Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

...
So that's my thinking here: this is a line with two puns layered on it.
One about trembling and drunkenness, and one about trembling foreskin and uncircumcised shame.



This would explain why the Masoretic shows more leaning to the circumcision angle, while the Septuagint shows leaning more towards the trembling idea.

The Hebrew's would care more about the circumcision, while the receiving Hellenistic cultures would care more about the trembling idea.

I believe both were at once intended in typical Hebrew scribe tradition of double-word play.

This would also explain why they used a rare form of the word for quiver/shake in this line but not in verse 7; it aided the "joke"/riddle.

So, it looks to me like you agree with Eisenman. He talks a lot about this layered meaning and wordplay.

The stuff I mentioned earlier about the "cup of wrath" has to do with a pun of the words "Chos" meaning "cup" and "Cha-as" meaning "rage", or something.

Also lots of Baal/Ballo/Ballos associations to do with being consumed or swallowed by the Devil.

He also says that this imagery is carried through into the tradition preserved in the Book of Revelation. (Did I phrase that right?) He says it might be possible to identify "The Beast with Ten Horns" upon whose head was the name "Blasphemy" as Paul.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 13&version=NIV

...
It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”

5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world....

Is this going a bit too far in your opinion?

ETA: (bold): Is he accusing someone of brain damage?

 

[JaysonR]

I don't know about the Revelation bit, I'll have to look at that tomorrow.

Regarding Eisenman; I don't think I actually agree with him.

He's saying that Q1HBK had some Greek copies similar to the Septuagint which influenced their copy.

I would argue, instead, that what we see in the Q1HBK indicates there was a pre-Masoretic version of HBK that influenced both the Masoretic and the Septuagint.

So, Eisenman holds:

Septuagint -| 
            |--> Pesher HBK
Masoretic  -|

Where as I would argue:

               |--> Septuagint
HebrewText X --|--> Pesher HBK
               |--> Masoretic

And I would further argue that the Pesher HBK is closer to the Hebrew Text X than the Masoretic and Septuagint.


The reason I hold this is because the Septuagint clearly thought the word was tremble, yet the Masoretic is clearly uncircumcised.
I strongly doubt the Septuagint would make such a mistake as to flip the spelling when translating if their copy had the Masoretic spelling, but I can easily see the Masoretic scribes flipping the spelling by assuming that the spelling had been a typo.

Meanwhile, the intended "typo" had been preserved in the Pesher HBK copy.

 

[Brainache]

I don't know about the Revelation bit, I'll have to look at that tomorrow.

Regarding Eisenman; I don't think I actually agree with him.

He's saying that Q1HBK had some Greek copies similar to the Septuagint which influenced their copy.

I would argue, instead, that what we see in the Q1HBK indicates there was a pre-Masoretic version of HBK that influenced both the Masoretic and the Septuagint.

So, Eisenman holds:

Septuagint -| 
            |--> Pesher HBK
Masoretic  -|

Where as I would argue:

               |--> Septuagint
HebrewText X --|--> Pesher HBK
               |--> Masoretic

And I would further argue that the Pesher HBK is closer to the Hebrew Text X than the Masoretic and Septuagint.

OK. That makes sense.

So where does 2 Thessalonians come in?

Why are the Early Christians excited about the same OT texts as the Qumran Community, if they aren't related?

Are they applying these texts to the same events?

Is the later one a retelling of the earlier one, but a misunderstanding?

Like they assumed the events were still in the future, but the original described the death of the wicked priest at the start of the revolt?

Anyway, these questions are more like me just musing, please don't feel obliged to answer any of them if you don't want to.

Cheers.

 

[JaysonR]

OK...this is something that I want to properly outline in more detail, but I think I have a decent explanation for all of this mix-mash that Eisenman is getting attracted to for making a clean-line link.

In preview for the more detailed post to come on this, basically 2TH screams of Asia Minor (the Danielic Christian fan-group who can be traced to John, long-form Mark [probably], and Revelation).

Geography is key here to visually keep in mind (which is why I'll make a map and full details tomorrow [hopefully]).

Basically, Eisenman seems to think in a linear fashion of one thing directly linking to another.

I'm more familiar with thinking more fluidly in traditions as if you look at anthropology long enough, you see that pattern regularly; like a bunch of chemicals swishing around and over time trading off with each other in little bits.

So with that in mind, think of the Judean area as zero point for chemical A explosion outward.
Think of Asia Minor as Chemical D sitting up there swishing around in its own bath.

Think of chemical A heading north and south; we'll focus on north expansionism of the chemical.

It hits a couple other chemicals along the way (such as Antioch and Galatia).
When the residual impact of chemical A hits Asia Minor, it has hit a hard coastline, so it rebounds back some.

But in rebounding back down to Galatia and Antioch on its way to Judea, it comes with chemical D residue mixed in.

It never really hits Judea because the force of it is spent mixing with the other chemicals in between.

So what do you end up with?
You end up with some stuff in Judea looking like some things in Asia Minor, but the stuff in Asia Minor being oddly different and unique in its own right.
Meanwhile, the stuff in the middle seems to queerly have mixes of both scattered about them.

And this, so far as I've seen, is what we do see.

 

[Craig B]

I've had my coffee now, I've calmed down slightly.

Only very slightly, if at all.

At this point in the debate, I can't see how anyone can honestly argue that these DSS Pesharim refer to events other than what happened in the 1st century CE ... I can only think that people who reject this idea, do so on the basis of some kind of bias ... If the Catholic Heirarchy are willing to cover-up the rape of children to preserve the Church, fudging a few Academic papers is nothing.

To go on like that, particularly after the intemperate language of your previous post

I don't really want to get into it here other than to say, in what I think is the mildest terms possible: They were dirty stinkin lying liars for Jesus. The usual story, the evidence contradicted their fairy-tale, so they tried to make it go away. Eisenman busted them.

simply because people, with good reason disagree with Eisenman, adds nothing to the substance of the debate, and may even have the effect of dissuading readers from participating in this discussion.

 

[Brainache]

Only very slightly, if at all. To go on like that, particularly after the intemperate language of your previous postsimply because people, with good reason disagree with Eisenman, adds nothing to the substance of the debate, and may even have the effect of dissuading readers from participating in this discussion.

Sorry Craig, I didn't realise you were so touchy about this stuff. Given some of the things I've seen people call Eisenman, I didn't think it was too bad.

There hasn't actually been many readers participating in this discussion anyway, in case you hadn't noticed. It's just You, Jayson, and dejudge at the moment, and I'm not sure if we can count dejudge as participating in the discussion.

You keep telling me off for joking around, it's starting to get annoying. If you don't like my style, stop reading. Simple.

You can read this thing I posted earlier for a non-jokey version of events, if you like:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/james-the-just-as-righteo_b_4133599.html

...
To criticize these "results" would take an excursus in itself. I started this process in James the Brother of Jesus (Viking/Penguin/Faber&Faber, 1997-98) and The New Testament Code (Watkins/Sterling/Barnes&Noble, 2006) by pointing up the multiple inaccuracies involved in such testing including: 1) the inherent imprecision of using dendrochronology as a control (tree-ring analysis, on which most attempts at "absolute chronology" were based); 2) the lack of any really firmly-attested paleographic "pegs" (as they were called, i. e., manuscripts, the date of which was considered known - and this, by the way, usually through "Internal Data"!) between approximately 225 BC and 115 CE, consdiered to be the basic possible timespan for the composition of the Scrolls; 3) the impurities introduced by cleansings and other procedures, particularly where oft-consulted documents like the Habakkuk Pesher (probably the most important document chronologically-speaking, as I had explained to Mr. Doudna, which is why he probably ended up tested it more than once) were at issue.

Nor is this to say anything of problems introduced by the inks scribes were using or the inability to tell when a given skin or plant (from which a certain parchment or papyrus was produced) was actually utilized; or even whether it could be with any precision determined when it had was killed or stopped growing. All of these issues probably also added to the well-known tendency of radiocarbon tests generally to archaize. But even more important than any of these, in my view, was that the analysis of the tests - whatever the pretensions of a given lab or the various investigators involved - did involve "interpretation" - "interpretation" based on their abilities, the background data they were using, and their own preconceptions. This is a very important point....

 

[Brainache]

OK...this is something that I want to properly outline in more detail, but I think I have a decent explanation for all of this mix-mash that Eisenman is getting attracted to for making a clean-line link.

...

And this, so far as I've seen, is what we do see.

OK. It's possible again that I have overstated the case.

 

[Brainache]

Actually, I'm really happy that you brought this line up Brainache!
I've had a great time laughing at this humor; the more I think about it, the more I find it funny.

We're basically looking at a 1st c BCE to 1st c CE penis insult joke, lol.

Even "upon your honor" is a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the individual's penis.

The English is just so much more boring, lol!

I missed this earlier.

So, at least it wasn't a total waste of time. What I thought was a slam-dunk killer argument for the Xtian-Qumran link turned out to be a 2000 year-old dick joke.

That's hilarious.

I've always been a big fan of Jewish humour...

Only very slightly, if at all. To go on like that, particularly after the intemperate language of your previous postsimply because people, with good reason disagree with Eisenman, adds nothing to the substance of the debate, and may even have the effect of dissuading readers from participating in this discussion.

Here is another non-jokey link for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html

...It has been my position from the beginning of my work (the 70's), in a situation of the kind represented by the materials and discoveries at Qumran, when there is a contradiction between the results of techniques such as these and 'the Internal Data' - meaning, what the documents themselves say which is what my books generally focus on - then 'the internal data' must take precedence, given the quality, imprecision, and kind of 'the external data' that exists for Qumran.

While many might be familiar with the latter - what, for instance, might be considered 'internal data' where the Scrolls are concerned? Unfortunately, the outside observer must actually read the documents themselves to grasp this - which first of all are not easy for the non-specialist (to say nothing of for the 'specialist') to know these. Primarily these consist of the most important allusions at Qumran (a term 'scholars' generally use when referring to the Scrolls). These include references such as 'making a Straight Way in the wilderness,' alluded to twice in the document called "The Community Rule" at Qumran and one of the first douments found there in Cave I; and, as is generally well known, associated with the teaching and coming of John the Baptist 'in the wilderness' in the Synoptic Gospels (that is Matthew, Mark, and luke - but not John)...

It might also interest you Jayson. He gets into some details there.

 

[Brainache]

Hi Jayson, I thought I'd make a separate post for this quote from Eisenman's blog because it bears on our discussion about the Habakkuk Pesher:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html

...
Then there is the wide use of 'Zealot' and 'Nazirite' terminology (in the sense of 'Nazoraean' or 'Nazrene'), designations known to the First Century, but not clearly attested to in any consistent manner earlier. Related to these is 'the Poor' (in early Church literature, 'the Ebionites'), the only really clearly identifiable term of self-designation in the Dead Sea Scrolls - a denominative also designating the followers of James par excellence and the group succeeding or basically coeval with 'the Essenes.' In a controversial reference in the Habakkuk Pesher - a Document which, together with what is called the Psalm 37 Pesher, definitively denotes the followers of 'the Righteous Teacher' as 'the Poor,' that is, we are definitely in the realm both of 'the Ebionites' and of 'Ebionite' literature - not only would both of these be 'destroyed' or 'swallowed' by 'the Wicked Priest'; but, in turn, he would be made to 'drink the Cup of the Wrath of God' and 'paid the Reward which he paid the Poor' (i.e., 'the Ebionim')! Here 'the Cup of the Lord' relates to 'Divine Vengeance' which is, once again, also the sense of parallel allusions in the New Testament Book of Revelation.

Again there is an allusion to the same theme in the Psalm 37 Pesher and, as opposed to the superficial analyses early on in Qumran Studies, the allusion has nothing whatever to do with the 'drunkenness' of the Wicked Priest or consonantly any 'banquet' or 'dinner party' he might have been attending, except metaphorically (this, I explain, ad nauseum in all my books). On the contrary, as in Revelation 14:8-10 and 16:19, 'drinking his fill' of such a 'Cup' has to do with 'drinking his fill of the Cup of the Wrath of God' or 'the Divine Vengeance' which 'would be visited upon' or 'paid' the murderer of the Righteous Teacher for what he ('the Wicked Priest') did to him ('the Righteous Teacher') and his followers among 'the Poor.' The attestation of this usage in Revelation, not to mention the allusion to 'the Poor' connected in some manner with James in Galatians 2:10, again, should be seen as chronologically definitive 'internal data' no matter what the 'external' one chooses to evoke...

 

[Craig B]

Sorry Craig, I didn't realise you were so touchy about this stuff. Given some of the things I've seen people call Eisenman, I didn't think it was too bad.

I'm not touchy at all, and I'm very happy to look at any argument as you know. But if we pass from argument to vituperation, then all I said was that this

adds nothing to the substance of the debate, and may even have the effect of dissuading readers from participating in this discussion.

I don't think that expression is very severe. In fact I see that you would like more people to participate.

 

[Brainache]

I'm not touchy at all, and I'm very happy to look at any argument as you know. But if we pass from argument to vituperation, then all I said was that this I don't think that expression is very severe. In fact I see that you would like more people to participate.

OK. Sorry.

Anyway, did you read those blog entries?

Did that answer the question?

 

[pakeha]

I'm not the one dating them. People like Eisenman and Robert M Price are the guys dating these things. I'm just agreeing with them. ...

Hang on, Brainache.
Price was simply saying that Eisenman's logic would lead to that conclusion about the dating, not that he himself had done dating of the DD and come up with the same results.

Speaking of whom:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/james-the-just-as-righteo_b_4133599.html
Read on, if you are interested in Eisenman's side of the story.

Thanks for the link!
Yes, I read it, after having read JaysonR posts.
Why is the one's writing so clear and the other's so muddy?

Actually, I'm really happy that you brought this line up Brainache!
I've had a great time laughing at this humor; the more I think about it, the more I find it funny.

We're basically looking at a 1st c BCE to 1st c CE penis insult joke, lol.

Even "upon your honor" is a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the individual's penis.

The English is just so much more boring, lol!

Thanks for sharing your journey into the heart of dickdom, JaysonR.
It was a delight to read thus far and I'm looking forward to reading how your argument continues.

 

[Brainache]

Hang on, Brainache.
Price was simply saying that Eisenman's logic would lead to that conclusion about the dating, not that he himself had done dating of the DD and come up with the same results.

I read it as him agreeing with Eisenman's dating.

Thanks for the link!
Yes, I read it, after having read JaysonR posts.
Why is the one's writing so clear and the other's so muddy?
...

I'm not sure I get what you mean.

Are you saying Eisenman is unclear to you?

 

[pakeha]

Are you saying Eisenman is unclear to you?

Not at all, Brainache.
I think Eisenman is very easy to fathom.
If anything, his kvetching about how badly he's been treated over the dating of the DSS* reminds me of a mix of Nabokov's Humber Humbert and the protagonist of Eco's Foucault's Pendulum

But hey!
I appreciate many thinkers who aren't universally admired at the JREF and I'm glad to read everything you care to link to.
These glimpses into Academe's infighting are endlessly fascinating to me.



*Admit it, the references to Mr. Doudna are purest comedy gold

Be these things as they may - to go back to Mr. Doudna (then an unknown graduate student), whom I invited to stay at my house in California to save him expenses as, so much did he want to appear on the NOVA Program, he paid his own way out. To pass the time the night before we were to film at The Huntington, I shared my concerns with him over the way the AMS Carbon test "results" (which had just come out and been published by The Biblical Archaeology Review) were being presented and 'the Pandora's Box' I had opened.

Not only did I acquaint him with the subject in general, which he admitted at the time to knowing next to nothing about (but which thereafter became almost his principal preoccupation and, concerning which, he was eventually 'co-opted' by "Network" or "Consensus' Scholars" as worldwide "expert' - though here too without a word of acknowledgement of how he came to be involved in or know anything about this subject in the first place); I meticulously explained to him the over-inflated claims for accuracy being made by the paleographers along with the de-emphasis of the margin-of-errors in the AMS Carbon Test "results" (which had just been done) by "Consensus Scholars". Of course, this included my dissatisfaction with the way these same "results" were being seized upon to attack Prof. Davies and myself, even though we were the ones who had originally and "officially" requested these tests in the first place.

Since I thought a letter from myself to The Biblical Archaeology Review expressing such dissatisfaction would just appear self-serving; I suggested that, as a relative unknown and an outsider, as it were, he might write just such a letter outlining these points about the shortcomings of the tests, the manner in which they were done, and how they were being used to attack "Opposition Scholars" who were the very ones who had proposed them in the first place - to say nothing of their questionable attempts to press "absolute dates" out of "relative" ones.

Apparently I did this only too well because, by all reports, upon returning to Ithaca he became totally absorbed in the subject, so much so that he was eventually let go from his studies at Cornell. From my perspective, it was becoming clear to me that he had come to understand the tremendous possibilities inherent in the subject; because, instead of writing the letter to the Biblical Archaeology Review I had initially suggested and outlined for him, he rather wrote one proposing he pay for a new round of carbon testing and run them himself (and he being supposedly poor!). For my part, I was utterly stunned by this - all the more so, since I had explained to him what the key documents were that needed testing.

 

[Brainache]

Not at all, Brainache.
I think Eisenman is very easy to fathom.
If anything, his kvetching about how badly he's been treated over the dating of the DSS* reminds me of a mix of Nabokov's Humber Humbert and the protagonist of Eco's Foucault's Pendulum

But hey!
I appreciate many thinkers who aren't universally admired at the JREF and I'm glad to read everything you care to link to.
These glimpses into Academe's infighting are endlessly fascinating to me.



*Admit it, the references to Mr. Doudna are purest comedy gold

Be these things as they may - to go back to Mr. Doudna (then an unknown graduate student), whom I invited to stay at my house in California to save him expenses as, so much did he want to appear on the NOVA Program, he paid his own way out. To pass the time the night before we were to film at The Huntington, I shared my concerns with him over the way the AMS Carbon test "results" (which had just come out and been published by The Biblical Archaeology Review) were being presented and 'the Pandora's Box' I had opened.

Not only did I acquaint him with the subject in general, which he admitted at the time to knowing next to nothing about (but which thereafter became almost his principal preoccupation and, concerning which, he was eventually 'co-opted' by "Network" or "Consensus' Scholars" as worldwide "expert' - though here too without a word of acknowledgement of how he came to be involved in or know anything about this subject in the first place); I meticulously explained to him the over-inflated claims for accuracy being made by the paleographers along with the de-emphasis of the margin-of-errors in the AMS Carbon Test "results" (which had just been done) by "Consensus Scholars". Of course, this included my dissatisfaction with the way these same "results" were being seized upon to attack Prof. Davies and myself, even though we were the ones who had originally and "officially" requested these tests in the first place.

Since I thought a letter from myself to The Biblical Archaeology Review expressing such dissatisfaction would just appear self-serving; I suggested that, as a relative unknown and an outsider, as it were, he might write just such a letter outlining these points about the shortcomings of the tests, the manner in which they were done, and how they were being used to attack "Opposition Scholars" who were the very ones who had proposed them in the first place - to say nothing of their questionable attempts to press "absolute dates" out of "relative" ones.

Apparently I did this only too well because, by all reports, upon returning to Ithaca he became totally absorbed in the subject, so much so that he was eventually let go from his studies at Cornell. From my perspective, it was becoming clear to me that he had come to understand the tremendous possibilities inherent in the subject; because, instead of writing the letter to the Biblical Archaeology Review I had initially suggested and outlined for him, he rather wrote one proposing he pay for a new round of carbon testing and run them himself (and he being supposedly poor!). For my part, I was utterly stunned by this - all the more so, since I had explained to him what the key documents were that needed testing.

I find it all faintly alarming just how childish some of the behaviour is.

Is it because they hang out with kids all day at Uni?

 

[pakeha]

It could be.

Anyway, about Price's agreement with Eisenman's dating.
I couldn't see any evidence Price is qualified to date the DSS, correct me if I'm wrong.
I had the impression Price was just following the logic Eisenman presented
" But he does make his case that there is an inescapable commonality of terminology and conceptuality, sometimes used ironically or satirically, between a mass of texts which need to be placed together on a mental map if one is to grasp the shape of the religious world in which they all float as continents. And the first achievement of The New Testament Code hard won through this methodology, is the realization that the Dead Sea Scrolls stem from the mid to late first century CE (equivocal Carbon dating results no longer even being relevant), and that they represent the sectarian baptizing Schwärmerei known variously as the Essenes, Zealots, Nasoreans, Masbotheans, Sabaeans-and Jewish Christians headed by James the Just"

 

[Brainache]

It could be.

Anyway, about Price's agreement with Eisenman's dating.
I couldn't see any evidence Price is qualified to date the DSS, correct me if I'm wrong.
I had the impression Price was just following the logic Eisenman presented
" But he does make his case that there is an inescapable commonality of terminology and conceptuality, sometimes used ironically or satirically, between a mass of texts which need to be placed together on a mental map if one is to grasp the shape of the religious world in which they all float as continents. And the first achievement of The New Testament Code hard won through this methodology, is the realization that the Dead Sea Scrolls stem from the mid to late first century CE (equivocal Carbon dating results no longer even being relevant), and that they represent the sectarian baptizing Schwärmerei known variously as the Essenes, Zealots, Nasoreans, Masbotheans, Sabaeans-and Jewish Christians headed by James the Just"

Well yes, I was mostly thinking of this bit:

(equivocal Carbon dating results no longer even being relevant)

Paleography is pretty useless when there are no contemporary manuscripts with which to compare it, the estimates can be way off.

And the margin of error for carbon dating is greater than the time-span that the site was occupied, so again, not very useful.

The internal information is the only way to reliably date these things.

I could be wrong.

I need coffee.

 

[dejudge]

Well yes, I was mostly thinking of this bit:


Paleography is pretty useless when there are no contemporary manuscripts with which to compare it, the estimates can be way off.

And the margin of error for carbon dating is greater than the time-span that the site was occupied, so again, not very useful.

The internal information is the only way to reliably date these things.

I could be wrong.

I need coffee.

You are wrong. You very well knew in advance of positing that there is no internal information to date them reliably.

 

[Brainache]

You are wrong. You very well knew in advance of positing that there is no internal information to date them reliably.

There is lots of internal data.

Your ignorance is not my problem.

 

[dejudge]

There is lots of internal data.

Your ignorance is not my problem.

You are ignorant of the internal data. There is nothing to reliably date them.

If there were lots of internal data you would have shown them.

Show us some of the internal data?

You never ever will--never ever could.