Jayhawker Soule

I agree, although I consider the term 'mythical' to be somewhat too restrictive, since the texts conflate myth, folk history, politics and law.

I'm not sure what this means. I suspect that "most Jews" believe in the story of Exodus. And, as I've previously suggested, I suspect that the pecentage of religious Jews and religious Christians who accept the Flood story is roughly similar.

Tristan, I'm in my mid-50s. That's a lot of Seders. I'd really like to know where you get your information and, for that matter, your confidence.

According to whom? Shammai? Hillel? And where do find these "deeper layers" discussed?

You speak of the Pesharim. The only problem being that:

• they were not codes.
• they were not imbedded.
• they were not found "in deep levels."
• they were not intended as a means of hiding "the secrets of their people."

The Pesharim represented an immediate, messianic, and eschatological interpretation/application by a minority sect.

Again, according to whom?

Which one.

That much is certain.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Mageth

Ierrellus:

Apology accepted, and offered from my side as well.

Personally, I don't have any particular stake in the ME claim. It's an interesting theory and seems to have data to back it up. My purpose in posting the link was not necessarily to defend the theory but to point out that the proponents do not exactly make the claim that all current humans descended from ME (which might be better said as "ME is not claimed to be the common genetic ancestor of all humans alive today").

I would also disagree with the statement "DNA is DNA,", as mitochondrial DNA is not the same as nuclear DNA.

However, rather than further discussing ME and your (apparent) opposition to it and personal opinions on the matter in this thread, if you're so inclined you might want to start a thread in the Evolution/creation forum, where such a discussion would be more appropriate (if you haven't done so already).

And, please, don't offhandedly accuse me of preferring to be right rather than preferring the truth. That's not me at all.

Tristan Scott

ReasonableDoubt

I never been invited to a seder, but have had hundreds of conversations with Jews on the subject and that is the impression I get. Are there Jews who still take the Pentateuch (you didn't like me calling them mythical books) literally? No doubt.

I already stated that "codes" was an unfortunate choice of words. Did you miss that? There are, however unknown characters and terms in the pesher sections that need decyphering. For more on this I would suggest you read Vermes', The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. As far as the "deep levels" or the "imbedded" problems you have, it seems like we are playing word games to me. One up-upmanship instead of meaningful productive dialog. As for the secrets of the people, as well as your not believing that other Jewish scripture is written in this way or layered (not to be confused with pesher), I suggest you read Barbara Thiering's book, The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I know that much of her work has been discredited because of her trying to make the sensational assertion that pesher could have been used in the Christian Gospels, but she is just about the premier expert on pesher and decyphering it. Her book is actually very good as a source, it is just some of her conclusions that are weak. (Reminds me of Robert Eisenman!)

Oh, and it's been awhile but I believe the primer was the 5 Isaiah piece. It wasn't intended as a primer, obviously, but that was where the researchers (in this case Thiering) noticed the pesher and how it was being used.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]</p>

spin

Tristan Scott:
---------------
I already stated that "codes" was an unfortunate choice of words. Did you miss that? There are, however unknown characters and terms in the pesher sections that need decyphering. For more on this I would suggest you read Vermes', The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. As far as the "deep levels" or the "imbedded" problems you have, it seems like we are playing word games to me.
---------------

Vermes is just old hat and relatively staid. He doesn't try to go for deep analysis of the scrolls he's got old ideas tied around his neck, but his work is basically useful.

Tristan Scott:
---------------
One up-upmanship instead of meaningful productive dialog. As for the secrets of the people, as well as your not believing that other Jewish scripture is written in this way or layered (not to be confused with pesher), I suggest you read Barbara Thiering's book, The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
---------------

Barbara Thiering unfortunately conjured up her alternative approach to the scrolls back in the bad old days when the guys who had them didn't let anyone look at them, so with only the few scrolls available (Cave 1 and Allegro's Cave 4 texts) she whipped up her own brand of lunacy. She doesn't have much clue about what the scrolls actually say because she's too busy reading her own opinions into them. Avoid like the plague. This one can't say anything about the scrolls as she has formed her rock solid ideas before there were enough scrolls available to make a learned opinion.

Her pesher method is a farce which allows her to say whatever strikes her fancy.

There are pesher texts they say that they are pesher texts, ie they take a known text such as a prophet and go off on a tangent from the original text. This is what Thiering does: she goes off on a tangent which is as unrelated to the original scrolls as the peshers are unrelated to the original prophets.

Tristan Scott:
---------------
I know that much of her work has been discredited because of her trying to make the sensational assertion that pesher could have been used in the Christian Gospels, but she is just about the premier expert on pesher and decyphering it.
---------------

She knows f-all about what they say.

Tristan Scott:
---------------
Her book is actually very good as a source, it is just some of her conclusions that are weak. (Reminds me of Robert Eisenman!)
---------------

Another one. Eisenman also formed his opinion too early and has stuck with it ever since. Carbon dating killed him long ago. He hasn't realised it, although he has tried to repudiate the carbon dating. It is very hard to have your teacher of righteousness in the first century CE when your text talking about him was written a century earlier according to C14.

Tristan Scott:
---------------
Oh, and it's been awhile but I believe the primer was the 5 Isaiah piece. It wasn't intended as a primer, obviously, but that was where the researchers (in this case Thiering) noticed the pesher and how it was being used.
---------------

Gawd, there are six Isaiah peshers, five of which were published by Allegro in the sixties. Much of what could be said was said by Allegro. There aren't many fragments of use in these scrolls as the pieces are generally too small. The most interesting peshers are the Habakkuk Pesher from cave 1 and the Nahum Pesher from cave 4 (one could add the Psalms pesher also from cave 4): these are relatively long and containing material of great interest.

But again Thiering is in the wrong century because she wants pHab to deal with Paul as the wicked priest, but if pHab was written in the middle of the first century BCE she's out the wall, and I think she is.

spin

wendel1808:
------------
If one looks at the Bible as a whole (it's really just ONE book,
------------

This is christian hopefulness. Christianity has never got close to understanding the Tanakh, because it's too busy reading into it what it wants. The old testament is a collection of books that have come from diverse situations and preserved in a finally rabbinical mould. The NT just makes a mess when it deals with OT. I have already mentioned the errors related to Dan 7 and the son of man. One could add such wonderful messes as Matt putting Jesus on two animals because he misunderstands Hebrew poetic parallelism. Citations from the OT get hacked up, or sewn together, or mangled other ways. How did the treasury become the potter's field? NT is a very poor standard in comparison to OT in which you can see people trying to come to grips with the world and undertand it in some way when there were no tools to help in understanding it and the results are worth recogizing.

wendel1808:
------------
the only true book inspired by God's Holy Spirit) then it IS a GREAT guide book for running one's life. The Bible even says so! In 1 Timothy 3:16 it says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for good work."
------------

This is part of the christian sewing up the two collections as though it were one. It's balderdash, but christians have gotta believe it, otherwise their religion makes little sense.

The trouble with NT is that it's too busy being Greek. It's not dealing with the world anymore. It has turned its back on the world and offering pie in the sky. What a come-down.

Jayhawker Soule

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

A couple of points:

• I am a naturalist and in no way upset by your label. I simply find your adjective somewhat one-diminsional.
• I also find it curious that you seem to divide the Tanakh into "mythical" and, presumably, 'non-mythical' books.
• As for the dismissive "No doubt.", what then was the meaning behind your "That isn't the case at all." assertion?

No, I got it. But you were not simply refering to codes. You were referring to "sects [who] embedded codes ... in deep levels where they would hide the secrets of their people." Let me suggest again that this is not simply an unfortunate choice of words but, rather, a significant misunderstanding of the subject matter.

Actually, I believe I have. Be that as it may, what is the relevancy of "unknown characters and terms"?

Speaking of Geza Vermes, he wrote:
So when you said: "One of the more interesting discoveries among the Dead Sea Scrolls was a primer for composing this type of writing for the people of Qumran.", you actually meant that "It wasn't intended as a primer, obviously ...". I see. As for what "researchers (in this case Thiering) noticed", see Vermes above.

Finally, in my opinion, everyone should get to a seder at least once in their life.

spin

wendel1808:
-----------
I personally don't feel like I'm gullible or be "forced" to believe anything about the Bible.
-----------

No need for comment.

wendel1808:
-----------
Granted I am not Moses, I cannot give an explanation as to "why ________" (fill in the blank) about Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (which he is the author of).
-----------

Obviously Moses didn't write the books. Amongst other things his own death is in the last one. If you know anything about Wellhausen, you'll know that there were several sources for pentateuchal books. Wellhausen is now old hat but gave the impetus for source critical analysis of the pentateuch. I don't know any scholar who believes that Moses wrote any of them.

wendel1808:
-----------
How do I know He/God exists one may ask?
-----------

Obviously you don't know. You believe. You don't have the equipment to know because your god by definition is beyond your perception. Therefore you can't know he exists. You may claim special revelation, but I respond with the paranoid who talks to little green men.

wendel1808:
-----------
Proof through my own life.
-----------

There are two ways to become a christian one is born into it and has little chance of being able to think for oneself (a parentally administered lobotomy) or one replaces something silly (drugs, psychic crap, awful upbringing, trauma, boredom, etc.) Which is your category...? Replacement.

It's very hard not to have religion thrust down your throat. Even the president has to pretend to be religious -- what people do for politics! Swearing on the holy bible in a court of law! Resting on Sunday (so as not to use the Jewish rest day)!

Tristan Scott

Spin, Good post, but I do disagree about avoiding reading scholars like Thiering, Eisenman and Allegro. They can be excellent sources if you just avoid the conclusions they draw. Eisenman is always criticized for his theories even though he goes to great pains in his work to point out that they are just theories. It is one of the things that makes his work so difficult to read. I find that in biblical scholarship it is much better to make one's own evaluations and not let the critics do it for you. Many of the critics have their own agenda, other than scholarship.

spin

Tristan Scott:
--------------
I do disagree about avoiding reading scholars like Thiering, Eisenman and Allegro.
--------------

I don't say not to read Allegro. He was one of the best scholars working on the scrolls. It's just that he was ostracized and marginalized. With a career destroyed, he naturally became bitter and ironic, writing nasty works like his "Chosen People" or his mushroom book. Read his scrolls stuff by all means, especially his more scholarly works, though these are in journals.

Eisenman is logorrheic. He just can't say anything succinctly. I think his idea is that if he continues to spew out stuff people will get the idea that there is something behind it. But there isn't. Both he and Thiering are a century too late and simply wrong.

Tristan Scott:
--------------
They can be excellent sources if you just avoid the conclusions they draw.
--------------

Both are artists at making the irrelevant seem related. Neither of them show any sign of critical use of their sources, no analysis of why something is said, who to, where it was written, what basis in fact it stands on...

Tristan Scott:
--------------
Eisenman is always criticized for his theories even though he goes to great pains in his work to point out that they are just theories.
--------------

Rubbish. He works strongly on suggestion without using facts. It's a type of academic butterfly stroke, flitting from one thing to another weaving a nice carpet of irrelevance from word associations. No one listens to him in the scholarly world because he says nothing related to the scrolls. They are just a starting point for him to rant about some document written a few hundred years too late. Clementine Recognitions for example.

Tristan Scott:
--------------
It is one of the things that makes his work so difficult to read.
--------------

You can't appreciate the carpet weaving.

Tristan Scott:
--------------
I find that in biblical scholarship it is much better to make one's own evaluations and not let the critics do it for you. Many of the critics have their own agenda, other than scholarship.
--------------

One works on the arguments and the evidence to back them up. If a scholar hasn't got evidence to back up what s/he says, then the argument falls. Agendas are inconsequential to evidence. If a person has enough evidence they have a case, if they don't, they don't. everyone has some sort of agenda.

Jayhawker Soule

Remarkably, your flirtation with 'Pesher Technique' suggests a failure to demonstrate either.

Just theories? As opposed to what? And what special leeway do you propose to offer those addressing "just theories"?

Your comment only makes sense if 'theory' is divested of its formal meaning. Your's is the 'evolution is just a theory' usage of the term. By disowning 'theory' as scientific, testable explanation, you abandon science for speculation, ...

... and this is the result. "Just theories" lead to personal opinions unhampered by scientific discipline. None of this has much to do with biblical scholarship.