From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:03:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.010943.23360@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep3.152946.4493@prodigy.bc.ca>, Steve Wart
> <swart@prodigy.bc.ca> writes:
> |>From: Tim O'Neill, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au
> |>Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian
> |>
> |>In article <1992Sep2.020136.16606@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
> |>Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) wrote:

> |>>No Steve. The consensus opinion is based on a combination of
> |>palaeographic 
> |>>evidence, historical references in the scrolls in question and the carbon
> |>>dating. Thiering's hypothesis depends on all of the arguments based on
> |>these
> |>>three sources of evidence being wrong.
> 
> If by the "consensus" position you mean the first guess of the bunch of
> "schollars" of the international committee who have taken fifty years to perform
> a tenth of the work achieved by the Israeli group then bear in mind the
> following:-

I will consider it directly, but before I do I'll answer your question. No, I 
mean all of the scrolls scholars in the world who are unanimous in rejecting
Barbara Thiering's fanciful theory. I'm no fan of the cabal whose monopoly on
so much of the scrolls material has held up the pace of research for so long
either, but I am not refering to them, I am refering to all of those in the
international scholarly community who have rejected Thiering. And I think you'd
realise that the accepted dating consensus is based on more than some-one's
'first guess'. 
 
> The Paleographic evidence is garbage. For religious materials paleographic
> evidence can do no more than set the earliest date when a scroll was written.
> Religious scripts are meticulously copied and thus the scripts change very
> slowly, anyone claiming to date scrolls on the basis of such evidence needs
> their head examined.

You have studied intertestamental Hebrew palaeography? The people who have
don't know what they are doing then, is that right? Funny, that's a lot of
people who have been working with a lot of manuscript material for a long time
and they're all wrong. How remarkable. Perhaps you should write to them and 
set them straight. Just think; all that time, and they didn't realise that you
simply *can't* date religious texts by palaeographical methods at all.
(Go read Millar Burrows' chapter on the paleaographic work on the scrolls, and
you will realise that what you've said is both totally oversimplified and
completely misleading)
  
> The carbon dating was not carried out on more than a tiny fraction of the
> scrolls and in any case the results do not rule out their being contemperaneous
> with Christ, rather the reverse in fact.


Please elaborate on this if you could. What dates were arrived at for the
scrolls which mention the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest?
If they were dated to the 1st century AD, isn't it odd thay we haven't heard 
about it?
 
> The "historical" evidence is would be more convincing had the international
> committee ever let other schollars near the material. As it is they have lost
> any credibility through their complete inability to produce anything.

Again, the monopoly by some scholars on some of the scrolls material was a
disgrace, but it is irelevant to the fact that all of the historical figures
mentioned in the scrolls date from the 2nd and early 1st centuries BC. What
does this say to you?

 Two pieces
> of evidence which contradict the consensus dating are:-
> 
> 1) The finding of a tract making a long denunciation of marriage to ones sister,
> the language of the tract makes it clear that it is aimed at the ruling family
> which would date it in Herodian times.

I haven't heard of this one. Could we have some more details?
 
> 2) The description of Roman soldiers sacrificing to their standards. This only
> makes sense in the context of the Jewish revolt and Masada rebellion since the
> standard is the emblem of the emperor and sacrificing to the emperor only makes
> sense after he has been declared a God. This puts us after old Julie C.

BZZZT! Wrong. The veneration of standards was going on long before the 
deification of any of the Julio-Claudians. Go read Polybius if you don't 
believe me.
 
> A team of schollars that has failed to publish after so long has no credibility.
> It is a sad fact but every part of their work must now be considered worthless
> and be repeated. It is not clear why they acted as they did but it is clear that
> the either the suppression of the scrolls was deliberate raising suspision as to
> their motives or they were so incompetent as to be unworthy of consideration.

I'd say it's pretty clear that there was nothing involved except academic
jealousy and careerism. Their scholarship is still quite sound (it would want
to be, considering they took so bloody long with the material) Who says
their research will have to be repeated? 
 
> As for the coup d'etat theory of the NT, this is a fairly well known theory and
> is quite widely accepted as plausible in non-theological biblical study.

Did anyone mention a coup d'etat theory? We're talking about Thiering's 
hypothesis and the date of the scrolls which are relevant to it. What are *you*
talking about? 
 
> >I would check your sources of that information. Dr Vermes is a jew, and
> 
> I will check my sources but as a Jew Dr Vermes would be more likely to figure in
> the Israeli team which there are no complaints about. The International team was
> set up by Jordan, then occupying Palestine where the scrolls were found. I
> suspect that the person the poster was refering to was Farther Vaux, an
> altogether more pope friendly character.

Perhaps, but that still irrelevant to the consensus on the dating, which is 
accepted by pope-friendly and pope-unfriendly scholars alike.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17100 alt.politics.homosexuality:5936