TIME Mag - DSS Teacher of Righteousness as John the Baptist
David Christainsen
Subject: a validation - Geiger and Thiering
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1526
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1528
If TIME can say it in public, it can be said on the Internet Newsgroups.
It is passing strange that no DSS/NT scholar, other than Dr. Thiering,
will put his/her name to this identification.
Best,
David
Trotter960
>If TIME can say it in public, it can be said on the Internet Newsgroups.
>
>It is passing strange that no DSS/NT scholar, other than Dr. Thiering,
>will put his/her name to this identification.
If Time can say it what does it mean? It means that Time is selling news
journals.
That no other scholar besides BT endorses her peculiar ideas has meaning as
well and it is not a good meaning.
David Christainsen
Virgil, on the contrary it is a good meaning - the truth about it will
be exposed more and more.
Specifically, honest criticism of Thiering Pesher/Solar Calendar
Schemes
is requested of critics with a complete competence in those
technicalities.
Recently, I was shocked to learn of VanderKam's criticism of BT
Pesher. It
shows he never took Thiering on her own terms ---
Subject: On Methodology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2694
Q. 3. "The information from the DSS pesharim helped solve the NT
pesher,
but the NT pesher is not a direct extension from the OT pesharim of
the DSS."
A. "I think I recognise here a criticism stemming from Vanderkam, that
I am not using pesher in the same sense as in DSS. He did not
distinguish between the definition of scripture contained in the DSS
pesharim, and the final form that those pesharim took. The definition
of scripture that they contained was that it had two levels, an
obvious meaning to everyone, and a hidden meaning that was only
available to an interpreter who had special knowledge – or, in their
view, to whom God had revealed the secret. Their analogy was in the
interpretation of dreams. The word pesher is another form of the word
pithron, from verb pathar, meaning the interpretation of dreams as in
Gen 40:8. Pharaoh's dream of the 7 fat cows and 7 thin cows contained
information about events in the near future, but Pharaoh and all his
wise men could not understand it , only Joseph. So, in 1QpHab 7:1-5,
God told Habakkuk to write down certain matters concerning subsequent
historical events, but God did not make known even to Habakkuk (who
belonged to the Old Covenant) when the time would come when those
events, the End of Days, would occur. The pesher of Habakkuk concerns
the Teacher of Righteousness, "to whom God made known all the
mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets". He was the
'Joseph' who knew the hidden meaning."
"My hypothesis, which remained in that status for many years until it
was validated by a study of every word, was that the evangelists were
working with the same definition of scripture, that it had two levels.
They set out to write a new scripture for their radical version of the
New Covenant, so they employed the same definition of scripture. They
had a practical reason for doing so in addition to their acceptance of
the definition. In their situation, they had an urgent need to give
something that was both hidden, yet available to those with special
knowledge, like the Teacher. The Christians wanted to make it appear
that their religion was a new revelation, every aspect of it
authoritative because it came directly from heaven through Jesus. But
at the same time they wanted to be honest about their extensive debt
to the previous Qumran community. Their strong organisational links
with it were apparent from the first discovery of the Scrolls. The
information would also guide their leaders in future developments."
Best,
David
Trotter960
>Specifically, honest criticism of Thiering Pesher/Solar Calendar
>Schemes
>is requested of critics with a complete competence in those
>technicalities.
What you want is for a scholar to spend his time writing a detailed critique of
a theory that has faulty presuppositions.
>Recently, I was shocked to learn of >VanderKam's criticism of BT
>Pesher. It shows he never took Thiering >on her own terms ---
It shows he, like every other that I know of,
never buys her presuppositions. You've got a serious problem here. You are
saying that one person in the whole world is the only one that has the correct
under-
standing of the relationship between jesus and the DSS. There are a lot of
people who are very very smart and who have given their lives to the study of
the DSS. Yet when it comes to BT, not one agrees with her and not one endorses
her position. Most often she is relegated to a footnote and politely described
as a quack.
David Christainsen
> >From: david_chr...@hotmail.com
>
> >Specifically, honest criticism of Thiering Pesher/Solar Calendar
> >Schemes
> >is requested of critics with a complete competence in those
> >technicalities.
>
> What you want is for a scholar to spend his time writing a detailed critique of
> a theory that has faulty presuppositions.
Faulty? No refutation of Thiering Solar Calendar Schemes has ever
been made by any scholar - AFAIK.
There are a large number of independent documents from which
Thiering's
calendrical conclusions are drawn. The basic source, known to
everyone, is
I Enoch, which together with MMT and the Sabbath Sacrifice documents
set out
the solar calendar. They make it quite clear that it was the calendar
of a
separated sect, observing their festivals on dates which were named as
in
the OT, eg 14/I, 10/VII, 15/VII, but fell on different days for them
because
of the different length of their year. At times when the lunar and
solar
calendars were corrected by intercalation, the lunar 10/VII,
Atonement, fell
10 days earlier than the solar one, because the lunarists counted
their year
as 354 days, while the solarists counted 364 days.
The unknown fact was the method of intercalation. The information from
which
she derived it is in Daniel, which is shown to be from solarists by
its
reliance on the number 7. From the 1290 days of Dan 12:11, together
with
calculation about the number of hours that would need to be
intercalated, she
worked out the intercalation method on which all the exact times given
in her
books depend. It is Daniel that shows in 9:27 that 3 1/2 , half of 7,
was a
mathematical unit for them - this was also a factor in the
calculation.
Beckwith's work was also a basis. He showed that the jubilee system of
the
Testament of Levi 17-18 gave fixed dates, centring round the
'unspeakable
pollution' of 168 BC. This helped to enable the calculation of years,
derived from the Enoch Apocalypse of Weeks, showing that the gospel
period,
AD 29-33, was a climax of the prophecy, the period when a long awaited
Restoration of the Zadokites and Davids should take place.
Ref 1 - R.T.Beckwith, in an important article ("The Significance of
the
Calendar for Interpreting Essene Chronology and Eschatology". Revue de
Qumran 10,1980, 167-202) established the fact that the jubilees in the
Testament of Levi give us exact dates, whereas it was previously
thought that they were indefinite periods of time.
> >Recently, I was shocked to learn of >VanderKam's criticism of BT
> >Pesher. It shows he never took Thiering >on her own terms ---
>
> It shows he, like every other that I know of,
> never buys her presuppositions. You've got a serious problem here. You are
> saying that one person in the whole world is the only one that has the correct
> under-
> standing of the relationship between jesus and the DSS. There are a lot of
> people who are very very smart and who have given their lives to the study of
> the DSS. Yet when it comes to BT, not one agrees with her and not one endorses
> her position. Most often she is relegated to a footnote and politely described
> as a quack.
Subject: Splitting the Personality
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1384
The Wicked Priest ---
"1.He was originally a member of the Qumran community, their Messiah
of Israel, but he had opposed the Teacher of Righteousness and
succeeded in causing a schism, the majority following the rival
teacher.
"2.He had 'defiled the temple' by objecting to the exclusions from
holy precincts of many people – the physically handicapped, women, and
(consequently) Gentiles.
"3.He had been made to suffer extreme physical anguish at the hands of
Gentiles. 'Seekers-after-smooth-things', a name for his party, had
been crucified by a Roman governor in the period of the pesharim, 1st
cent AD.
"4. He was accused of plotting against the T of R, in conjunction with
the men of Ephraim and Manasseh – names for original tribal areas that
included Samaria. He was accused of being a Samaritan (1QpMic).
"5.He was accused of taking the money of the Poor. An earlier form of
the community had collected huge sums of money, the deposits at or
near Qumran listed in the Copper Scroll. The taxation document 4Q159
shows that these were fees paid at initiation, as 'a ransom for the
soul', and for promotion. Most of the money would have come from the
Diaspora – the local community could not possibly raise it. If the
rival teacher and his party were on the side of Samaria and the
Diaspora, most of the existing money would have been theirs and would
have fallen to them at the schism.
"6. A reading of CD 1:5-8 using the Qumran sense of 'Babylon' as Rome
(also in 1 Peter 5:13 and Rev 18) means that the T of R appeared in AD
26, twenty years after the Period of Wrath in AD 6, the year of the
Roman occupation. Therefore the Teacher and his rival were active from
the late twenties AD. The Teacher died about 40 years before AD 70,
about AD 30. These are the dates of John the Baptist, and there is a
long list of parallels between him and the T of R.
"I think that for any impartial historian, these points add up to a
very strong probability that the Teacher's rival was Jesus. The
remainder of the evidence is in the pesher of the gospels, Acts and
Revelation, using the theory of scripture supplied by the Scrolls."
Trotter960
>Faulty? No refutation of Thiering Solar Calendar Schemes has ever
>been made by any scholar - AFAIK.
So you are saying that BT must needs be refuted?
That doesn't happen. For example, how many times has BT refuted the theories of
her opponents? She doesn't. What she writes is her own opinions. She doesn't
write the kind of refutations that you have in mind and neither do other
scholars. You may find an example or two, but generally
scholars refute each other in a few sentences.
Am I wrong here? Okay, I'm from Missouri.
Show me.
David Christainsen
Doudna took heavy criticism in the Rodley/Thiering paper.
Why don't you read it first, then give your reactions to SOC.HISTORY.ANCIENT?
Vermes on dating ToR to Hasmonean times as a Jerusalem high priest has
been decisively refuted by Thiering on my Forum.
I am clearly saying Thiering needs to be refuted on the Solar Calendar
Schemes. In addition, her intercalation method has been below the
scholarly radar, provoking no review/comment whatsoever at any time.
Yes, you are wrong here, but so what? I am saying these matters need
honest criticism and scholarly review. So far they have not received it.
Trotter960
>Doudna took heavy criticism in the Rodley/Thiering paper.
That was a rebuttal due to the fact that Greg had another agenda which was
incompatible with BT's. There's a dif here.
You want people to go out of their way to
critique BT on a line by line basis when
it's not a rebuttal for them.
>Vermes on dating ToR to Hasmonean times as a Jerusalem high priest has
>been decisively refuted by Thiering on my Forum.
Did Vermes weigh in? No? Okay, I'll bet BT had a field day with no opposition
and a moderator who adores her.
>I am clearly saying Thiering needs to be refuted on the Solar Calendar
>Schemes
This does not prove diddly-squat. Why on Earth do you think so?
>In addition, her intercalation method has been below the
>scholarly radar, provoking no review/comment whatsoever at any time.
You know what it means when Velikovsky rates th attention of scholars and BT
does not?
>Yes, you are wrong here, but so what? I am saying these matters need
>honest criticism and scholarly review. So far they have not received it.
And I say that these matters are not worth the attention of scholars. And you
have yet to show otherwise.
David Christainsen
> >From: david_chr...@hotmail.com
>
> >Doudna took heavy criticism in the Rodley/Thiering paper.
>
> That was a rebuttal due to the fact that Greg had another agenda which was
> incompatible with BT's. There's a dif here.
> You want people to go out of their way to
> critique BT on a line by line basis when
> it's not a rebuttal for them.
on this point.
> >Vermes on dating ToR to Hasmonean times as a Jerusalem high priest has
> >been decisively refuted by Thiering on my Forum.
>
> Did Vermes weigh in? No? Okay, I'll bet BT had a field day with no opposition
> and a moderator who adores her.
Vermes' original dating of the Teacher and Wicked Priest is no longer
accepted. It has been submerged by carbondating and paleographical evidence.
To uphold it, he had to contradict Josephus, who said that there were no
kings until the Sadducee line of Alexander Jannaeus. Jannaeus' father is
clearly stated to have been the first to claim kingship, in 104 BC (J.W. 1,
70, Ant. 13, 301) . Vermes holds that the King Jonathan of 4Q448 was
Jonathan Maccabeus, who lived fifty years previously, and whose line claimed
only the high priesthood, not the kingship.
> >I am clearly saying Thiering needs to be refuted on the Solar Calendar
> >Schemes
>
> This does not prove diddly-squat. Why on Earth do you think so?
Would you exercise some intuition? Her NT Pesher had its genesis
in key time indication phrases she spotted in NT verse. When this factor is
spooled into the key GREAT dates supplied by the Solar Calendar Schemes,
a coherent history emerges from Thiering Pesher.
The starting point of this process is the cut-and-dried technical
matter of Solar Calendar Schemes. It would be helpful to subject
Thiering's findings on this matter to peer review.
> >In addition, her intercalation method has been below the
> >scholarly radar, provoking no review/comment whatsoever at any time.
>
> You know what it means when Velikovsky rates th attention of scholars and BT
> does not?
I invited Dierk Vandenberg to my Forum. He served as a foil for discussion
and debate for quite some time with BT.
> >Yes, you are wrong here, but so what? I am saying these matters need
> >honest criticism and scholarly review. So far they have not received it.
>
> And I say that these matters are not worth the attention of scholars. And you
> have yet to show otherwise.
Rodley/Thiering paper showed that the carbondatings do NOT disprove
Christian connections. For now that is where the matter stands.
Unless you can show otherwise...
Trotter960
>Do I? I don't really care. Furthermore, both Greg and Ian were wrong
>on this point.
Were they? But in this matter you do care.
You have an agenda.
>Vermes is toast.
>Vermes' original dating of the Teacher and >Wicked Priest is no longer
accepted.
You know, I might just agree with you here, but I really have to know who you
have in mind that does not accept Vermes except BT.
>It has been submerged by carbondating and paleographical evidence.
Izat so? Do you suppose we could have a look at all of this evidence you just
mentioned without the appeal to Vaseline?
>Would you exercise some intuition? Her >NT Pesher had its genesis
>in key time indication phrases she >spotted in NT verse.
Better idea. Quit being pedantic. At this time BT's idea of pesher is as valid
as polywater.
>It would be helpful to subject
>Thiering's findings on this matter to peer review.
I know you think that if they just would , they would have to agree with BT.
But they won't. Aand it's not because they are prejudiced like some other
fellow on this newsgroup claims.
David Christainsen
>...
> But they won't. Aand it's not because they are prejudiced like some other
> fellow on this newsgroup claims.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas...if your ideas are any
good you will have to ram them down people's throats."
Currently, I am corresponding with Bruce Gardner in order to promote
action on the "agenda".
David Christainsen
> >From: david_chr...@hotmail.com
>
> >Doudna took heavy criticism in the Rodley/Thiering paper.
>
> That was a rebuttal due to the fact that Greg had another agenda which was
> incompatible with BT's.
I like your concept of agenda. God knows, DSS Studies are a black hole...
Let's flesh out for the record what Dr. Thiering was saying...
Subject: The Revolutionary Thiering Dating Scheme for Gospel Period History
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/189
"The Teacher is still alive in the pesher on Psalms (pPs), and its material
was not manufactured until the 1st cent AD. This was further very strong
support for my dating. It is not a copy of an earlier work, as all 18
pesharim are originals, in one copy only. When I pointed this out at the
Jerusalem Congress in '97, it set off a frenzy of activity which is still
going on. Doudna has said that it was an 'outlier', and he showed at the
same time that he knew nothing about the content of the Scrolls, holding
that they had all been written in a single generation. He also seemed to
know nothing about paleography, maintaining that there was no significant
difference between an extremely archaic script and a Hasmonean one."
"It is true that pHab was carbondated to the late 1st century BC. But to say
that it was composed then did not take into account another significant
piece of data, that the Essenes preserved old materials for ascetic reasons
(J.W.2, 127). They had positive reasons for using an old piece of parchment,
but obviously could not use a piece of parchment before it was manufactured,
so pPs remains very significant. As noted above, the handwriting of pHab is
middle Herodian, AD 20-50. I had long argued that its contents describe
exactly the situation of AD 37, when the Roman general Vitellius marched his
troops across the Jordan near Jericho."
For starters, do we accept the carbondating of pPs as valid?
David Christainsen
>...
>
> That doesn't happen. For example, how many times has BT refuted the theories of
> her opponents? She doesn't. What she writes is her own opinions. She doesn't
> write the kind of refutations that you have in mind and neither do other
> scholars. You may find an example or two, but generally
> scholars refute each other in a few sentences.
>
> Am I wrong here? Okay, I'm from Missouri.
> Show me.
VanderKam bites the dust.
The Meaning Of The Dead Sea Scrolls : Their Significance For
Understanding The Bible, Judaism, Jesus
By James VanderKam and Peter Flint
BTW, after reading their few pages on Thiering, I thought I had
wandered
into an insane asylum.
Subject: Zeroing in on John the Baptist as Teacher of Righteousness
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2740
"4QpNah has been said, wrongly, to put the whole group in about 88 BC,
and to
reflect the crucifixion of Pharisees by Alexander Jannaeus (103- 76
BC),
who is identified with the Young Lion of Wrath. This identification
completely overlooks the statement at the beginning of the passage,
showing
that all the 'lions' were Gentiles. Alexander was a Jewish king, not a
Gentile. The term Kittim is found in 4QpNah frags 1 - 2."
"There are such close parallels between the T of R and John the
Baptist
that, given the same date, there is reason for seeing them as the same
person. In summary: both operated in the Wilderness of Judea, an area
of
only about 7 square miles. The stepped baptismal cisterns at Qumran
show
that both baptised. The Teacher's name is a play on words, meaning 'he
who
rains down (baptises with) righteousness'. Both taught a coming fiery
judgement of the wicked. Both were strict ascetics."
Trotter960
>VanderKam bites the dust.
>
>The Meaning Of The Dead Sea Scrolls : Their Significance For
>Understanding The Bible, Judaism, Jesus
>By James VanderKam and Peter Flint
>
>BTW, after reading their few pages on Thiering, I thought I had
>wandered
>into an insane asylum.
Nothing wrong with having an opinion. After all BT has one. The trouble comes
when
you try to tell everyone else that they don't
know what they are talking about and they
are the ones who have the texts in front of them.
So you compared yet more scholars against BT and decided they were the ones who
were wrong?
David Christainsen
>...
> when
> you try to tell everyone else that they don't
> know what they are talking about and they
> are the ones who have the texts in front of them.
>
> So you compared yet more scholars against BT and decided they were the ones who
> were wrong?
No, I did no such thing.
I was clearly and explicitly referring to their few pages on Thiering
in their book. (p 325-327) but (p 328-329 Table on Jesus' Life
According
to Barbara Thiering is reasonably accurate) ---
"Her views and theories on Jesus and Christian origins have little
basis in the scrolls, and even less in the New Testament."
A flagrant breach of scholarly integrity on the authors' part because
it shows they have not even read her essential scholarly works.
100% false.
"Her pesher technique misuses the concept of PESHER,..."
Huh? Prove it.
"...her dating of the scrolls are suspect and seem informed by an
outside agenda..."
Really? What specifically is the objection on their part?
Let's zero in, as a counterexample, "On CD 20:14 and the 40 years" ---
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2755
Trotter, doesn't the consensus dating in the Hasmonean period bite the
dust?
"...the connections she draws between Qumran and other nearby
communities
in the Judean Desert are highly questionable..."
Archaeological evidence is now increasing that there were Essene
centers at some distance from Qumran. The recent discovery of large
numbers of Qumran-type graves at Khirbet Qazone in Nabatea (1), and
of similar graves near Jerusalem itself (2), as well as Qumran-type
cisterns at El-Kharrar east of Jordan opposite Jericho (3), add to the
evidence already known of related centers down the west coast of the
Dead Sea. We are dealing with a network of places that looked to
Qumran as their center of organization and leadership.
--- Notes
(1) K.D. Politis, "Excavations at the Nabatean Cemetery at Kirbet
Qazone, 1996-1997," ADAJ 42 (1998). See the discussion in "Who
Lies Here?" BAR 25/5 (Sep/Oct 1999) 48-53.
(2) B. Zissu, "'Qumran Type' Graves in Jerusalem: Archaeological
Evidence of an Essene Community?" DSD 5 (1998) 158-71.
(3) See the Internet article by M. Waheed,
http://www.elmaghtas.com/xcavation/xcavation.html
[I originally brought Waheed's URL to BT's attention.]
excerpted from
B. Thiering, "The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer using Fixed Lengths
of Hours," DEAD SEA DISCOVERIES, vol 9, 3 (2002), p. 363.
--------------
It is striking that in the gospels, especially John, there are careful
notes of distances. This is all the more striking given the apparent
absence of any information about the years of Jesus' ministry and
other such essential detail. According to Jn 11: 18, the place called
Bethany is 15 stadia from "Jerusalem" in the plural form. According to
Jn 6: 19 the disciples rowed in a boat for "25 or 30 stadia." 5 stadia
= 2000 cubits, or approximately a kilometre.
When the Qumran area was explored, some ruins of a building at Ain
Feshkha were found, 3 kms (15 stadia) south down the coast from the
Qumran plateau. Further ruins were found at a place now called Khirbet
Mazin, 6 kms (30 stadia) down the coast from Qumran. In ancient times
it was only accessible by boat from the north. These two places are
shown on the survey map. Another small ruin is described in Humbert
(ref 1) and de Vaux (ref 2), 1 km (5 stadia) down from Qumran. These
sites all indicated a connection with Qumran. They form part of a
chain of connected places used by ascetics all down the west coast of
the Dead Sea.
Thus, taking Qumran as a starting-point, the small ruin was 5 stadia
away, Ain Feshkha 15 stadia away, and Khirbet Mazin 30 stadia away.
The latter place was also 25 stadia from the small ruin. These
distances are the same as the distances given in Jn 11: 18 and 6: 19.
With many other indications, it could be seen that Qumran was the
place called "Jerusalem" in the plural form, and these places were
outposts of Qumran.
Refs
(1) Humbert, J-B and Chambon, A., Fouilles de Khirbet Qumran et de Ain
Feshkha,
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Editions Universitaires Fribourg
Suisse,1994).
(2) De Vaux,R., Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (OUP, 1959).
"..., and the links she finds between the scrolls and the New
Testament
are almost always without foundation."
Subject: Zeroing in on John the Baptist as Teacher of Righteousness
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2740
"I am saying that it is proven that John the Baptist was the Teacher
of Righteousness, and that far more than this is now available - the
whole history of Jesus and the foundation of the Christian Church."
BTW, "4QpNah has been said, wrongly, to put the whole group [18
pesharim etc.]
in about 88 BC, and to reflect the crucifixion of Pharisees by
Alexander Jannaeus (103- 76 BC), who is identified with the Young Lion
of Wrath."
VanderKam is wrong on this point.
Trotter960
>> So you compared yet more scholars against BT and decided they were the ones
>who
>> were wrong?
>
>No, I did no such thing.
I'm sure that you did no such thing. For you, BT is the only answer needed.
Trotter960
>Her views and theories on Jesus
>and Christian origins have little
>basis in the scrolls, and even less in the New Testament."
>
>A flagrant breach of scholarly integrity on the authors' part because
>it shows they have not even read her essential scholarly works.
>100% false.
I think scholars read BT and find her lacking. So you think scholars do not
read her? Why so?
>"Her pesher technique misuses the concept of PESHER,..."
>
>Huh? Prove it.
How about if you define "pesher?" It needs to have just a single definition
which is succinct and yet descriptive enough that anyone could identify and
inderstand one when they encountered one.
>Trotter, doesn't the consensus dating in >the Hasmonean period bite the dust?
Even with my modest resources, I find that
BT needs to bend the dating in order to make it work. And just lately you told
me you could not offer a time when the pesharim were written.
BTW, want to know what a MOREH is?
David Christainsen
> >From: david_chr...@hotmail.com
>
>
> >Her views and theories on Jesus
> >and Christian origins have little
> >basis in the scrolls, and even less in the New Testament."
> >
> >A flagrant breach of scholarly integrity on the authors' part because
> >it shows they have not even read her essential scholarly works.
> >100% false.
>
> I think scholars read BT and find her lacking. So you think scholars do not
> read her? Why so?
For example, Dr. Bruce Gardner, who BTW just joined my Forum, told
SOC.HISTORY.ANCIENT recently that he "does not know Thiering's work".
> >"Her pesher technique misuses the concept of PESHER,..."
> >
> >Huh? Prove it.
>
> How about if you define "pesher?" It needs to have just a single definition
> which is succinct and yet descriptive enough that anyone could identify and
> inderstand one when they encountered one.
Subject: Meaning of pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/193
"'Interpretation' leaves out the essential point, that the pesher is
only available to an insider with special knowledge."
"The meaning 'solution' comes closer, in the sense of solution to a
puzzle. The Qumran pesharists defined scripture as a raz, 'mystery',
to which there was a pesher, 'solution'. This was in the context of
the hellenistic delight in riddles and parables, a favourite diversion
in royal courts. The next step from this was to make their new
scripture, the gospels, Acts and Revelation, a real puzzle, to which
there was an objective solution available to any insider who had the
special knowledge. It was a true-false matter, removing the
arbitariness of Qumran's treatment of the OT. Solving it is comparable
to solving a cryptic crossword - regrettable as that analogy might
appear. There is only one answer. The satisfaction of finding it does
make up for the very hard work of doing it. The history it gives is no
less than the complete history of everything that the first Christians
really did, beyond the mythical casing intended for less sophisticated
outsiders."
> >Trotter, doesn't the consensus dating in >the Hasmonean period bite the dust?
>
> Even with my modest resources, I find that
> BT needs to bend the dating in order to make it work. And just lately you told
> me you could not offer a time when the pesharim were written.
>
> BTW, want to know what a MOREH is?
No bending of dating. Show me otherwise.
Crossed wire between us - 18 pesharim written in 30's AD
approximately.
My patience is short so I'll pass on MOREH. When the period of
tension
is over between us, then we'll sing, dance, and joke.
Trotter960
>> I think scholars read BT and find her lacking. So you think scholars do not
>> read her? Why so?
>
>For example, Dr. Bruce Gardner, who BTW just joined my Forum, told
>SOC.HISTORY.ANCIENT recently that he "does not know Thiering's work".
I'll give you that one, David. I should have
asked why you think that _no_ scholars have read BT.
Geoff Hudson
> Subject: Zeroing in on John the Baptist as Teacher of Righteousness
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2740
>
> "4QpNah has been said, wrongly, to put the whole group in about 88 BC,
> and to
> reflect the crucifixion of Pharisees by Alexander Jannaeus (103- 76
> BC),
> who is identified with the Young Lion of Wrath. This identification
> completely overlooks the statement at the beginning of the passage,
> showing
> that all the 'lions' were Gentiles. Alexander was a Jewish king, not a
> Gentile. The term Kittim is found in 4QpNah frags 1 - 2."
>
> "There are such close parallels between the T of R and John the
> Baptist
> that, given the same date, there is reason for seeing them as the same
> person. In summary: both operated in the Wilderness of Judea, an area
> of
> only about 7 square miles. The stepped baptismal cisterns at Qumran
> show
> that both baptised. The Teacher's name is a play on words, meaning 'he
> who
> rains down (baptises with) righteousness'. Both taught a coming fiery
> judgement of the wicked. Both were strict ascetics."
David,
Where does BT get the play on words for the TOR's name from? 'He
who rains down (baptises with) righteousness' could be the function,
not of a human being but of an angelic one. It is quite possible that
everyone is 'missing the boat'. May be the TOR was an intermediary
heavenly messenger. Wherever he is mentioned, he appears as an
ethereal character. As I read 1QH, I ask myself, is the author
writing as if he is an angelic being - an 'angel of the Face'? (1QH14)
The TOR would then represent a stage of development in the Covenant
theology of the Spirit to be poured out on Israel. In this view, the
sectarians couldn't consider themselves worthy to to have direct
communication with God or his Spirit.
For my money, the NT gospels were originally meant to be all about
John as a prophet of the Spirit. Later editors had John killed off
spuriously to superimpose the fictitious second century Jesus, along
with the duo Peter and Paul.
Geoff
Geoff Hudson
> Where does BT get the play on words for the TOR's name from? 'He
> who rains down (baptises with) righteousness' could be the function,
> not of a human being but of an angelic one. It is quite possible that
> everyone is 'missing the boat'. May be the TOR was an intermediary
> heavenly messenger. Wherever he is mentioned, he appears as an
> ethereal character. As I read 1QH, I ask myself, is the author
> writing as if he is an angelic being - an 'angel of the Face'? (1QH14)
> The TOR would then represent a stage of development in the Covenant
> theology of the Spirit to be poured out on Israel. In this view, the
> sectarians couldn't consider themselves worthy to to have direct
> communication with God or his Spirit.
David,
Even more significantly, the Vermes translation of CD.3:7,8 has: "But
they chose their own will (Martinez - preferred the desire of their
spirit), and did not heed the voice of their Maker, the commands of
their Teacher, but murmured in their tents."
Here it would appear that their Maker and their Teacher were one and
the same. A later writer might have written:"and did not heed the
voice of God, the commands of the Spirit."
Geoff
David Christainsen
>
> Where does BT get the play on words for the TOR's name from? 'He
> who rains down (baptises with) righteousness' could be the function,
> not of a human being but of an angelic one. It is quite possible that
> everyone is 'missing the boat'. May be the TOR was an intermediary
> heavenly messenger. Wherever he is mentioned, he appears as an
> ethereal character. As I read 1QH, I ask myself, is the author
> writing as if he is an angelic being - an 'angel of the Face'? (1QH14)
> The TOR would then represent a stage of development in the Covenant
> theology of the Spirit to be poured out on Israel. In this view, the
> sectarians couldn't consider themselves worthy to to have direct
> communication with God or his Spirit.
>
> For my money, the NT gospels were originally meant to be all about
> John as a prophet of the Spirit. Later editors had John killed off
> spuriously to superimpose the fictitious second century Jesus, along
> with the duo Peter and Paul.
>
> Geoff
Geoff,
Subject: On Methodology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2694
EXTRACT -
Q. 2. Some of the DSS pesharim provide information about how the
writers
living during the period of the foundation of Christianity referred
to other individuals living at that time - such as "righteous"
referring to John the Baptist.
A. Partly correct, but the essential point is that they turned
universals into particulars. They knew that 'righteous' was a general
term for everyone, meaning moral rectitude, but they gave it a
particular and specific application to the Teacher of Righteousness.
His name came from the special meaning of 'righteousness' within their
group – not simply moral rectitude but far more, including celibacy.
The name Teacher of Righteousness, moreh hassedeq, is a play on words,
as was recognised from the start, combining yarah 'teach' with yarah
'rain'. He 'rained down righteousness', giving initiation by the
waters of baptism to certain men only who committed themselves to a
celibate and strictly ascetic life. In applying this to the gospels,
on the basis of a common background, I saw that the technique would
mean that the words 'saint' and 'sinner' had similar special meanings,
a 'saint' being a celibate and a 'sinner' a married man. The contexts
support this. So with the whole range of terms.
David