Qumran sundial: a challenge for David
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ian - 24 Nov 2007 19:53 GMT David,
You have repeatedly claimed that "The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer using Fixed Lengths of Hours," DEAD SEA DISCOVERIES, vol 9, 3 (2002), p. 356 (I can cut-and-paste too!) is an important paper.
So I challenge you:
Summarise the content of that paper for us here, in your own words. Write us an abstract, explaining what the paper claims, outline the basis for these claims and give indications of matters left unresolved for further work.
It won't take long - I'd expect you to be able to do it in 300 - 350 words But remember, they have to be your own words. No quoting Thiering postings to Yahoo - and certainly no use of her abstract (I presume the paper has an abstract). 100% Chistainsen words throughout.
Can you do it?
Ian
David - 25 Nov 2007 01:05 GMT > David, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ian It is without abstract. You need an academic library that subscribes to "Dead Sea Discoveries". The article is HIGHLY TECHNICAL.
Preliminary - try "Qumran sundial" and "Qumran roundel" in Google Scholar.
I invite you to walk patiently thru the "Christian Origins and Archaeology" Thread I started Dec. 10, 2006 on sci.arch with 94 messages and 11 authors and pick up on my extracts from the 2002 Thiering article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important amplification of the Thiering Thesis ---
Since the beginning of research it has been apparent that the Qumran Community had an Essene nucleus. There had been an integration of some Essenes with ascetics coming from the Sadducees and Pharisees, who adapted their calendar and practices to those of the Essenes, leading to a movement that developed beyond classical Essenism. For this reason the word "ascetic" is appropriate for the whole sect, while the Essene nucleus should be recognised.
---
As was apparent from the start, the texts describe practices and beliefs closely similar to the distinctive tenets of the Essenes as given by their contemporary historians. These include community of property, daily sacred meal for initiates only, sexual activity regarded as defilement, ritual washings, stages of initiation, strict hierarchy, and physical contact with the unclean forbidden.
When taken together with the additional data in the Scrolls, the similarities lend themselves to a hypothesis that an original Essene community had developed in the course of time by taking in men who wished to follow the Essene ascetic rule but retain characteristic doctrines of Sadducees and Pharisees (see Thiering's REDATING THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS [Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1979]).
The Mishmarot fragments supply good evidence for the integration of the lunar calendar of Pharisees and Sadducees with the Essene solar one, retaining the 364-day year as its basis. The addition of Pharisees and Sadducees would have brought some Essenes into a more active involvement with the world than had been the case with classical monastic Essenes.
In the second phase of the occupation of Qumran, in the first century CE, these, forming a coalition, may be seen to have taken over the buildings that had been defiled by the earthquake of 31 BCE and abandoned by strict monastics. In this period, the threat of the Roman occupation, which led to the militancy of such men as Judas the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee (Ant. 18:3-10), would have driven the coalition into an alliance with militants, using the renovated and fortified buildings as a military base. They now formed part of Josephus' "fourth philosophy." The finds of Qumran liturgical rules at Masada support this case.
Josephus reserved the term "Essene" for the strict monastics, who chose to continue their peaceful life secluded from the world in some place other than Qumran. But the name could also be used for the coalition, since their basic organisation and calendar were derived from Essenes. When Hippolytus (160-235 CE) describes the Essenes as zealots, he is referring to the coalition whose fervent nationalism led them into practices of forcible circumcision and avoidance of images (Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, ch. 21).
---
excerpted from B. Thiering, "The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer using Fixed Lengths of Hours," DEAD SEA DISCOVERIES, vol 9, 3 (2002), p. 356 http://www.brill.nl/product.asp?ID=7197
David Christainsen
Ian - 25 Nov 2007 15:07 GMT > > Summarise the content of that paper for us here, in your own words. > > ... No quoting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Can you do it?
> I invite you to walk patiently thru the "Christian Origins and > Archaeology" > Thread I started Dec. 10, 2006 on sci.arch with 94 messages and 11 > authors and pick up on my extracts from the 2002 Thiering article.
> excerpted from > B. Thiering, "The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer using Fixed Lengths > of Hours," DEAD SEA DISCOVERIES, vol 9, 3 (2002), p. 356http://www.brill.nl/product.asp?ID=7197 So that's a "No" then.
You repeatedly claim thatthis paper is important, and you cannot even summarise its arguments.
That says it all, really.
Ian
David - 25 Nov 2007 22:51 GMT > > > Summarise the content of that paper for us here, in your own words. > > > ... No quoting [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Actually, you show you did not read what I wrote and take it seriously.
Beyond that, you are free to go to an academic library that subscribes to "Dead Sea Discoveries" - either online or in the stacks.
It's on you; I wash my hands of further conversation with you until you show you are worthy.
David Christainsen
Peter Alaca - 25 Nov 2007 22:54 GMT "David" <pchristainsen@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:74556716-8c34-4db8-
> It's on you; I wash my hands of further conversation with you until > you show you are worthy. > > David Christainsen You never have any conversation with anyone
David - 26 Nov 2007 00:23 GMT > "David" <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You never have any conversation with anyone I have really, really great conversation with you and in the end you will thank me for being ever so gentle.
David Christainsen
Ian - 26 Nov 2007 17:36 GMT > Actually, you show you did not read what I wrote and take it > seriously. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's on you; I wash my hands of further conversation with you until > you show you are worthy. You missed the point, so I'll try again.
You have repeatedly described yourself as both an "authority" and a "teacher" of Thiering's work. So I am asking you to demonstrate a little of your authority and a small amount of teaching skill by presenting here a summary - in your own words - of one of Thiering's papers.
I'm prepared to broaden the challenge. It doesn't have to be the sundial paper - can you give us a summary, in your own words, of ANY of Thiering's published papers?
Ian
David - 26 Nov 2007 19:47 GMT > > Actually, you show you did not read what I wrote and take it > > seriously. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ian You don't get it. I have NOTHING to prove. However, you yourself have a lot to learn concerning Qumran archaeology, DSS scholarship, and Christian Origins. I am not saying you cannot do it if you put your mind to it because I have found you highly intelligent.
Moving on, please understand that my role is to defend Dr. Thiering's scholarship to the extent that her good name is restored worldwide AMONG SCHOLARS. Note carefully I did not say among NGers.
For starters, the scholarly issue is whether Dr. Thiering has the stronger argument to show convincingly that the Teacher of Righteousness arose in 26 AD. Integrity demands that scholars settle it one way or the other ASAP.
Bottom line - I have already shown that Dr. Thiering deployed formidable scholarship to support her Thesis.
David Christainsen
P.S. Take my advice and get yourself to an academic library.
Matt Giwer - 27 Nov 2007 01:06 GMT >>> Actually, you show you did not read what I wrote and take it >>> seriously. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> sundial paper - can you give us a summary, in your own words, of ANY >> of Thiering's published papers?
>> Ian
> You don't get it. I have NOTHING to prove. However, you yourself > have a lot to learn And he clearly asked you to teach him. Why can't you even try?
> concerning Qumran archaeology, DSS scholarship, > and Christian Origins. I am not saying you cannot do it if you put > your mind to it because I have found you highly intelligent.
> Moving on, please understand that my role is to defend > Dr. Thiering's scholarship to the extent that her good name > is restored worldwide AMONG SCHOLARS. Note > carefully I did not say among NGers. To REstore means there had to have been something to begin with but there was not.
> For starters, the scholarly issue is whether Dr. Thiering > has the stronger argument to show convincingly that > the Teacher of Righteousness arose in 26 AD. Integrity > demands that scholars settle it one way or the other ASAP. Have you not noticed no one gives a sh.t but you? It is a non-question. It is of no interest. No one gives a sh.t.
> Bottom line - I have already shown that Dr. Thiering > deployed formidable scholarship to support her Thesis. But you have not shown in any manner that you understand anything she has written and you are now passing up the opportunity to do so with a very lame cop-out.
Do you think she will return your love if you continue this way?
David - 27 Nov 2007 02:34 GMT > >>> Actually, you show you did not read what I wrote and take it > >>> seriously. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > And he clearly asked you to teach him. Why can't you even try? You know nothing of the relationsip between Ian and myself. Suffice it to say, I have my reasons.
> > concerning Qumran archaeology, DSS scholarship, > > and Christian Origins. I am not saying you cannot do it if you put [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > To REstore means there had to have been something to begin with but there was not. But, there was.
> > For starters, the scholarly issue is whether Dr. Thiering > > has the stronger argument to show convincingly that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Have you not noticed no one gives a sh.t but you? It is a non-question. It is > of no interest. No one gives a sh.t. I don't care; I have already done my job; soon I plan to be on Magens Beach in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands.
No internet for 6 nights.
> > Bottom line - I have already shown that Dr. Thiering > > deployed formidable scholarship to support her Thesis. > > But you have not shown in any manner that you understand anything she has > written and you are now passing up the opportunity to do so with a very lame > cop-out. Tell your dumb story to the gullible.
> Do you think she will return your love if you continue this way?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - She never loved me; she was very strict on scholarship.
David Christainsen
Matt Giwer - 27 Nov 2007 22:55 GMT ...
>> Do you think she will return your love if you continue this way?
> She never loved me; she was very strict on scholarship. And that is what pisses you off.
If I were wrong you would have phrased it differently. You telegraph your perverted feelings.
Ian - 27 Nov 2007 16:24 GMT > > I'm prepared to broaden the challenge. It doesn't have to be the > > sundial paper - can you give us a summary, in your own words, of ANY > > of Thiering's published papers?
> You don't get it. I have NOTHING to prove. O yes you do, David, O yes you do. You have repeatedly claimed to be an authority on Thiering's work, and your clear refusal to summarize even one of her papers here speaks volumes. You don't understand it, do you?
> However, you yourself > have a lot to learn concerning Qumran archaeology, DSS scholarship, > and Christian Origins. I am not saying you cannot do it if you put > your mind to it because I have found you highly intelligent. I am indeed very intelligent and, in a very, very narrow area, extremely well qualified. Part of academic development is knowing one's limitations, and I would not have the presumption to imagine that I could undertake a credible evaluation of Thiering's work without substantial knowledge of relevant subjects.
> Moving on, please understand that my role is to defend > Dr. Thiering's scholarship to the extent that her good name > is restored worldwide AMONG SCHOLARS. Note > carefully I did not say among NGers. If Dr Thiering, who has a respectable academic background, has failed to impress other scholars, what effect can you hope to have?
Have you any evidence that you are having any success? You're making her name a laughing stock on Usenet - is it going any better in the real world?
> Bottom line - I have already shown that Dr. Thiering > deployed formidable scholarship to support her Thesis. It's sadly clear that you don't understand her work. You are therefore, as ever, incompetent to demonstrate /anything/.
Ian
David - 27 Nov 2007 16:57 GMT > > > I'm prepared to broaden the challenge. It doesn't have to be the > > > sundial paper - can you give us a summary, in your own words, of ANY [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If Dr Thiering, who has a respectable academic background, has failed > to impress other scholars, what effect can you hope to have? I got your attention, did I not? When I get back from my vacation, the next step is to drive the scholarly evidence home upon Tom McDonald of sci.arch concerning Dr. Thiering. I don't really care about Dr. Eisenman although he deserves some, measured credit.
> Have you any evidence that you are having any success? You're making > her name a laughing stock on Usenet - is it going any better in the > real world? You are the one who has made a fool of himself SO FAR. You could change were you to start studying my previously-given Thiering article links while I am gone.
> > Bottom line - I have already shown that Dr. Thiering > > deployed formidable scholarship to support her Thesis. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ian As ever, you have been UNQUALIFIED to judge.
David Christainsen
Ian - 27 Nov 2007 23:42 GMT > > If Dr Thiering, who has a respectable academic background, has failed > > to impress other scholars, what effect can you hope to have? > > I got your attention, did I not? Well yes, but in a car-crashy, ooh-look-a-loony sort of way. You certainly haven't impressed with scholarship, since you have displayed none. Not being able to precis a single one of Thiering's papers really is a bit telling, you know.
> When I get back from my vacation, the > next step is to drive the scholarly evidence home upon Tom McDonald > of sci.arch concerning Dr. Thiering. That's not going to be easy, you know, since you clearly don't understand it.
> > It's sadly clear that you don't understand her work. You are > > therefore, as ever, incompetent to demonstrate /anything/.
> As ever, you have been UNQUALIFIED to judge. I am completely unqualified to judge her work, yes indeedy. But then I have made no secret of that. However ...
You have repeatedly and on your honour promised to answer questions and then refused to do so. I am certainly qualified to judge your scholarship on that basis.
You have now repeatedly refused to summarise a single one of Thiering's published papers. I am certainly qualified to judge your scholarship on that basis.
Ian
|
|
|