Invitation to the reader to compare Magness/Thiering dating of Qumran sectarian origin
crunch
no matter the distinction between Essenes
and proto-Essenes at Qumran.
Was Qumran an Essene monastery?
Answer - Yes.
I invite the reader to research the information
here or ask me politely for it.
Peace,
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
crunch
> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> 05/01/2010 15:23 wrote:
>
> > Hint - the discrepancy is about a century,
> > no matter the distinction between Essenes
> > and proto-Essenes at Qumran.
>
> > Was Qumran an Essene monastery?
> > Answer - Yes.
>
> > I invite the reader to research the information
> > here or ask me politely for it.
>
> Fuck off.
So, you disrespect Jodi Magness as an archaeologist.
Kindly leave sci.archaeology and don't hit the door on
your way out.
Grow up, junior, or else people will disrespect you
as a man.
Jack Linthicum
You are not in any position to give orders in this newsgroup. If
anything you are an intruder and a counter to intelligent discussion
in a group with no interest in your hobby-horses. May I ask why you
continue to include groups that have removed you from their membership
in your addresses. You would do best to stop this activity completely
and find someone who can minister to your obviously mental distress.
Sir David
> Hint - <FLUSH>
Now wipe your arse, Crunchy.
crunch
> On Jan 5, 9:38 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 9:27 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> 05/01/2010 15:23 wrote:
>
> > > > Hint - the discrepancy is about a century,
> > > > no matter the distinction between Essenes
> > > > and proto-Essenes at Qumran.
>
> > > > Was Qumran an Essene monastery?
> > > > Answer - Yes.
>
> > > > I invite the reader to research the information
> > > > here or ask me politely for it.
>
> > > Bwahahahaha!
> > > Fuck off.
>
> > So, you disrespect Jodi Magness as an archaeologist.
>
> > Kindly leave sci.archaeology and don't hit the door on
> > your way out.
>
> > Grow up, junior, or else people will disrespect you
> > as a man.
>
> > David Christainsen
> > Newton, Mass. USA
>
> You are not in any position to give orders in this newsgroup.
My behaviour was nothing that Tom McDonald of sci.arch
has not already done in exactly the same fashion
as mine; kindly tell your story to the chaplain <irony>.
> If
> anything you are an intruder and a counter to intelligent discussion
> in a group with no interest in your hobby-horses.
I don't have any hobbyhorses; further, I have been on
sci.archaeology since 2002; further, you talk complete bunk.
> May I ask why you
> continue to include groups that have removed you from their membership
> in your addresses. You would do best to stop this activity completely
> and find someone who can minister to your obviously mental distress
More cheap libel from Jack Linthicum; go fly a kite.
Sir David
> I don't have any hobbyhorses
Carl is such a lying sack of hobbyhorsemanure.
Jack Linthicum
BTW libel is a false and malicious printing against a living person.
You are incorrect on at least two parts of that and I am not certain
if you don't fail the third.
Peter Alaca
Another post full of lies.
Christopher Ingham
One is forced to wonder by your, <<Kelly's>>, and Peter Alaca's very
numerous responses to the outpourings of unmitigated crap by the
uncontestably disturbed David/Carl whether you too have compulsive and
other psychological disorders.
Christopher Ingham
crunch
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 9:57 am, Sir David <sirda...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 9:23 am, Carl <pchristain...@yahoo.com> crapped:
>
> > > Hint - <FLUSH>
>
> > Now wipe your arse, Crunchy.
>
> One is forced to wonder by your, <<Kelly's>>, and Peter Alaca's very
> numerous responses to the outpourings of unmitigated crap by the
> uncontestably disturbed David/Carl whether you too have compulsive and
> other psychological disorders.
>
> Christopher Ingham
This is yet more bunk from Christopher Ingham.
If Christopher Ingham would study the relevant historical
sources as the historican he purports to be, he
would show some integrity.
So, the key issue here is whether the New Testament can
legitimately be treated as a historical source.
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass USA
George
> So, the key issue here is whether the New Testament can
> legitimately be treated as a historical source.
You spelt 'hysterical' wrongly.
Is there no beginning to your talents?
Tom McDonald
Aside from that for irritation obsession, no.
Eric Stevens
Surely it is not possible for a 'news group' to remove anyone from its
membership? - more's the pity.
>in your addresses. You would do best to stop this activity completely
>and find someone who can minister to your obviously mental distress.
Eric Stevens
Seebs
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 06:51:47 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
><jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>You are not in any position to give orders in this newsgroup. If
>>anything you are an intruder and a counter to intelligent discussion
>>in a group with no interest in your hobby-horses. May I ask why you
>>continue to include groups that have removed you from their membership
> Surely it is not possible for a 'news group' to remove anyone from its
> membership? - more's the pity.
No, but crunch actually managed to get booted out of a Quaker meeting
for similar obsessiveness in the past.
(Note that this is *hard* to do. I haven't heard of another case of anyone
getting kicked out of a Quaker group in the past century or so, although I'm
sure there must have been a few.)
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
ADR
> If Christopher Ingham would study the relevant historical
> sources as the historican he purports to be, he
> would show some integrity.
>
> So, the key issue here is whether the New Testament can
> legitimately be treated as a historical source.
I do not understand the whole issue here. Of course the New Testament
in a historical source. To what extent one would rely on it depends
on one's own assumptions, cultural and intellectual biases. Beyond
the gospels, there a lot of documents there that provide substantial
information regarding the development of Christianity in the first
century CE.
crunch
> On Jan 5, 10:45 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If Christopher Ingham would study the relevant historical
> > sources as the historican he purports to be, he
> > would show some integrity.
>
> > So, the key issue here is whether the New Testament can
> > legitimately be treated as a historical source.
>
> I do not understand the whole issue here. Of course the New Testament
> in a historical source. To what extent one would rely on it depends
> on one's own assumptions, cultural and intellectual biases.
So, the NT can be interpreted differently. My point
is that Dr. Thiering uses her pesher methodology to
do this but has never been satisfactorily reviewed by
other scholars the past quarter century on her methodology.
> Beyond
> the gospels, there a lot of documents there that provide substantial
> information regarding the development of Christianity in the first
> century CE.
Ok, but the Thiering methodology uses the Dead Sea
Scrolls to do this. Only Robert Eisenman among Qumran Studies
scholars also uses the DSS to do this but Dr. Thiering
calls him an unsound scholar. She once met with
Eisenman for lunch in California when they had something
in common.
----- Magness
Fitzmyer reviews Magness
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LDhTphnvhTlssFPhnzJTzgTQsVJTq4lyrvQp2GLHLNnfGlLhqv1M!-997264469!1888687908?docId=5005930388
"Now, however, M.'s study of the archeological evidence reveals that
the site was not occupied in the second century B.C. but became a
sectarian settlement sometime between 100 and 50 B.C."
----- Thiering
Christianity began in 101 BC
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1856
"144 – 140 BC. Once the Maccabees were established, the Hasidim were
not only defeated but expelled from Jerusalem. It was about this time,
in 140 BC, that they ‘returned to their desolate country’, and
‘restored anew the house of the Lord’, according to Test Levi 17:10 .
They moved to Qumran, which had been first inhabited in the 8th
century BC, and more recently used by the Enoch school for
astronomical observations. An occupation of Qumran at about this time
is confirmed by coin evidence. After an early settlement around the
Iron Age well, fed by an aqueduct from the nearby wady, they expanded
the buildings, adding a square building on the eastern side with a
scriptorium used by the Scribes. On the west of the well they built a
long courtyard with side chambers that I believe was their substitute
sanctuary, with an attached vestry."
Sir David
> My point is that Dr. Thiering uses
Carl rides his hobbyhorse
ADR
> On Jan 5, 5:51 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 10:45 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If Christopher Ingham would study the relevant historical
> > > sources as the historican he purports to be, he
> > > would show some integrity.
>
> > > So, the key issue here is whether the New Testament can
> > > legitimately be treated as a historical source.
>
> > I do not understand the whole issue here. Of course the New Testament
> > in a historical source. To what extent one would rely on it depends
> > on one's own assumptions, cultural and intellectual biases.
>
> So, the NT can be interpreted differently. My point
> is that Dr. Thiering uses her pesher methodology to
> do this but has never been satisfactorily reviewed by
> other scholars the past quarter century on her methodology.
I do not think that a single scholar has ever agreed either with her
method of analysis or her conclusions. In fact, I find them
indefensible. However, Thiering is quite clever. In academia, if you
built an outrageous theory, you can guarantee that virtually all your
peers will attack it and you can amass a huge citation score that
would make you a shoe-in for a high departmental position, book deals
and invitations in various meetings. For Thiering, it does not matter
if her methodology is correct. She is deriving huge benefits from it,
irrespective of its validity.
> > Beyond
> > the gospels, there a lot of documents there that provide substantial
> > information regarding the development of Christianity in the first
> > century CE.
>
> Ok, but the Thiering methodology uses the Dead Sea
> Scrolls to do this. Only Robert Eisenman among Qumran Studies
> scholars also uses the DSS to do this but Dr. Thiering
> calls him an unsound scholar. She once met with
> Eisenman for lunch in California when they had something
> in common.
The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Christianity and Christianity does
not even mention the Essenes who were a fringe group among many in 1st
century CE Palestine. So, how would one draw any conclusions from a
document that does not even mention the subject of research is beyond
me. Of course, Thiering's "method" depends on reading the "hidden
message" behind the scrolls and the New Testament, although nobody has
ever found out that "hidden message". I am bemused that we are
spending so much time on this. Velikofsky probably deserves more
discussion than this fully unsupported theory.
crunch
> On Jan 5, 4:40 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 5:51 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 10:45 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If Christopher Ingham would study the relevant historical
> > > > sources as the historican he purports to be, he
> > > > would show some integrity.
>
> > > > So, the key issue here is whether the New Testament can
> > > > legitimately be treated as a historical source.
>
> > > I do not understand the whole issue here. Of course the New Testament
> > > in a historical source. To what extent one would rely on it depends
> > > on one's own assumptions, cultural and intellectual biases.
>
> > So, the NT can be interpreted differently. My point
> > is that Dr. Thiering uses her pesher methodology to
> > do this but has never been satisfactorily reviewed by
> > other scholars the past quarter century on her methodology.
>
> I do not think that a single scholar has ever agreed either with her
> method of analysis or her conclusions. In fact, I find them
> indefensible.
You are ignorant of the agreement between Drs. Eisenman
and Thiering re: James, brother of Jesus.
Replies to two new members
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2016
"In a number of posts between April 15 and June 20, 2002, we had a
closely argued series about the work of Robert Eisenman. It is
particularly important to take his research into account. For a long
time, he and I were the only ones to argue that the sectarian scrolls,
those dealing with the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest,
came from the Christian period and referred to figures in the
Christian history. For Eisenman, James the brother of Jesus was the
Teacher, and Ananus the Younger (Hanan in Hebrew) was the Wicked
Priest, who caused James to be stoned to death in AD 62 (I prefer AD
to CE, as the similarity of CE and BCE causes errors).
In my case, continuously published since 1979, the Teacher was John
the Baptist and the Wicked Priest/Man of a Lie was Jesus. I bring in a
new source of evidence, the pesher technique, learned from the DSS,
but used objectively when applied to the gospels, Acts, and
Revelation. I believe it is demonstrated that these books contain the
full history of the real Jesus, set out with rigorous consistency
through the special meanings of terms. The other major source is
Josephus, who is giving the public version of the same events.
You and Eisenman are quite right that the Annas brothers, five of
them, were central to the history. They were all Sadducees, as is
specifically stated for Ananus the Younger ( Ant. 20, 199). The Qumran
community contained Essenes as a nucleus, and in the 1st century BC
they had been joined by Pharisees and Sadducees who wished to follow
an ascetic mode of life.
But the conclusion that all Annas priests were in a blood feud with
the family of Jesus does not take a great deal into account. Yes,
Brother James was killed by one of them. But no, Brother James was not
on the same side as Jesus. He and Jesus were at enmity with one
another, because there was a question about the legitimacy of Jesus
the elder brother (the facts given in the pesher of the virgin birth
story). James remained on the side of John the Baptist, holding Essene-
Pharisee views. Eisenman is quite right that James belongs with the
Qumran community, in its 1st cent AD militaristic phase. But Jesus,
siding with Sadducees because their liberalism accepted his
legitimacy, was on the same side as Ananus the Younger and the
previous Annas priests (being in tension, however, with Jonathan Annas
on the question of priesthood)."
"In a recent Time magazine article (August 12 2002, referred to in #
1597) it was stated that ‘many scholars believe that the Teacher of
Righteousness was John the Baptist’. I was actually the only one to
say so. The article deals with some investigations that included
Eisenman, and I am wondering if he has changed his mind about the
identification with James. As Time magazine would not have realised,
the identification with John the Baptist implies also the question of
whether the rival teacher was Jesus.
I had lunch with Eisenman in Long Beach California in 1992. I found it
best to emphasise the points we agreed about, while not mentioning the
many examples of his arguments that I believe to be misleading."
> However, Thiering is quite clever. In academia, if you
> built an outrageous theory, you can guarantee that virtually all your
> peers will attack it and you can amass a huge citation score that
> would make you a shoe-in for a high departmental position, book deals
> and invitations in various meetings. For Thiering, it does not matter
> if her methodology is correct. She is deriving huge benefits from it,
> irrespective of its validity.
Outrageous libel of Dr. Thiering by ADR.
> > > Beyond
> > > the gospels, there a lot of documents there that provide substantial
> > > information regarding the development of Christianity in the first
> > > century CE.
>
> > Ok, but the Thiering methodology uses the Dead Sea
> > Scrolls to do this. Only Robert Eisenman among Qumran Studies
> > scholars also uses the DSS to do this but Dr. Thiering
> > calls him an unsound scholar. She once met with
> > Eisenman for lunch in California when they had something
> > in common.
>
> The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Christianity and Christianity does
> not even mention the Essenes who were a fringe group among many in 1st
> century CE Palestine.
"Use of Radiocarbon Dating in Assessing Christian Connections to the
Dead Sea Scrolls"
by Dr. Barbara Thiering
Extracts from the professional journal, Radiocarbon, vol 41, no 2,
1999, pp.169-182
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2674
> So, how would one draw any conclusions from a
> document that does not even mention the subject of research is beyond
> me.
Your deep prejudice is showing here.
> Of course, Thiering's "method" depends on reading the "hidden
> message" behind the scrolls and the New Testament, although nobody has
> ever found out that "hidden message". I am bemused that we are
> spending so much time on this. Velikofsky probably deserves more
> discussion than this fully unsupported theory.
Pure bunk out of ADR here; I invite the serious reader
to study in close detail the following and comment -
Finding the pesher - Introduction
Official Thiering website
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index3.html
"In this section, we will explain the procedures that must be followed
in order the discover the pesher of the four gospels, Acts and
Revelation. It is concentrated work, but immensely rewarding, yielding
a full history of Jesus and earliest Christianity.
The full pesher can only be found from the Greek text, in the best
manuscripts. But basic facts can be understood from translations. For
English, RSV (Revised Standard Version) is the most reliable
The essential methodological point is the rule of consistency. Every
special meaning, every particular procedure, is applied in all
occurrences throughout the six books. When it is found that there is
perfect consistency, it becomes certain that the pesher is objectively
there and has been placed there. No arbitrary interpretations will
work, no guesses. There are tests of consistency from many different
directions, as will be shown."
Peter Alaca
Sci.Archaeology, established in May 1991, is an
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup dedicated to the
discussion of archaeology in its many aspects.
=====================================================
*Charter Sci.Archaeology*
=====================================================
1. To exchange information on various concerns
in archaeology, including method and theory, pot
hunting, egyptology, typology, dating, and other
related topics.
2. To facilitate ongoing debates and comments on
ideas or research that may not necessarily be in
a publishable form.
3. To query other interested archaeologists about
resources which could be made generally available.
(e.g. programs, images, data, references, but not
exact site locations).
4. To keep each other informed on upcoming events
of interest to social science researchers and
computing in the field of archaeology.
=====================================================
*End of charter*
=====================================================
=====================================================
*What is Archaeology*?
=====================================================
"*{Archaeology is] a subdiscipline of anthropology.
Anthropology is the study of humankind.
* Archaeology is the study of the human past
through material remains.
- Material remains are collectively referred to
as the archaeological record. This includes
artifacts (e.g., stone tools, ceramic vessels);
features(e.g., housepits, hearths); and ecofacts
(e.g., animal bones, plant remains).
* Archaeologists have three main goals:
1. Reconstruct Culture History: understand the
distribution of archaeological remains through
time and space.
2. Reconstruct Past Lifeways: determine past behavior
through material remains.
3. Explain the Process of Culture Change: understand
how and why cultures change through time.
*Forms of Archaeological Data*
* Artifacts: portable objects whose form has been
created or modified by human activity (e.g.,
projectile points, pottery vessels). Artifacts
retain their appearance after the archaeologist
takes them from the ground.
* Features: non-portable artifacts that cannot be
removed from the ground without altering or
destroying their original form (e.g., housepits,
burials, hearths).
* Ecofacts: non-artifactual material remains that are
not directly created or modified by human activity
but have cultural relevance and provide information
about past human behavior (e.g., animal bones,
sediment, pollen).
* Sites: spatial clusters of artifacts, features, and
ecofacts. Sites identify where humans have occupied
the landscape
(e.g., Birch Creek, Stonehenge).
* Regions: the largest definable spatial clusters of
archaeological data. Regions can be a geographical,
ecological, or cultural concept. Definition of a
region allows the archaeologist to investigate a
wider range of past activities that extend beyond
a single site (e.g., Great Basin, Columbia Plateau,
Southwest)."
Archaeological Field Methods: Principles of Excavation
http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/afm/afm_princexc.htm
=====================================================
"Archaeology is usually defined as the study of the
human past through material culture, although
archaeologists are increasingly arguing that a better
definition would be the study of human behaviour
through material culture, making it a much broader
discipline and one of relevance to the contemporary
world. The most important aspect of the discipline is
that archaeologists study the physical changes human
beings have made to their world. Archaeology looks at
the artefacts (the tools, ornaments and other
objects), the structures (buildings, tombs and other
enclosed spaces) and landscapes (field systems,
settlements, communication routes and so on) that
people have been creating for the seven million or so
years we have been creatures distinct from the other
great apes."
http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/cult_archaeology/index.html
=====================================================
"Archaeology is concerned with cultural development
and variation through time. It involves the
reconstruction of past human behaviour through the
study of material remains recovered by field survey
and excavation. Archaeology encompasses a wide variety
of analytical and experimental methods and techniques
which draw on both the natural and social sciences."
http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/departments/index.cfm?P=9142
=====================================================
"Archaeology is the study of past cultural behaviour,
from the beginnings of the human species to events
that happened yesterday, through the material remains,
or artefacts, that people leave behind. By carefully
applying scientific techniques in excavation and
analysis of their findings, archaeologists attempt to
reconstruct past lifeways and understand why different
customs developed and evolved.
Archaeology is a part of anthropology, because it
studies individuals and their different cultures, even
if limited to the past. This is the most interesting
aspect of archaeology: it is a way to understand
humanity and ourselves. Archaeology is also a part of
history, but it is more reliable sometimes because
while history uses essentially written documents,
archaeology uses material evidence. A description of
facts can be very precious, but if we have only one
description, or descriptions from only one point of
view, we can not be sure to know a true part of the
past. Individuals in fact can lie or simply see things
in a convenient way."
"History is an interpretation of the past based on
ancient/old writings. Archaeology is different from
history especially for the methods used. It can help
and complement history by offering studies on
materials to be compared with documents to have a
clearer idea of how the interpretation was done. But
also archaeology, when beginning from an evidence
arrives to an inference, interprets data; for this
reason archaeologists must be careful trying to
explain the background culture in the present they
have and which part of the evidence they focused: an
objective interpretation is impossible. History uses
archaeology also for the periods when written
documents were not available, particularly prehistory,
but more extensively for any period for which there
are no documents available."
Andrea Vianello
http://www.geocities.com/andreavi/1.htm
Università Ca' Foscari ,Venezia. Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia
<http://lettere.unive.it/materiale_didattico/archeologia_egea/1.htm>
=====================================================
*Three Basic Principles of Archaeological Research*
by Garrett Fagan
<http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=5>
=====================================================
ADR
> "In this section, we will explain the procedures that must be followed
> in order the discover the pesher of the four gospels, Acts and
> Revelation. It is concentrated work, but immensely rewarding, yielding
> a full history of Jesus and earliest Christianity.
>
> The full pesher can only be found from the Greek text, in the best
> manuscripts. But basic facts can be understood from translations. For
> English, RSV (Revised Standard Version) is the most reliable
>
> The essential methodological point is the rule of consistency. Every
> special meaning, every particular procedure, is applied in all
> occurrences throughout the six books. When it is found that there is
> perfect consistency, it becomes certain that the pesher is objectively
> there and has been placed there. No arbitrary interpretations will
> work, no guesses. There are tests of consistency from many different
> directions, as will be shown."
David,
Finding a hidden message in the text of the gospels is a silly
pursuit. Really, these documents (especially the Greek texts) have
been read extensively by the fathers of the Church for centuries and
nobody has ever written anything about any hidden message. The
Thierring propositions are somewhere between nice fairy tales and the
reading of the Nostradamus prophesies. Let's get over it. They are
what they are. What's even the use of a secret meaning? This all
assumes that there was always a cabal of insiders that the gospel
writers were addressing although some of these gospel writers did not
even know each other, never mind anybody in that "cabal". This ranks
up there with aliens building the pyramids and landings in remote
valleys in the Andes. There is no scientific basis for it and the
field is unanimous at that. If and when there is an inkling of
substance, we can discuss it again.
crunch
> =====================================================
> Sci.Archaeology, established in May 1991, is an
> unmoderated Usenet newsgroup dedicated to the
> discussion of archaeology in its many aspects.
> =====================================================
> *Charter Sci.Archaeology*
> =====================================================
> 1. To exchange information on various concerns
> in archaeology, including method and theory, pot
> hunting, egyptology, typology, dating, and other
> related topics.
>
> 2. To facilitate ongoing debates and comments on
> ideas or research that may not necessarily be in
> a publishable form.
>
> 3. To query other interested archaeologists about
> resources which could be made generally available.
> (e.g. programs, images, data, references, but not
> exact site locations).
>
> 4. To keep each other informed on upcoming events
> of interest to social science researchers and
> computing in the field of archaeology.
I am well within the Sci.Archaeology charter.
crunch
ADR,
Your deep prejudice is showing again concerning my
professional concern, which here is Thiering pesher/methodology.
So, here is a primer -
Pesher of NT books theory
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/193
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/195
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/322
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/354
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/358
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/483
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1057
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1373
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1501
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1773
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1777
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1853
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2694
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3057
word, pronunciation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3030
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3042
continuing knowledge of
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1273
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1303
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3000
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3072
Sir David
> Your deep prejudice is showing again concerning my
Carl rides his hobbyhorse
Sir David
changed the subject line to a transparent lie, i.e. a denial that
he rides any hobbyhorse.
Then he proved that he does in fact ride his hobbyhorse, by posting:
> ... study the relevant historical
> sources as the historican he purports to be, he
> would show some integrity.
> So, the key issue here is whether the New Testament can
> legitimately be treated as a historical source.
He was so eager to mount his hobbyhorse that he couldn't even wait to
post his denial before he hopped on the nag and set the spurs to 'er.
So he rides that tired old dead wreck of a hobbyhorse, while at the
same time he's denying that he's riding 'er.
And within a few hours, he has spammed a half-dozen or more cross-
posted newsgroups with hundreds of cut-n-paste paragraphs in dozens of
posts, all on the subject of Carl's hobbyhorse and his pathetic
incompetence as a rider. This is the paradox that is Carl the Crunchy
thing; that he can go to such great lengths to prove that he's a
pathetic liar and an obsessive kook.
Don't try so hard, Carl! You don't have to convince anyone that you're
a liar and a kook. Everyone already knows; your reputation is solid.
As a lying kook. Sucks to be you.
ADR
>
> continuing knowledge of
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1273http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1303http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3000http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3072
>
> David Christainsen
> Newton, Mass. USA
Thank you for posting these. I am not sure why you did this, I
understand the issue quite well. I simply do not believe in all that
any more than I believe in Nostradamus predictions. My guess is that
you will find it too difficult to gain any adherents to this theory
because it is unsupported speculation that cannot be proven one way or
the other. Had we have some revelations from "insiders" that Bible
texts contained a secret message and that message was acted upon, then
and only then any informed discussion can ensue.
crunch
>
> > word, pronunciation
>
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3030http://groups...
>
> > continuing knowledge of
>
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1273http://groups...
>
> > David Christainsen
> > Newton, Mass. USA
>
> Thank you for posting these. I am not sure why you did this, I
> understand the issue quite well.
No, you do not understand the issue - scholars
must review the Thiering methodology (pesher)
with competence. After a complete review of the
literature, going back 30 years, I conclude that
no scholar in the world has done it.
Further, recently, I used Advanced Google Scholar
Search on keywords "Thiering review pesher" to
produce 68 hits. In my judgment only 3 matches
are worthwhile -
Qumranica Minora: Qumran origins and apocalypticism
By Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar
Page 4 shows that Martínez/Tigchelaar are way out-of-date.
BTW the hypothesis of Norman Golb is refuted.
Page 68 against Dr. Thiering is completely in error.
-----
The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls
By Joseph A. Fitzmyer
Page 142 is even more out-of-date.
-----
The Dead Sea scrolls and the New Testament
By George J. Brooke
Brooke calls the Thiering arguments bizarre and
partially arbitrary. Yet -
DSS politics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3782
"I'd like to underline some positives already mentioned. The top
professional
journal, Dead Sea Discoveries, which will be publishing an important
technical
article of mine early next year, has had a change of editorial
direction under
John J. Collins. It is more in favour of the late dating, and Collins
has
contributed to pointing out the Christian connections. It is a help
that one
editor has retired, as he has not understood the Christian side. I was
sorry
that Professor George Brooke of Manchester has retired as an editor.
With his
usual courtesy, he covers the change by saying that the previous team
have
simply run their course, but he has been the one who has given me most
help, by
inviting me to conferences etc."
> I simply do not believe in all that
> any more than I believe in Nostradamus predictions. My guess is that
> you will find it too difficult to gain any adherents to this theory
> because it is unsupported speculation that cannot be proven one way or
> the other. Had we have some revelations from "insiders" that Bible
> texts contained a secret message and that message was acted upon, then
> and only then any informed discussion can ensue.
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
ADR
> No, you do not understand the issue - scholars
> must review the Thiering methodology (pesher)
> with competence. After a complete review of the
> literature, going back 30 years, I conclude that
> no scholar in the world has done it.
I think you have difficulty understanding that nobody "must review"
the Theiring methodology. It would be the equivalent of trying to re-
interpret the Nostradamus prophesies. Why? Do we have any indication
of a hidden message that some people have acted on? Absolutely not.
If the NT contained all these secret underlying messages, then they
were missed because nobody has acted in a manner that would have
presupposed the existence of these messages. The same applies for the
Dead Sea Scrolls. You do not seem to understand this very clear
point. For example, if there were some elements of pyramid
construction that required advanced engineering or advanced materials,
it would have been OK to have been looking for aliens. If there were
members of the Christian hierarchy that acted in a manner consistent
with a secret message in the gospels, then, OK, let's look for it. In
the absence of this, why should we do this? After thousands of years
and gazillions of people reading the NT, how come all missed what
Thiering can see? There are many other things we can do that make
sense. This does not. I know that this subject is dear to your heart
but I find it highly redundant and intellectually suspect.
crunch
> On Jan 7, 11:46 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, you do not understand the issue - scholars
> > must review the Thiering methodology (pesher)
> > with competence. After a complete review of the
> > literature, going back 30 years, I conclude that
> > no scholar in the world has done it.
>
> I think you have difficulty understanding that nobody "must review"
> the Theiring methodology.
Except for the honor of scholarship. So, morally
speaking, a gross amount of abuse has been
heaped onto Dr. Thiering for 30 years, including
marked scholarly abuse. Please note that I charge
such scholars with passing judgment without examination
of the evidence or else passing judgment without
adherence to sufficient scholarly standard. In my purview
are the leading establishment scholars; I examined them
all under a microscope and found them wanting.
Yet, my real point is not to offer up destructive criticism
of deficient scholars.
Bottom line - my point is that Thiering methodology (pesher)
should be reviewed with competence for the honor of scholarship.
Now do you understand?
> It would be the equivalent of trying to re-
> interpret the Nostradamus prophesies. Why? Do we have any indication
> of a hidden message that some people have acted on? Absolutely not.
Wrong; please follow this argument closely -
Judas the Galilean and the Wrath
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/533
"Judas the Galilean, the founder of the 'fourth philosophy' of anti-
Roman militants, was 'a sophist who founded a sect of his own' (J.W.
2, 118). That he was a powerful figure, whose tradition and lineage
inspired the guerilla movement up to the fall of Jerusalem and of
Masada, is undoubted. If he was called a sophist, he must also have
had access to learning. A sophisticated plan for war, as set out in
the War Scroll, could well be a product of his knowledge of Roman
methods of warfare. While he himself had limited equipment and armies,
he could have spent the years before the uprising in dreaming and
planning his attack. There is both military detail and fantasy in the
War Scroll. Much space is spent in describing the religious slogans to
be written on the trumpets and standards. These would ensure the
intervention of God in the tidy fashion set out in col 1. There would
be six campaigns, three of them won by the Sons of Light , three by
the Sons of Darkness (deuce!). Then for the seventh, the number
favoured by heaven, 'the mighty hand of God shall defeat [ the army of
Belial and all ] the angels of his kingdom.....'. Religio-military
fantasy sounds rather familiar now.
I would suggest that the consensus school of Qumran scholarship, that
wants to take it all back to before the Christian period, has not
given sufficient attention to the use of the word Wrath (charon). It
is used in a way that gives it a specific meaning, not simply a state
of anger. In CD 1:5 the 'Period of Wrath' is a dating point, a date
that is given in figures. In 4QpNah 1:5 it is part of the name of a
particular figure, the Young Lion of Wrath, who crucified Seekers-
after-Smooth Things. In the translation of both passages, the word is
rightly written in upper case. The term Young Lion of Wrath appears
also in the fragmentary 4QpHos (b) (4Q167); and 'Periods of Wrath' in
4QpHos (a) 166 .
The expression 'Period of Wrath to all Belial' appears in 1QH 11: 28
(= 3: 28). In 1QpHab 3:12 the word is used, with other words for
anger, to describe the Kittim, at their most ferocious, 'trampling the
earth with their horses and beasts'. I have argued that this refers to
the Romans of the occupation after AD 6. There is every evidence of
intense hatred for them in this period, none for the period when
Pompey took them over as part of the Roman appropriation of Seleucid
territory.
In view of the specificity with which the term 'Wrath' is used, I
suggest that it had become a name, equivalent to 'the Occupation'. AD
6 was the 'Period of Wrath' because it was the date when the
Occupation began, when the native rulers were abolished and the
country was brought under the direct rule of Roman governors. This,
according to Josephus, was the immediate cause of the uprising of
Judas the Galilean.
As CD 1: 5-10 would show, nationalists with Judas had persuaded
themselves that this date was the Wrath because it was the beginning
of 390 years of Roman occupation, sent by God as a punishment for the
sins of Israel. They 'knew' this figure because they read Ezek 4:5 as
a prophecy referring to their time, consistently with their treatment
of the OT prophets in the pesharim. For the same reason, they referred
in code to the Romans as 'Babylon', because they believed that the OT
Babylonians were equivalent to the Romans. They needed to use codes
because of their underground activities. The same device is used in
the NT, in 1 Peter 5:13 and Rev 18."
> If the NT contained all these secret underlying messages, then they
> were missed because nobody has acted in a manner that would have
> presupposed the existence of these messages. The same applies for the
> Dead Sea Scrolls. You do not seem to understand this very clear
> point. For example, if there were some elements of pyramid
> construction that required advanced engineering or advanced materials,
> it would have been OK to have been looking for aliens. If there were
> members of the Christian hierarchy that acted in a manner consistent
> with a secret message in the gospels, then, OK, let's look for it. In
> the absence of this, why should we do this? After thousands of years
> and gazillions of people reading the NT, how come all missed what
> Thiering can see? There are many other things we can do that make
> sense. This does not. I know that this subject is dear to your heart
> but I find it highly redundant and intellectually suspect.
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
ADR
I have read it and it is nothing, really. Look at how much ink has
been spent on "interpreting" the Apocalypse. It is the same thing.
There is little that needs "interpretation" or "discovery of any
secret message". In the apocalypse, there is really no doubt that the
vile establishment that John describes is that of the Roman Empire.
One does not need a Ph.D. in pesherology to figure this one out (the
rest, of course, are wild imaginings). Despite your heavy
intellectual and emotional investment on this, I think it is time for
you to move on. Christianity really does not need, nor does it care,
about secret messages or wild imaginings (such as in the "da Vinci
Code"). It is just a religion with a Judaic foundation and some
neoplatonist patina and all it asks is for you to believe in its
tenets. If there was a secret message, it would have been found out
some time ago. If you want to spend a lot of time on this and start
as many threads as possible, this is your prerogative, but there are
no data on which to base anything than wild speculation. It is fun
for a while, but it runs out of steam soon enough.
crunch
You completely overlooked -
"For the same reason, they referred in code to the Romans
as 'Babylon', because they believed that the OT Babylonians
were equivalent to the Romans. They needed to use codes
because of their underground activities. The same device
is used in the NT, in 1 Peter 5:13 and Rev 18." Quote from
Thiering article.
So, would you please amplify on the SUBSTANCE of this
specific quote, going forward?
ADR
Nobody needing a degree in pesherology to figure out that the "whore
of Babylon" in the Apocalypse was the Roman Empire in its non-
Christian period. This much was clear to contemporaries. John did
not think it at all possible that the "Whore of Babylon" may embrace
Christianity. Oooops!! It provided the writer with certain
"deniability" in a hostile environment. He certainly hoped that the
Roman Empire of his day would be destroyed and Jesus would emerge
triumphant. This is about the whole theme. But I fail to understand
what this has to do with why one would need to use code words for John
the Baptist and Jesus writing obscure texts in a retreat (with
frequent baths) in the desert. It makes no sense. Or it makes as
much sense as many other nonsensical documents written in a period of
intense "spiritual" search. Look at all the silliness of the Gnostic
novels (and we have many of them): a good God (that Jesus
represented), a bad God (Yahweh) that Jesus came to overturn and many
other silly texts. Do you have time for all this silliness?
crunch
> On Jan 7, 5:43 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You completely overlooked -
>
> > "For the same reason, they referred in code to the Romans
> > as 'Babylon', because they believed that the OT Babylonians
> > were equivalent to the Romans. They needed to use codes
> > because of their underground activities. The same device
> > is used in the NT, in 1 Peter 5:13 and Rev 18." Quote from
> > Thiering article.
>
> > So, would you please amplify on the SUBSTANCE of this
> > specific quote, going forward?
>
> Nobody needing a degree in pesherology to figure out that the "whore
> of Babylon" in the Apocalypse was the Roman Empire in its non-
> Christian period. This much was clear to contemporaries. John did
> not think it at all possible that the "Whore of Babylon" may embrace
> Christianity. Oooops!! It provided the writer with certain
> "deniability" in a hostile environment. He certainly hoped that the
> Roman Empire of his day would be destroyed and Jesus would emerge
> triumphant. This is about the whole theme.
Please follow the arguments I give very closely -
1 Peter 5:13
------------------
Papias
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1919
"Eusebius approves of Papias when he confirms that ‘the great and
mighty Peter’ was in Rome in the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54), and
that Peter’s teaching lay behind the gospel of Mark. Papias 'says that
Peter mentions Mark in his first Epistle (1 Pet 5:13), and that he
composed this in Rome itself, which they say that he himself
indicates, referring to the city metaphorically as Babylon, in the
words "the elect one in Babylon greets you, and Marcus my son".'"
So, please note Papias' use of "metaphorically as Babylon".
Yet, why does the writer of 1 Pet 5:13 use code? Does
the writer of 1 Pet 5:13 use the secret language of Zealots,
who wanted to use military means against Rome?
Rev 17,18
--------------
Symbolism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon#Symbolism
"The 'great whore', of the biblical book of Revelation is featured in
chapters 17 and 18. Many passages define symbolic meanings inherent in
the text."
Identity
Rome and the Roman Empire -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon#Rome_and_the_Roman_Empire
"Elsewhere in the New Testament, in 1 Peter 5:13; some speculate that
'Babylon' is used to refer to Rome. This is bolstered by the remark in
Rev. 17:9 that she sits on 'seven mountains' (the King James Version
Bible-the New International Version Bible uses the words 'seven
hills'), which could be the seven hills of Rome. 'Rome' would
therefore be the 'new Babylon' and all of the symbolism characterizing
Babylon as a wanton 'whore,' would be transferable to Rome, according
to this view."
Yet, Dr. Thiering extends the argument formidably -
Cardinals and the Scarlet Beast
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2707
"In the pesher of the gospels, Acts and Revelation we meet Simon
Magus, who may be shown to be Simon the Zealot of the list of
apostles. As may be seen from the numerical values of the letters for
grades, he was Beast 666 (Rev 13:18). In Rev 17:3 a woman sits on a
Scarlet Beast. The Beast was Simon, who as a graduate followed the
definition of the Sabbath Sacrifice document, acting as a priest, a
son of Levi, a ‘hinge’, a cardinal.
The woman of Rev 17:3 was herself was arrayed in purple and scarlet. A
woman likened to Jezebel, a prophetess, who is immoral, is condemned
in the letter to Thyatira in Rev 2:20-23.
According to the Clementina, the mistress of Simon Magus was Helena,
also called the Moon."
"Helena set the pattern for the ‘woman clothed in scarlet and purple’,
claiming to belong to the highest ranks of ministry, a prophetess. The
same claim was subsequently made by her successor in the office of
head of the order of Asher, whose centre was in Tyre and Sidon,
Syrophoenicia. This was Bernice, the twin sister of the timid
unmarried Agrippa II. She was a forceful character who claimed that
she was queen consort and should be able to act like a queen regnant.
At the schism she joined the party of Simon Magus, so in Rev 17:3 'sat
on the Scarlet Beast.'"
> But I fail to understand
> what this has to do with why one would need to use code words for John
> the Baptist and Jesus writing obscure texts in a retreat (with
> frequent baths) in the desert. It makes no sense. Or it makes as
> much sense as many other nonsensical documents written in a period of
> intense "spiritual" search. Look at all the silliness of the Gnostic
> novels (and we have many of them): a good God (that Jesus
> represented), a bad God (Yahweh) that Jesus came to overturn and many
> other silly texts. Do you have time for all this silliness?
Wrong - Dr. Thiering does not say that DSS writers
used "code words for John the Baptist and Jesus".
I say that DSS writers referred to Teacher of Righteousness
and Wicked Priest, independently. It is Dr. Thiering who
makes the identification of these 2 figures with John the Baptist
and Jesus Christ. I have already given on usenet her
scholarly reasons for making the identifications.
Any questions?
ADR
> > Nobody needing a degree in pesherology to figure out that the "whore
> > of Babylon" in the Apocalypse was the Roman Empire in its non-
> > Christian period. This much was clear to contemporaries. John did
> > not think it at all possible that the "Whore of Babylon" may embrace
> > Christianity. Oooops!! It provided the writer with certain
> > "deniability" in a hostile environment. He certainly hoped that the
> > Roman Empire of his day would be destroyed and Jesus would emerge
> > triumphant. This is about the whole theme.
> >...
>
> Please follow the arguments I give very closely -
>
> 1 Peter 5:13
> ------------------
>
> Papiashttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1919
>
> "Eusebius approves of Papias when he confirms that ‘the great and
> mighty Peter’ was in Rome in the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54), and
> that Peter’s teaching lay behind the gospel of Mark. Papias 'says that
> Peter mentions Mark in his first Epistle (1 Pet 5:13), and that he
> composed this in Rome itself, which they say that he himself
> indicates, referring to the city metaphorically as Babylon, in the
> words "the elect one in Babylon greets you, and Marcus my son".'"
>
> So, please note Papias' use of "metaphorically as Babylon".
> Yet, why does the writer of 1 Pet 5:13 use code? Does
> the writer of 1 Pet 5:13 use the secret language of Zealots,
> who wanted to use military means against Rome?
Who cares? Why is this at all important? Even in the unlikely case
that certain zealot terms were used, why is this particularly
important? One would have expected that people of the 1st century CE
from Palestine would use expressions typical of their area and their
period.
> Symbolismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon#Symbolism
>
> "The 'great whore', of the biblical book of Revelation is featured in
> chapters 17 and 18. Many passages define symbolic meanings inherent in
> the text."
>
> Identity
> Rome and the Roman Empire -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon#Rome_and_the_Roman_Empire
>
> "Elsewhere in the New Testament, in 1 Peter 5:13; some speculate that
> 'Babylon' is used to refer to Rome. This is bolstered by the remark in
> Rev. 17:9 that she sits on 'seven mountains' (the King James Version
> Bible-the New International Version Bible uses the words 'seven
> hills'), which could be the seven hills of Rome. 'Rome' would
> therefore be the 'new Babylon' and all of the symbolism characterizing
> Babylon as a wanton 'whore,' would be transferable to Rome, according
> to this view."
>
> Yet, Dr. Thiering extends the argument formidably -
>
> Cardinals and the Scarlet Beasthttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2707
>
> "In the pesher of the gospels, Acts and Revelation we meet Simon
> Magus, who may be shown to be Simon the Zealot of the list of
> apostles. As may be seen from the numerical values of the letters for
> grades, he was Beast 666 (Rev 13:18). In Rev 17:3 a woman sits on a
> Scarlet Beast. The Beast was Simon, who as a graduate followed the
> definition of the Sabbath Sacrifice document, acting as a priest, a
> son of Levi, a ‘hinge’, a cardinal.
>
> The woman of Rev 17:3 was herself was arrayed in purple and scarlet. A
> woman likened to Jezebel, a prophetess, who is immoral, is condemned
> in the letter to Thyatira in Rev 2:20-23.
>
> According to the Clementina, the mistress of Simon Magus was Helena,
> also called the Moon."
>
> "Helena set the pattern for the ‘woman clothed in scarlet and purple’,
> claiming to belong to the highest ranks of ministry, a prophetess. The
> same claim was subsequently made by her successor in the office of
> head of the order of Asher, whose centre was in Tyre and Sidon,
> Syrophoenicia. This was Bernice, the twin sister of the timid
> unmarried Agrippa II. She was a forceful character who claimed that
> she was queen consort and should be able to act like a queen regnant.
> At the schism she joined the party of Simon Magus, so in Rev 17:3 'sat
> on the Scarlet Beast.'"
I am snoozing already. Do you really care if a woman mentioned in
Revelations is an actual person or not? I really do not care about
(and most share this opinion) what was in the heated imagination of
John the Theologian when he wrote this weird text. Is this important
in anything significant? I would say no. For all I know (and of all
you know), it may have been the girl next door who did not even looked
at him while carousing with other men!!! Most of these guys were
frustrated men!! We will ever know for sure? No!! So, Dr. Thiering
may want to spin out a hundred other theories and they would be all as
valid as the one above. It as all totally irrelevant.
> > But I fail to understand
> > what this has to do with why one would need to use code words for John
> > the Baptist and Jesus writing obscure texts in a retreat (with
> > frequent baths) in the desert. It makes no sense. Or it makes as
> > much sense as many other nonsensical documents written in a period of
> > intense "spiritual" search. Look at all the silliness of the Gnostic
> > novels (and we have many of them): a good God (that Jesus
> > represented), a bad God (Yahweh) that Jesus came to overturn and many
> > other silly texts. Do you have time for all this silliness?
>
> Wrong - Dr. Thiering does not say that DSS writers
> used "code words for John the Baptist and Jesus".
>
> I say that DSS writers referred to Teacher of Righteousness
> and Wicked Priest, independently. It is Dr. Thiering who
> makes the identification of these 2 figures with John the Baptist
> and Jesus Christ. I have already given on usenet her
> scholarly reasons for making the identifications.
>
> Any questions?
No questions really. It is weird that you are refuting me and then
saying exactly what I was saying. I know Thiering's arguments
although I do not believe that they are logical. They are also
irrelevant. Even if one accepts that the Essenes identified John and
Jesus with these titles, what does it matter?? In any case, it seems
weird to me that they would have even spent any time on either of
these, as they were not Essenes and, in fact, subverted Essene dogma
(John believed in a single baptism for example and Jesus in none).
But in any case, 1st century CE Palestine was awash with prophets and
miracle workers, sects and zealots of one kind or the other. I am
sure it was also awash with incomprehensible and bizarre texts as well
and we found some of those. Let's not spent too much on that.
(<<Kelly>>)
<snipped Soggy's drool>
> Any questions?
No, because no one cares.
crunch
> On Jan 8, 8:03 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...
> > Please follow the arguments I give very closely -
>
> > 1 Peter 5:13
> > ------------------
>
> > Papiashttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1919
>
> > "Eusebius approves of Papias when he confirms that ‘the great and
> > mighty Peter’ was in Rome in the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54), and
> > that Peter’s teaching lay behind the gospel of Mark. Papias 'says that
> > Peter mentions Mark in his first Epistle (1 Pet 5:13), and that he
> > composed this in Rome itself, which they say that he himself
> > indicates, referring to the city metaphorically as Babylon, in the
> > words "the elect one in Babylon greets you, and Marcus my son".'"
>
> > So, please note Papias' use of "metaphorically as Babylon".
> > Yet, why does the writer of 1 Pet 5:13 use code? Does
> > the writer of 1 Pet 5:13 use the secret language of Zealots,
> > who wanted to use military means against Rome?
>
> Who cares? Why is this at all important? Even in the unlikely case
> that certain zealot terms were used, why is this particularly
> important? One would have expected that people of the 1st century CE
> from Palestine would use expressions typical of their area and their
> period.
Direct answer to your question - I am giving
an argument that shows that the writers of 1 Peter 5:13
and Rev 17,18 used the same device as the writer of
CD 1: 5-10 as far as the use of codes by zealot nationalists
because of their underground activities.
-----
Agrippa and Peter
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3498
"At a certain time Peter was in Rome, which he called by the pseudonym
"Babylon".
He had with him Silvanus (Silas) and "my son Mark", a symbolic son,
similarly to
"she who is at Babylon", a woman who sends greetings (1 Pet 5:12-13).
He wrote
the first epistle of Peter to Christians in the five Roman provinces
into which
Asia Minor (modern Turkey) was divided: Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia and
Bithynia. (1 Peter 1:1)."
-----
Judas the Galilean and the Wrath
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/533
"In view of the specificity with which the term 'Wrath' is used, I
suggest that it had become a name, equivalent to 'the Occupation'. AD
6 was the 'Period of Wrath' because it was the date when the
Occupation began, when the native rulers were abolished and the
country was brought under the direct rule of Roman governors. This,
according to Josephus, was the immediate cause of the uprising of
Judas the Galilean.
As CD 1: 5-10 would show, nationalists with Judas had persuaded
themselves that this date was the Wrath because it was the beginning
of 390 years of Roman occupation, sent by God as a punishment for the
sins of Israel. They 'knew' this figure because they read Ezek 4:5 as
a prophecy referring to their time, consistently with their treatment
of the OT prophets in the pesharim. For the same reason, they
referred
in code to the Romans as 'Babylon', because they believed that the OT
Babylonians were equivalent to the Romans. They needed to use codes
because of their underground activities. The same device is used in
the NT, in 1 Peter 5:13 and Rev 18."
-----
The Slavonic Josephus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3269
"In the passage on the wonder-worker, the Slavonic version as now
known reads: "And there assembled unto him of ministers one hundred
and fifty, and a multitude of the people. Now when they saw his power,
that he accomplished whatsoever he would by a word, and when they had
made known to him their will, that he should enter into the city and
cut down the Roman troops and Pilate and rule over us, he disdained us
not (or, he heeded not)". Whichever version of the final phrase is
correct, it is a newly known fact that the Qumran community had given
themselves up to warfare against the Kittim, the Romans. The War
Scroll and the pesher on Habakkuk give full illustrations of their
terror of the Romans, a terror that was felt only after AD 6, with the
Occupation. (Attempts to date the militant phase earlier have been
dealt with in entries to our group.) At the same time, the DSS,
including those from the militant phase, show such close parallels
with Christian organisation and imagery that an objective scholar
cannot deny a connection. It has not been believed that Jesus would
have any dealings with militancy; but that fact must now be accepted.
The words quoted above are likely to be reliable.
In the same passage he is said to have had 150 ministers. The Qumran
community were organised in 1000’s, 100’s, 50’s and 10’s. ( 11QT
57:1-5)."
So, Jesus Christ had dealings with militancy and
with zealots.
>...
> I am snoozing already. Do you really care if a woman mentioned in
> Revelations is an actual person or not? I really do not care about
> (and most share this opinion) what was in the heated imagination of
> John the Theologian when he wrote this weird text. Is this important
> in anything significant? I would say no. For all I know (and of all
> you know), it may have been the girl next door who did not even looked
> at him while carousing with other men!!! Most of these guys were
> frustrated men!! We will ever know for sure? No!! So, Dr. Thiering
> may want to spin out a hundred other theories and they would be all as
> valid as the one above. It as all totally irrelevant.
>...
Yet, Dr. Thiering says "John the Theologian" did NOT
write Rev 17,18. Please see -
"Jesus of the Apocalypse" 1995, Transworld- Doubleday
by Dr. Barbara Thiering.
crunch
Kelly loves to snipe but cannot take a punch.
Tom McDonald
> On Jan 8, 12:58 pm, "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 8:03 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snipped Soggy's drool>
>
> > > Any questions?
>
> > No, because no one cares.
>
> Kelly loves to snipe but cannot take a punch.
Do you punch women a lot, David?
crunch
Mr. Polemicist,
In this context punch means "verbal" punch.
ADR
> > I am snoozing already. Do you really care if a woman mentioned in
> > Revelations is an actual person or not? I really do not care about
> > (and most share this opinion) what was in the heated imagination of
> > John the Theologian when he wrote this weird text. Is this important
> > in anything significant? I would say no. For all I know (and of all
> > you know), it may have been the girl next door who did not even looked
> > at him while carousing with other men!!! Most of these guys were
> > frustrated men!! We will ever know for sure? No!! So, Dr. Thiering
> > may want to spin out a hundred other theories and they would be all as
> > valid as the one above. It as all totally irrelevant.
> >...
>
> Yet, Dr. Thiering says "John the Theologian" did NOT
> write Rev 17,18. Please see -
>
> "Jesus of the Apocalypse" 1995, Transworld- Doubleday
> by Dr. Barbara Thiering.
Not really that interested. These books were written by frustrated
men in caves. If people want to spend time on these wild imaginings,
my hat off to them. There are far more important historical issues to
be discussed that secret messages in DSS or NT. As you can see from
this board, the interest on these is really minimal. Is there
anything else that you really want to discuss? What is the relevance
of all this?
(<<Kelly>>)
He might. Could be why his wife had a restraining order taken out
against him... <shrug>
crunch
> On Jan 8, 10:49 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You have already been told that Dr. Thiering
identifies DSS ToR as John the Baptist and
DSS WP as Jesus Christ.
What I want on usenet is full discussion of the
Thiering argument pro and con.
ADR
Listen, there is no reason to have such a discussion. To have a
discussion, one would need to have a common reference. There is
absolutely no such reference. Thiering can say all she wants that the
"wicked priest" is Jesus but there is nothing out there that can prove
it or disprove it. So, what's the point of a discussion? If you
choose to believe this, it is OK with me.
Then, what is the utility of this discussion? Do we really care if
Jesus was called the "wicked priest" by a particular sect of jews? I
think not. I am sure that Jesus was called all kinds of names during
his lifetime and that his sect was attacked in all manner of ways
after his death. So, what does this really matter, especially if we
cannot establish the veracity of it?
You keep on not answering my question. I know that you want a
discussion on this but what is the point of this discussion? Let me
give you a hypothetical. Let's say that we agree that the "wicked
priest" is really Jesus. So what? What does it matter to us on how
the Essenes viewed Jesus? We know for example that the Pharisees were
hostile towards him. Let's add the Essenes to the list as well. So
what?
My conclusion: a discussion is pointless because nothing can be proven
and because if it can be proven, it is totally devoid of any
significance. Is this clear?
Sir David
> You keep on not answering my question.
That's what Crunchy does. He's a world class not-answerer. He doesn't
have any answers. In most cases, he doesn't even understand the
questions. All he can do is copy and paste pages and pages and pages
of the same old crap, over and over and over and over and over again,
starting dozens of threads a day, off-topic crossposted to
alt.hell.and.back and a dozen other newsgroups. But he never presents
any answers, and he never participates in any discussion
> I know that you want a
> discussion on this but what is the point of this discussion?
To be clear: Crunchie Carl wants OTHERS to engage in a discussion.
Crunchy has no intention of actually participating in a discussion
himself, but he does imagine that he can control what everyone else
discusses. He posts reams of steaming manure, and then demands that
everyone else study the manure in detail and explain it to him ... he
certainly doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to read and
understand it himself, that's for sure. If he had any reading
comprehension or notion of the context, he'd recognize Thiering's
speculative fiction for what it is.
Carl thinks he has a new religion which will replace Christianity.
It's not about science, archaeology, history, ancient vocabulary, or
some combination dinner plate, frisbee, sundial, odometer, floor
buffer and ouija board. It's Carl's beliefs, and truth and fact cannot
sway his belief. Even if his tiny little hazelnut of a brain could
understand the truth and fact (which it can't), his belief would still
not be swayed. That's a hallmark of religion. A bigger problem for
Crunchie Carl is that he has an uncontrollable compulsion to
proseltyze, but like most everything he sets his mind to, he's just no
good at it.
The First Crunchytarian Church of Saint Babs has it's first pope, Pope
Crunchy the First. But no flock. No congregation. No meeting. Just one
lone kook trolling in the wilderness. If any passers-by happen to
notice him, the Pope eagerly shows them a wheelbarrow full of horse
manure and orders them to examine it closely and explain it to him. So
they walk away, usually laughing, while Pope Crunchy "prays for them"
by hurling cryptic Crunchitarian scripture at the backs of their
heads: "Bogus get lost! On the contrary! BTW, I look forward to having
a girlfriend some day! Please study in close detail and discuss fully!
Grow up, kid! Further, Cheap Bigot!"
Sucks to be you, Carl!
ADR
> > I know that you want a
> > discussion on this but what is the point of this discussion?
>
> To be clear: Crunchie Carl wants OTHERS to engage in a discussion.
> Crunchy has no intention of actually participating in a discussion
> himself, but he does imagine that he can control what everyone else
> discusses. He posts reams of steaming manure, and then demands that
> everyone else study the manure in detail and explain it to him ... he
> certainly doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to read and
> understand it himself, that's for sure.
I do not want to be as dismissive, but you are correct. If one wants
a discussion on Thiering's positions, one should post a support of
these positions in this forum and why they matter and this would open
a discussion. To be honest, I cannot see the point of a discussion in
which nothing can be proven. And beyond this: what is the importance
of it all? If a sect called Jesus the "wicked priest" is that at all
important? I am sure that many Pharisees and the temple priests
called him worse names. So what? It seem all so irrelevant to me.
Actually, what is important is "crunch" himself. Why would a person
be so heavily immersed in something so nefarious as this? what
propels true believers?
crunch
The harsh truth is that the divinity of Jesus Christ
is under attack like it never was before...
Why? The answer lies in the relation between
DSS & NT.
ADR
If you believe that the divinity of Jesus is somewhat supported by a
connection between the DSS and the NT, please let us know what this
is. It would be at least a point that may merit discussion. As to
the divinity of Christ coming under attack today, let me tell you that
it was much more under attack in the 3rd to 4th century CE than it is
now!! Anyway, let us know how the DSS in conjunction with the NT
supports Jesus divinity. So far, you have made no such case.
Peter Alaca
> The harsh truth is that the divinity of Jesus Christ
> is under attack like it never was before...
So what? What has it to do with archaeology?
> Why? The answer lies in the relation between
> DSS& NT.
No. The answer lies in your state of mind and the
resulting relation between you and everybody else.
Meteorologist
>...
> If you believe that the divinity of Jesus is somewhat supported by a
> connection between the DSS and the NT, please let us know what this
> is. It would be at least a point that may merit discussion. As to
> the divinity of Christ coming under attack today, let me tell you that
> it was much more under attack in the 3rd to 4th century CE than it is
> now!! Anyway, let us know how the DSS in conjunction with the NT
> supports Jesus divinity. So far, you have made no such case.
I already made such a case; you were not paying attention.
To review, Dr. Thiering has made a case for the identification
of John the Baptist as DSS ToR and Jesus Christ as DSS WP.
Further, according to her reconstruction of the Crucifixion as
per her pesher/methodology, Jesus Christ did not die on the
cross. I say if Jesus did not die on the cross, he was not divine.
-----
The Pesher of Christ - Introduction
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index2.html
"From the theory of scripture given us by the Qumran pesharim, we now
turn to the New Testament, to see how the Qumran theory is applied in
a new way, to give us the actual history of Jesus.
The method will be explained here through illustrations from the most
problematic parts of the gospels, the miracles, including the major
miracles of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection."
-----
The date of composition of the pesharim
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/Dss/Date_of_composition.html
"The major controversy that the public has been made aware of concerns
the date of composition of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They have been
treated as if they were a single body of literature, all of the same
date. But their content indicates that they were composed over a long
period of time. There are two distinct groups: the pesharim with a
related work that name the Teacher of Righteousness and his rival the
Wicked Priest; the other knowing nothing of these persons, and
obviously written long before them. The matter of the greatest
interest to the history of Christianity is the identity of these
personalities. Dr Thiering argues that carbondating, paleography and
content show that they lived in the period of Jesus. She believes that
the Teacher of Righteousness was John the Baptist, and his rival,
called by many opprobrious names including Wicked Priest and Man of a
Lie, was Jesus. The pesharim were written by the enemies of Jesus, the
same enemies who appear in the gospels."
-----
The date of composition of the pesharim
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/Dss/Date_of_composition.html
"AD 6 can be understood as the Period of Wrath of CD 1: 5-11, a
passage that says the Teacher of Righteousness came 20 years after
that period. (See "The Period of Wrath" in this section) "
The Period of Wrath and the Young Lion of Wrath
Extract -
One of the main passages relied on by the consensus case is in the
Damascus Document (CD) 1: 5-11. If the dates it gives are taken
without reference to other relevant facts, it can be understood to
give a 2nd century BC date for the Teacher, although even then there
were obvious difficulties. The passage reads:
"In the Period of Wrath (Heb: beqets charon) 390 years for His giving
(Heb: letitto) them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,
He (God) visited them, and caused to spring up from Israel and from
Aaron a Root of Planting to inherit His land and to prosper in the
goodness of the earth. And they understood their iniquity and they
knew that they were guilty men. But they were like blind men groping
for the way for 20 years. And God understood their deeds, that with a
perfect heart they sought Him. And He raised up for them a Teacher of
Righteousness (Heb: moreh tsedeq) to direct them in the way of His
heart."
The phrase "390 years for His giving them into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon" was taken to mean "after He gave".
From the known date of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem, in 587
BC, it was at first concluded that the Root of Planting had appeared
in 197 BC, and the Teacher, 20 years later, in 177 BC. But that was at
once seen as impossible. It would place the Teacher even before the
appearance of the Seleucids, and everything about him showed that he
belonged much later than this. The consensus case was left with the
view that the writers must have been approximate only in their
calculation from Nebuchadnezzar - as was not impossible- and the
Teacher's date, later in the 2nd century BC, would be known if his
circumstances fitted known data, such as the control of the temple by
the Hasmonean high priests from about 150 BC onwards.
Three very relevant facts remained unobserved.:
That the term Heb: letitto does not mean "after He gave" - that
meaning has to be read into it. It means "for His giving".
That the exact figure of 390 years is derived from a biblical passage,
and is fully accounted for by that passage, without reference to
actual history. In Ezekiel 4:4-5, the prophet performs a symbolic
action, lying on his side for 390 days, each day standing for a year,
the duration of the time when God would punish Israel.
The pesharim fully illustrate their equation of all OT enemies, both
Assyrians and Babylonians, with the Kittim in the Qumran period. The
Kittim are certainly the Romans, as is established. The NT gives
evidence of how far this equation could be taken, using the word
"Babylon" as code for Rome (1 Peter 5:13, Revelation 18:2-3).
Taking these facts into account, the passage is better understood to
be a prophecy, believed to be authorised by Ezekiel 4:4-5, of the
length of time that a Roman occupation would last, 390 years. It does
not refer back - there is no "after" - but forward. The writers are
going even further than the NT, not only using "Babylon" as a code
name for Rome, but "Nebuchadnezzar" as a code name for the ruler of
Rome. If the date of the Period of Wrath was known, the date of the
Teacher's appearance would be known, 20 years later.
When was the "Period of Wrath"? As shown in "Date of composition", the
details of the Kittim in the "pesher on Habakkuk" fit very well the
Roman occupation of AD 6. The Romans, putting the country under direct
Roman rule, were so hated that they brought about the uprising of
Judas the Galilean and subsequent zealotry. According to 1QpHab, the
Kittim "march across the plain, destroying and plundering the cities
of the earth", and "the fear and dread of them are on all the
nations" (3:1-5). The details do not fit Pompey in 63 BC, who left
them in religious independence and was even praised by Josephus for
his "virtuous character." It was from AD 6, then, that the prediction
of 390 years was made. In AD 26, 20 years later, the Teacher of
Righteousness appeared.
The correction of the misreading "after" was made for a different
purpose by I. Rabinowitz who in 1954 wrote, "Heb: Le never occurs in
Hebrew in the temporal meaning 'after', 'from the time that', and it
never has this meaning in the scrolls. Heb: Letitto' quite clearly
means 'at(the timeof) His giving' or 'to (the time of) His giving' or
'as of His giving'" (Rabinowitz, I., "A Reconsideration of 'Damascus'
and '390 Years' in the 'Damascus' ('Zadokite') Fragments", JBL 73
(1954), 1-35, note 8b, p.14.) But all official translations continued
to say "after", because they thought it was required by their
interpretation - a circular process.
The process of error that led to this further error was as follows. At
the early stage of Qumran studies, scholars led by F.M. Cross and G.
Vermes had fixed on the Hasmonean dating, "the consensus case". Enough
of the Qumran site had been cleared to yield Hasmonean coins, and not
enough of the content of the Scrolls had been studied to show that
they covered a long period of time, and that the Teacher appeared in
only one group. It was assumed, without observation of this fact, that
all came from the same time, and that the Teacher was the founder of
the sect.
The term Wrath (Heb: charon) appears in the name of the Young Lion of
Wrath of the "pesher on Nahum", 4QpNah. In this pesher, interpreting a
passage in the OT book of Nahum about symbolic lions, a Young Lion of
Wrath crucified people, who were also disliked by the pesharist. The
Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus in 88 BC crucified a large number of
Pharisees who opposed him . Here seemed to be a candidate for
resistance to the Teacher in the pre-Christian period, whatever the
fine points of dating might be. But this conclusion disregarded
essential facts. 4QpNah 1:1 , together with its argument about the
Assyrian "lions" of Nahum being enemies of the righteous, showed that
all the "lions" were GENTILES. Alexander Jannaeus was a Jewish king,
not a Gentile. Further, the publication of the fragment 4Q448 ,
praising King Jonathan, showed that the sectarians approved of
Alexander Jannaeus.
Since "the Wrath" may be seen to mean the occupying Romans after AD 6,
the Young Lion of Wrath was a representative of the occupying Roman
power, in charge in Jerusalem. The history derived from the pesher of
the gospels, to be given in what follows, leads to the conclusion that
he was Pontius Pilate, who performed crucifixions of opponents of the
Teacher.
JTEM
"(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Could be why his wife had a restraining order taken out
> against him... <shrug>
Could be. It could also be that you're the wife,
lashing out at him/her because of their rejection
of you.
Whatever the case, don't you think it's about time
that you took your meds, got over this obsession and
STOPPED replying to absolutely everything they post?
Peter Alaca
So what? Where is the archaeology?>
Meteorologist
>
> > "The major controversy that the public has been made aware of concerns
> > the date of composition of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They have been
> > treated as if they were a single body of literature, all of the same
> > date. But their content indicates that they were composed over a long
> > period of time. There are two distinct groups: the pesharim with a
> > related work that name the Teacher of Righteousness and his rival the
> > Wicked Priest; the other knowing nothing of these persons, and
> > obviously written long before them. The matter of the greatest
> > interest to the history of Christianity is the identity of these
> > personalities. Dr Thiering argues that carbondating, paleography and
> > content show that they lived in the period of Jesus. She believes that
> > the Teacher of Righteousness was John the Baptist, and his rival,
> > called by many opprobrious names including Wicked Priest and Man of a
> > Lie, was Jesus. The pesharim were written by the enemies of Jesus, the
> > same enemies who appear in the gospels."
>
> > -----
>
> > The date of composition of the pesharim
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong questions; I say archaeologists should know
the Thiering material here. Further, Dr. Thiering
knows plenty of Qumran archaeology; she visited
Qumran once to do scholarly work.
Peter Alaca
>
>> So what? Where is the archaeology?>- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Wrong questions;
Since you are posting in sci.archaeology
the correct question is where the archaeology is.
> I say archaeologists should know
> the Thiering material here.
> Nobody cares what you say.
>Further, Dr. Thiering
> knows plenty of Qumran archaeology; she visited
> Qumran once to do scholarly work.
Nothing to do with archaeology. Fuck off.
Sir David
> Wrong questions;
Duck, dodge, and hide noted.
> I say archaeologists should know the <FLUSH>
Nobody cares what you say, Carl. Sucks to be you.
ADR
> On Jan 9, 1:30 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >...
> > If you believe that the divinity of Jesus is somewhat supported by a
> > connection between the DSS and the NT, please let us know what this
> > is. It would be at least a point that may merit discussion. As to
> > the divinity of Christ coming under attack today, let me tell you that
> > it was much more under attack in the 3rd to 4th century CE than it is
> > now!! Anyway, let us know how the DSS in conjunction with the NT
> > supports Jesus divinity. So far, you have made no such case.
>
> I already made such a case; you were not paying attention.
No, you have not. Not here anyway. If you want to do it, fine, I
will reply. In its absence, there is really nothing much more to
discuss
> To review, Dr. Thiering has made a case for the identification
> of John the Baptist as DSS ToR and Jesus Christ as DSS WP.
So what? Even assuming this is right, what is its significance?
> Further, according to her reconstruction of the Crucifixion as
> per her pesher/methodology, Jesus Christ did not die on the
> cross. I say if Jesus did not die on the cross, he was not divine.
This is patently laughable. And I can easily prove it.
The reason to embed heading messages in a text is because the presence
of a very oppressive regime will not allow the message to be heard
otherwise. Why would the gospel writers want to obscure the truth
behind other text? The gospel writers were not members of an
officialdom. They wrote the gospels because they were believers. Why
embed a message contrary to what they want to preach about? It makes
no sense. Even if we suppose that the message was meant for specific
people: who were these? It was not the leadership of the Christian
sect, that's for sure. And if these gospel writers did not believe
that Jesus was divine, why bother write the books? It does not
compute.
[snip]