History Forum / General / Ancient History / July 2008

On Jul 9, 7:07 pm, "TomP" <th_o_m_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You do not show that you understand the "old"
evidence.  Sooner or later, the Thiering evidence,
new and/or old, will penetrate into the NGs.  It will
either be refuted or instead established.

Tom P replied:
Have you noticed that no one who fails to completely apply Pesher theory as
the sole history of Christian origin "understands" Pesher theory?

As much as any theory of Christian origins, Pesher theory has been refuted
by all of three generations of scholarship since the discovery of the Dead
Sea Scrolls with the sole exception of Barbara Thiering.  News groups are
hardly an accurate gauge of truth, thus are all but irrelevant.

You have drawn some false conclusions although I
give you credit for being more knowledgeable than
most.

Tom P replied:
Again, I find Pesher theory an unsatisfactory and probably false theory
concerning Christian origins.

VanderKam, Flint, and Vermes have absolutely
NO IDEA how her pesher works although they
are aware of the bulk of her conclusions.

Tom P replied:
Again, these scholars who are at least as well qualified as Thiering to
interpret the evidence disagree with her conclusions.  And as I wrote
before, no one who disagrees with Thiering's idiosyncratic notions of
Christian origins ever have any idea of how Pesher theory works, at least
according to you.

On the Rodley/Thiering paper it is your responsibility
to spell out how she was grasping at straws since
you make the charge.  BTW Stephen Goranson
came on my Christian Origins Yahoo Forum and
made the charge of "special pleading" on old
skins.  He was unable to back it up while Dr.
Thiering took account of all the data (carbondating,
paleography, DSS contents) to make the
comprehensive case to put DSS ToR and WP
in 1st century AD, thereby establishing the
possibility of Christian connections.

Tom P replied:
As long as we accept that conflicts between the Teacher of Righteousness and
the Wicked Priest and the Roman occupation all occurred before 2 BCE, which
must mean that Jesus and John were exceedingly precocious toddlers and the
Roman conquest by Pompey is the one conquest referred to in 1QpHab.  Or we
accept the absurdly improbable notion that a quantity of expensive parchment
was permitted to lay about unused for anywhere from 31 to 169 years and only
then the commentary on Habakkuk was written on it. Is that really the theory
you wish to hang your hat on?

We have discussed this before.  You know as well as I do that the
recalibration of the carbon curve by Stuiver in 1998 that led to her 1999
"Radiocarbon" paper made insignificant changes to the calibrated one sigma
AMS dates.  For example, Thiering wrote on page 170 of the Rodley and
Thiering 1999 article that "The most significant change is to the more
recent extreme of the 1 sigma range for a key document, 1QpHab."  The one
sigma date range moved from 104-43 BCE to 88-2 BCE (See Thiering's chart on
the same page.)  So this "most significant change" moved the
possible dates for the Teacher of Righteousness and Wicked Priest into the
infancy of Jesus and John the Baptist, thus closer to the first century.
But not quite close enough unless John the Baptist and Jesus were
extraordinarily precocious, talented, and busy as infants and toddlers.
Even more destructive to Pesher theory is the fact that Thiering claims that
the Roman occupation of 6 CE was the period alluded to in 1QpHab and
4QpPs[a].  And 2 BCE is still eight years before the events claimed by
Thiering.

Now look, David, the radiocarbon dates can only indicate either that Jesus
functioned and spoke as the Wicked Priest while an infant or
Jesus was not the Wicked Priest or the author of 1QpHab merely
prophesied the events described by these events and words.  Those are
the only three possible conclusions.  And the third doesn't work because
Thiering herself wrote that, "He (the Teacher of Righteousness) is spoken of
as a past figure who had been defeated by his rivals, so it (1QpHab) was
composed after 4QpPs[a]" (page 174).  The 1995 and 1998 date ranges of
4QpPs[a]
are 22-78 CE and 29-81 CE, and the date ranges of 1QpHab are 104-43 BCE and
88-2 BCE.  And of course we have only Thiering's word that 1QpHab was
written after 4QpPs[a].  So Thiering flatly dismisses the radiocarbon
datings.  As she must, for they wreck Pesher theory.

Either the radiocarbon dating is accurate or it is not.  And Thiering wants
it both ways.  Obviously, 4QpPs[a] must have been written after 1QpHab to
sustain Pesher theory.  The problem is that the radiocarbon dating analyses
using both the 1986 and 1998 calibration curves indicates that 1QpHab is at
least 24 years older than 4QpPs[a].  So how did Thiering react to this
evidence?  Well, Thiering accepted the accuracy of the 1sigma AMS date range
of 4QpPs[a] and rejected the accuracy of the 1 sigma AMS date range of
1QpHab. And then, since the radiocarbon dates of 4QpPs[a] and 1QpHab
effectively disproves Pesher theory, Thiering came up with two quibbles.

Her first quibble concerned the handwriting of 1QpHab, which she claims all
but falsifies the radiocarbon dating results using both the 1986 and 1998
calibration curves.  And then she calls her arguments "facts."  (See the
paragraph second from the bottom of page 174 of "Radiocarbon," Vol. 41, No.
2.)  And then for her second quibble she embarks on a rather silly thus
easily dismissed conjecture concerning the use of old material based upon a
single comment in Josephus and concludes from this that the parchment
containing 1QpHab laid about unused for up to 169 years (88 BCE-81 CE) after
the date the animal was slaughtered.  Even the minimum time frame is from 2
BCE until 29 CE (See the last paragraph on page 174 and page 175 of
"Radiocarbon," Vol. 41, No. 2.).  Yes, it is possible that a piece of
parchment laid about unused for 169 to 31 years before it was written on by
the scribe who composed 1QpHab.  Just as it is possible that little blue
aliens capture human beings and examine these earthlings with rectal probes.
Anything is possible.  But back to the plane of reality, it is absurdly
unlikely that a product as expensive as parchment was permitted to lay about
for 31 years much less 169 years.  Thiering's is an absurdly improbable thus
painfully weak argument here.  And it is because Pesher theory rests on such
implausible arguments that Pesher theory is so universally dismissed.

Central to Thiering's interpretation is that the latest possible radiocarbon
date of 1QpHab and the earliest possible date of 4Q171 are the truest dates
of both scrolls.  Unfortunately, there is no better probability those dates
are closer or closest to the dates of the actual deaths of the animals from
which the parchments were obtained than the earliest possible radiocarbon
date of 1QpHab (88 BCE) and the latest possible radiocarbon date of 4Q171
(81 CE).  The only true statements yielded from the radiocarbon dating of
1QpHab and 4Q171 are that the animal whose skin was processed into parchment
for 1QpHab died between 88 and 2 BCE and the animal whose skin was processed
into parchment for 4Q171 died between 29 and 81 CE.  And every date within
those ranges is just as probable as any other.  And that means there is an
equal probability the material these two scrolls were manufactured from
could have died 169 years apart.  And that pretty much demolishes Pesher
theory. So Thiering's insistence that radiocarbon dating does not demolish
Pesher theory relies upon only the closest dates is just as contrary to the
physical evidence as her insistence that 1QpHab was written before 4Q171.

And keep in mind that these radiocarbon date ranges of both documents that
are the core of Pesher theory were established at the same laboratory at the
same time by the same physicists using identical methods and the same
equipment, and all of the analyses were peer reviewed before publication.
Either both sets of 1 sigma AMS date ranges are accurate within the stated
parameters of probability or they are not.  Thiering must as she did confirm
the accuracy of one while simultaneously questioning the accuracy of the
other.  And yes, David, I have read Doudna's articles both in Volume One of
"The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years" pages 430-471; Rasmussen, Doudna,
et. al. in "Radiocarbon" Vol 43, No. 1, pages 127-132; as well as Dr.
Carmi's reply in "Radiocarbon" Vol 44, No. 1, pages 213-216.  So I am aware
of the "controversy" concerning possible castor oil contamination of
4QpPs[a].  But the radiocarbon dated sample of 4QpPs[a] was taken from the
rather extensive margin which had not been written on.  As also was the
sample from 4QpHab taken from an unwritten upon margin.  Why don't you tell
your readers the significance of castor oil and how it was used in the
1950's concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Recall that Barbara Thiering has no training in any method of
radiocarbondating or any science, and had to find a qualified co-author to
publish her objections in "Radiocarbon," didn't she, David?

So before you hang your hat on castor oil contamination, you should answer
the following question.  Was castor oil used in the margins or were any of
the Dead Sea Scrolls immersed in castor oil, David?

Is there any evidence that 4QpHab was contaminated in any way by castor oil,
David?  (You might review the chart and notes on page 214 of "Radiocarbon"
Vol. 44, No. 1, before you reply.)

What the reader must note is that the 1sigma AMS date range of  4Q171 (which
Thiering refers to as 4QpPs[a]) using both the 1986 and 1998 Stuiver
calibration curves supports Thiering's Pesher theory, especially the notion
that the Teacher of Righteousness was alive and opposing the Wicked Priest
during the first century CE.

While the reader also must understand that the 1 sigma AMS date range of
1QpHab using the 1986 calibration curve effectively falsifies Pesher theory
because 1QpHab is at least twenty years older than 4Q171.

And the 1 sigma AMS date range of 1QpHab using the 1998 calibration curve
means that all of the words and deeds spoken and done by the Teacher of
Righteousness and Wicked Priest reported by the author of 1QpHab had to have
occurred before 2 BCE. Which can only mean that the infant Jesus was one
helluva baby to have done and spoken all of the deeds and words attributed
to the Wicked Priest before the age of six, which presumes Jesus was born
between eight BCE and 2 BCE.  If one accepts the accuracy of both
radiocarbon date ranges, Pesher theory is damaged and possibly outright
falsified.

And yes, David, I know that 1 sigma AMS date ranges are only 68%
probable.  So another date outside of that curve can be the actual date a
manuscript was written, or more properly the date range the animal died
whose skin was processed into parchment.  Radiocarbon dating especially at 1
sigma is a matter of probability, not certainty. Nevertheless, accepting one
date range as true while considering the another false when the date ranges
were done by the same physicists at the same time at the same lab using the
same methods on the same equipment on unidentified (to the physicists)
samples smacks of way too much convenience.

All the above material is on her official website.

Tom P replied:
Yes, I know that.  But the appearance on Thiering's "official website" is
emphatically not a guarantee of accuracy or truth.  While your use of the
adjective "official" may seem to you to enhance yours and Thiering's
credibility thus asserting authority, it's use is truly irrelevant and makes
you and Thiering appear officious and overbearing.

Many scholars have already lost their repute
after opposing Dr. Thiering unreasonably.

Tom P replied:
Name two.  And then explain how exactly they "lost their repute."

Are you declaring that Vermes, VanderKam, Flint, and the many other
published critics of Pesher theory were unreasonable in their criticism?

And then explain how and why Thiering's published critics have prospered
after criticizing or dismissing Pesher theory indicated by their continued
publishing, teaching, and research.

And your reply failed to address my assertion that "her method is literally
and uniquely idiosyncratic and no one of any repute has supported her."
Care to try again by responding directly to the question that was asked?

What you say is true and it is a worldwide scandal
for the scholarly world with the public told one untruth
after another for decades.

For your benefit I will tell you directly the heart of the
problem - not only do Vermes and VanderKam not
understand how her pesher works but also they have
NO IDEA of her extensive calendar work from the DSS
and her finding its signs in the NT.  Specifically, Vermes
and VanderKam NEVER studied her 1981 paper -

"The Three and a Half Years of Elijah", Novum
Testamentum 23,1, 1981, pp.41-55.

Tom P replied:
Where did Vermes and VanderKam write that they had never read Thiering's
work on calendars?

Answer:  They did not.

Or did one or both communicate such informaton to you personally verbally or
in writing?

Answer:  Wildly improbable.

Or do you presume that since Vermes and VanderKam dismiss Pesher theory that
they have never studied it?

Answer:  Highly probable.

Did I answer those question correctly?  Care to comment, David?

Technically incorrect; you are wrong on this point.

There is no mistranslation on Dr. Thiering's part.

Or shall I say prove it?

Tom P replied:

You, David, wrote on July 5th, "The genuine original sayings of Jesus are
found in John's gospel . . ."  Since there is no surviving manuscript of
John's gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic or Syriac dated before the 5th century,
Thiering must have translated the Greek text into Hebrew or Aramaic.  There
is no other way to establish "The genuine original sayings of Jesus."
Unless you establish that Jesus preached in Greek to Aramaic speaking
audiences.  Is that what you or Thiering are trying to establish?

In any case, translating Greek into Hebrew or Aramaic and calling such a
translation "The genuine original sayings of Jesus . . ."  is quite a leap
of imagination.  And laughable historical method.

And you and Thiering must deal with problem of the Jesus Seminar, of which
Thiering was a member.  You and Thiering claim that "The genuine original
sayings of Jesus are found in John's gospel . . ." yet the Jesus Seminar of
which Thiering was a member dismissed the Gospel of John as containing any
of the genuine words of Jesus.  How do you explain this?

Is this yet another case that nobody in the world has truly studied the
Gospel of John as Thiering did?

Is this yet another case that all the experts are ignorant of the Gospel of
John and only Thiering understands it?

If you care to dismiss the Jesus Seminar as a bunch of liberal kooks, feel
free.  But many of the members are just as well if not better professionally
qualified as Thiering to pass judgment on the historicity of John's Gospel.

False.  I have examined what they have written
and they do not understand how her pesher works.

Tom P replied:
What part is "False"?  There is indisputable evidence that Vermes and
VanderKam have reviewed Pesher theory.  And certainly Geza Vermes and James
VanderKam are at least as professionally qualified as Barbara Thiering.
Both have cited and reviewed her work, indicating they have read her
publications.

No, I am not saying that here.

Tom P replied:
Then I ask directly.  Does any expert in the Dead Sea Scrolls or Christian
origins support Pesher theory?

No.

Tom P replied:
After more than one quarter of a century Pesher theory is almost universally
ignored or dismissed.  That absence of support surely has meaning.

No.

Tom P replied:
Yes.  In reconstructing past events, one method breaks all contributing
factors into three categories, remote condition, condition, and operational
factors.  And if any one factor can be removed from the equation without
effecting the outcome, that factor did not contribute to the events.
Christian origins can be reconstructed from the set of known factors.
Pesher theory adds not a single contributing factor.  None of the gaps in
current knowledge of the intertestamental period are filled or completed by
Pesher theory.  Raymond Brown's theories concerning the authorship,
circumstances, and dating of John's gospel fit the evidence of the known
historical narrative, fill most of the gaps quite nicely, and does not rely
upon the discovery of secret codes and conspiracy theories.  The same is
true of Crossan's and Sanders' and Ehrman's and Borg's and Wright's and
Vermes' and Johnson's.  And the same is true for the theories of a whole
bunch of other scholars.

You are unaware of F F Bruce and how he found
pesher-like language in NT Hebrews.

Tom P replied:
You should not presume to know what people are or are not aware of based
upon what they do not write.  Does this look familiar, David?  "It is worth
mentioning here that striking affinities of thought and language have been
recognised between this Gospel and the Qumran texts. These affinities must
not be exaggerated; the Qumran literature com[es] nowhere near presenting us
with such a figure as the Jesus of this Gospel. Yet the texts provide
additional evidence for the basically Hebraic character of this Gospel. They
appear especially in the phraseology which opposes light to darkness, truth
to error, and so forth; and also in certain forms of messianic expectation
which find expression both in the fourth Gospel and at Qumran."  Where do
you think I copied that from, David?

I am aware that Bruce dates the Gospel of John to "c. 90-100."  Didn't he?

And neither quotes is "pesher-like," are they?

Like I wrote before, David, "Not one of whom [Dr. Thiering's predecessors -
Albright, Jaubert, Bruce, Beckwith, Barker etc.] supports Pesher theory.
Please do not imply that they did or do unless you are prepared to quote and
cite them."  I stand by my assessment. And you cannot refute it.  Please
withdraw your implication that "Dr. Thiering's predecessors - Albright,
Jaubert, Bruce, Beckwith, Barker etc." support Thiering's Pesher theory
because they did not and do not.