measurements. This is because for the most part only a single sample seems to have been utilized for dating purposes from each scroll. We are not speaking here about the number of “runs� that might have been done on any given sample. As argued by N. L. Caldararo, when using only a single sample any variation that would exist between different samples that came from the same host is lost and the imprecision of the measurement technique becomes the predominant contributor to the reported variance.

Though Jull, Donahue, Broshi, and Tov do refer to “several sub-samples� in some instances, they admit that “only a few independent measurements were made due to sample-size limitations.� Though the weights of their samples varied from a low of 4.9 mg ( 4Q521 ) to a high of 56.5 mg ( 1QIsa ), in turn seemingly dictated the number of “runs�, their only general remark is that “all samples were taken from ragged edges of top or bottom margins of the scrolls.� Still in both Tables 1 and 2, outlining their results including those for both 4QpPs37 and 1QpHab, only a single sample is referred to and the reference to “sub-samples� seems to refer for the most part to the material consumed in each of the several runs.

This might be wrong, but as demonstrated by R.E.M. Hedges on well-controlled samples, the sample-to-sample variation was found to be a substantial portion of the overall variance in multi-sample tests. . In the case he cites the best overall standard deviation achieved was +/- 45 years, although it can be significantly larger. This was for measurement precision originally established as +/- 20 years! In other words, there can be great differences between samples taken from different parts of the same host and variations such as these must be included when calculating the range of a given sigma.

In the reports as they were presented, as we just saw, no indication is given of how many samples were taken from a given scroll and from which parts. If only one sample were taken, which for the most part seems to have been true, this variance is not accounted for and the resulting sigma is less accurate than one obtained from multiple samples.

Though the tables Jull, Donahoe, Broshi, and Tov provide do suggest an average of four “runs� were done on documents across the board, nothing is stated in these tables about how many separate samples they used from different parts of the Scrolls or how many runs were taken on samples from different parts of the document or, if they did use more than one sample from different parts of a scroll, what the variance or disparities in the results might have been in these separate runs.

A series of runs, therefore, on the same sample area – say four --might help make a suggested sigma measurements more precise, but do not really have a determining bearing on the final range of such sigmas since it has been shown that repeated measurements from different samples from the same host are required in assessing the true sample variance. This very definitely presents a lacuna in the reports they provide to say nothing of the results they claim to have achieved.

This brings us back to our third overall point. The uncertainty surrounding C14 dating generally is comprised of several variance components. These include: the precision of the test on a single sample, variation from sample to sample from a given source, and a variety of other unknowns such as possible calibration error and the uncertainty remarked above, regarding the period of time between death of the animal whose skin was used for the parchment being tested and when that parchment was written upon.

In general, the different contributions to uncertainty add up according the equation:
S2 total = s2precision + s2reproducibility + s2other
Therefore, if sample-to-sample variations and other unknowns are left out of the analysis of C14 dates, as they were in both the write-ups and press reports of the 1991 and 1994-95 results, the conclusions are rendered inaccurate in proportion to the degree described by the above equation."

Well, Spin, let rme ask again, where is the 'tart'?

Joe

spin

It doesn't seem that you want a response.


spin

John Deere

Actually, based upon the communication, it seems that you do not feel able to give one.

Joe

spin

But you don't have any data for such seeming. Your post was long and unexpurgated, providing substance for seeming.


spin

John Deere

Spin:

Ok, how about an expurgated one. Have you read Caesar's Messiah? I'd like to know your opinion.

Joe

spin

No, Joe. The concept doesn't stimulate me. I would need to find a way of dating the nt sources, before contemplating their relationship within theoretical frameworks. At the moment I don't know how to get the gospel material earlier than the time of Marcion. The first direct evidence we have of the material can be seen in Justin Martyr's writings. He clearly knew of substantial gospel information. But before the middle of the 2nd c.?


spin

steven andresen

My degree is in philosophy, where most of my interest was in contemporary issues in epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of language. I became interested in the nature and origin of logic. In pursuing an argument about logic, I found myself looking more into Socratic philosophy and the history of intellectual debates contemporary to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. It has seemed to me that Christianity owes a debt to these Greek philosophical positions which has been debated, and strenuously denied.

So, I persist in thinking the business of the Jesus of Faith, a point I mentioned earlier, is a matter of Socratic philosphical commitments. There are Christian apologists, like Luke Timothy Johnson, who argue that the questions raised about the historical Jesus are irrelevant to a Christians relationship to the Jesus of faith. I guess he's suggesting that your thesis may well be true, but that wouldn't effect the truths of Christianity. People would still be justified in worshiping Jesus as a risen savior.

I suspect many Christians will refuse to consider your thesis, as so far presented, because of arguments like Johnson's. Will you talk about the implications your thesis has for argument's like Johnson's?

I was interested in your statement that the Flavians must have had some influence on the way Judaism developed after the jewish wars. Will you pursue this thought?

I thought a weakness of your book was the fact you did not discuss objections and alternative explanations. So, I had asked what you say to other similar efforts to explain the story of Jesus as fabrications on behalf of Julius Caesar, or others. The reason I asked about major objections that have come up, which you briefly replied to by saying there have been none, is the depth such considerations add to your analysis. I think it would be good to cite what the major objections might be. If others don't say anything, make them up yourself.

I thought I wanted to have you be clearer about the writings of Paul, as it seemed his stuff and the Gospels are the basic texts. I am not a scholar of biblical texts, and so a general discussion of the field would have been helpful background. I wasn't sure the point was made how crucial the Gospels were, or how the story of Jesus, as a historical claim, relies on the works of Josephus. Didn't you say Josephus was the only non-judaic text to mention Jesusor biblical events? But, you also said Josephus studiously avoids mentioning Jesus...

I am under the impression that the Greeks created religions as a method of cultural imperialism. I'm thinking of Gods that arose as combinations of Egyptian and Greek figures. Perhaps you could have included more background on this process. Then, it would not seem so strange a thesis when related to Christianity.

Thank you for your replies.

steve

John Deere

Steve:

The next book covers Rome's influence over Rabbinical Judaism. Caesar's Messiah would have bring stronger if it had gone into alternative explanations. This is a valid criticism and I will try and correct this in a subsequent edition of the work. I also agree that most Christians, and perhaps most readers, will not accept my analysis at first. However, in my opinion, my thesis has the most explanatory power and will be generally accepted over the years.

Joe