Did they ever do the series of Carbon tests on key texts to establish an order of composition, like Eisenman requested?
Here's the carbon date listings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls
That appears to be the only scenario that the mainstream has seriously considered. They appear to be bending over backwards to make the evidence fit the conclusions. You yourself quoted one bloke who invented a whole bunch of Priests and said "we don't know anything about these people I just invented, so we can assume that they are the characters described in the Scrolls". Now who is relying on unevidenced chains of suppositions?
I'm not bending over backwards here.
I've barely made an effort to show 2nd c BCE sympathy.
There are coins from that era at the site, the texts are written in both Hasmonean and Herodian script (Hasmonean wasn't just continued on), figures in the texts are of the 2nd c BCE era (King Jonathan), their internal self-dating is to the 2nd c BCE time period for an origin, Zadok priesthood is a pre-Hasmonean priesthood that simply did not exist under the Herodian dynasty, and the turmoil of the theocratic politics provide an overwhelming amount of opportunity for there to be motive.
...And events started happening which match events as described in the Scrolls.
Why is this such a controversial idea? It fits within the dating. It fits better with what we know from Josephus than the traditional Apologetics. I don't get why it's so crazy.
Because the only means of accomplishing it would indicate that the Harodian Pauline and James political theater Eisenman lines out would have to have existed all the way back to 2nd c BCE since we have all of the above concepts to consider and not disregard.
We cannot disregard the script language, the archaeological evidence, the names in the texts, the text's internal self-dating, and the terminologies in the text (which are terms of the 2nd and early 1st c BCE political groups and not of the 1st c CE dates).
Ease up there Turbo. When I got drawn into this subject in my mid-forties, after a lifetime of skeptical reading and online debates, there were no eyes more virgin than mine on this subject.
I was a Myther for about ten minutes.
As I've been reading Eisenman, I've been checking what the other side say and I have to tell you, they aren't nearly as convincing to the Layman like me.
Eisenman calls this Academic attitude a "cloud of unknowing", because he sees people presented with all of these correlations who just shrug and say "We don't know". Then they go on to postulate stuff that doesn't fit any known evidence, like those imaginary Priests.
I'm not getting after you.
I'm saying that it is extremely difficult to consider two propositions if while outlining one proposition we think in terms of the second proposition.
We have to basically forget Eisenman entirely and circle back to him later and not address the matter of how Eisenman calls X consideration Y label or Z date.
I should hope not. That would be a pretty useless way to date things.
Yes it would.
A bit difficult to have a "Wicked Priest" without the wicked Priesthood for him to be a part o though, I think.
The 2nd c BCE is dominated by a wicked Priesthood.
Alcimus even breaks down the wall between the Gentiles and Israelites in the 2nd Temple.
He starts off with usurping the Priesthood by outing Onias IV who was the expected and rightful heir to the High Priest seat, and then goes on to conduct mass scale Hellenization by force until he is ran out to Syria, and then he has to wage two battles and an act of treachery to get it back for a few years before he dies.
After he dies, Jonathan Apphus takes the High Priest by pure political force through an allegiance with the usurping King of Syria, Alexander Balas.
Balas is even described to be the one who bestowed upon Jonathan his royal garments.
The fascinating part about this is that Alexander Balas was a Seleucidic King; the Maccabees had fought viciously against them for independence.
Jonathan was hated by many groups for this move; the Hellenistic party hated him for being a Maccabee, and the Jewish political parties did not appreciate having their High Priest forcefully appointed by yet another empire, yet Jonathan only was able to achieve their independence through this move, as he gaining the rule was granted fully as King and High Priest in one - a taboo; granted (as noted) by the Seleucidic empire as part of their bargain.
The entire priesthood at this point was false according to many political factions, especially for those following the lineage of Solomon's High Priests (Zadok's) who had been expecting the likes of Onias IV to rise to his rightful position and lock in the righteous bloodline continued from Solomon's Priesthood.
They don't mention anyone by name.
They mention Jonathan.
And the mention of him is in what appears to be a hymn to a Jewish hero from the past, not a contemporary.
Even if we take it to be past tense, there's no sense in this being the only King in which they felt interest of praising by name.
In itself, it is not convincing, but in the whole with all the other data, it helps support the 2nd c BCE start date.
The Community at the time we are talking about shunned money. Especially money with pictures of Herod on it.
And yet the artifacts existed alongside the scrolls.
They do not date the texts directly, but they are also in line with the dates of the linen and the textual internal dating from the scrolls.
It looks to me like they are saying 390 years was how long they were in Babylon, not how long since they left there.
Yes; they are stating how long they believed they were without their land.
It's a citation of before and after; the entry being made after their land is once again their own.
It started with Babylon in 587/6, and ended with the Maccabees in around the 160's.
This is approximately around the same time range.
If they believed Ezekiel's prophecy of the 390 years of torment, then they would view this time table as fulfilling that part of the prophecy and refer to the time between independent governance as the era of the three hundred and ninety years.
I think it fits better with the Apocalyptic Messianism of the first century CE. They sing to Jonathan a song about how great things were when he was the boss all those years ago. Not last week.
I wasn't suggesting that they sang to him "last week".
I was noting that they venerated Jonathan; not every group did that; most groups venerated David.
Venerating Jonathan is rather unique.
Or they could have been a small gang of "End-Timers" whose message spread throughout the 1st Century until it was attracting "Violent Ones", not just Jewish violent ones, but Syrians, and Idumeans as well. They were all on the "End Times" bandwagon, but they had different ways and means of expressing their beliefs.
The point was that the material evidence of the texts suggests two primary periods: one in the Hasmonean period and another in the Harodian period.
The latter appears to have arrived after an upset, while the former appears to have arrived after an initial out-casting and upset.
It is also more complicated than Eisenman, and doesn't answer as any questions satisfactorily. Eisenman is actually parsimonious, believe it or not.
Again, I would rather not bring up Eisenman and examine each proposition separately.
How is noting the text's script evolution complicated?
We can't ignore the variations in languages being used.
OK. Still seems a bit of a stretch to me. Another one of these long chains of supposition that you berate Eisenman for.
The Temple wasn't evidence for anything, so it's not a supposition that's complicated or long.
I was only accounting for the actions and whereabouts.
I can't bring up Onias IV and fail to mention that he lost his rightful spot as a Zadok priesthood High Priest and stormed off to Egypt after failing to win through force, and that while in Egypt, he stubbornly built a Temple hoping to make a new center for the religion.
But for a popular revolt movement to grow and gather momentum, takes time. Your dating would have them settling the place in the 3rd c BCE, not the 2nd.
No.
It requires it to be gained in 160's, and the expected seats to not be filled at the same time.
The revolt itself is not this group; this is a group that was a part of a fall out that occurred upon the winning of the revolt.
Of course you realise I'm saying that the scrolls that were written during the last 70 to 100 years before the revolt, are the ones we have now.
No, because the texts we have now are written scattered from 2nd c BCE to 1st c BCE mostly.
This doesn't require carbon dating; the script language informs us of these basic time frames.
Looks to me like you are trying really really hard to avoid a 1st c. CE dating for these Scrolls.
I said that I would outline an argument in opposition for contrast and consideration.
That said, I haven't had to try very hard.
There's practically no evidence in the texts contextually or physically which support a 1st c CE start date, but a lot of data to support a starting point of 2nd c BCE and going onward from there.
Only if you squint really hard and ignore what Josephus says about the 1st c. CE.
They fit the more tumultuous 1st c. CE much better than the previous one or two.
This causes me to wonder, and I really don't mean anything rude about this, but do you know much about the 2nd and 1st c BCE political theater?
You seem to think it was worse in the 1st c CE and that back in the 2nd and 1st c BCE everything was far less tumultuous.
It wasn't at all; it was a giant mess with massive taboos occurring and entire ruling classes wiping each other out; it was the beginning of the new Hebrew state and it ended in a terrible civil war which only ended when the Romans took over.
So, kind of like how the Qumran Scrolls describe the "Son Of Man" as the "primal Adam"? Like how he is standing at the right hand of God, about to open the "Gate To Salvation"?
Yes; the messianic searches of the 1st c BCE to 1st c CE were only possible because of this cultural mindset.
I don't see how that argues against a 1st century CE dating.
It doesn't.
It would place the 1st c CE as the generation of the sect who were now looking for a messianic figure converted out of their prophetic Priest figure which came from their once contemporary Priest hero.
What I'm outlining is that it started in the 2nd c BCE out of outrage and trechery, then morphed into prophecy for a replacement Priest figure in the 1st c BCE, and then morphed into messianic hopes in the 1st c CE.
This is a sect who would have seen the rise of the independent Judah in wide hopes, seen those hopes dashed in almost the same instant and fueled terrible anger, then suffered a complete loss of their hopes of their priest regaining his seat, and then hoped for a savior champion to set everything right having lost all other hope once their champion was dead and Judah was no longer independent, and then watched once more as the stories of old repeated themselves and the 1st c CE fell into turmoil of the same nature as the turmoil behind them; which their elders and founders had experiences, and then finally watched as the the entirety of Judah was completely annihilated permanently, never to rise again.
