From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:34:16 GMT

Steve Wart <swart@prodigy.bc.ca> writes:
>I find it quite interesting that the consensus position is considered to 
>be 'scientific' while an argument based on carbon dating is written of by 
>most of the respondents to this thread, simply because the poster is 
>presenting an argument posited by (gasp!) a theologian.

(Tim O'Neill) writes:
>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evidence, historical references in the scrolls in question and the carbon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. I pointed this out. Graeme 
>Matthews replied that the carbon dating range did not exclude Thiering's 
>date and I said that I didn't have access to the appropriate papers on 
>that point and asked if he had more information. It is not a matter of 
>scientists disagreeing with theologians, it is a matter of all of the 
>paleographers, historians, theologians, jewish scholars, textual critics 
>and (perhaps) scientists who have studied the scrolls disagreeing with 
>Barbara Thiering. This is not to say that she is, therefore, wrong, but 
>it would be remarkable if she were right in the face of such unanimous 
>criticism.

Ok into the fray feet first. The dating of the scrolls depends on three
things :-

a) carbon dating
b) palaeographic evidence (ie: looking at the writing style etc).
c) historical references in the scrolls

Now as far as a) goes both Theiring's position and the consensus position
date the scrolls in the range given by the carbon dating, so neither
theory wins here.

As to b), palaeography is (as Tim later notes) "an inexact discipline".
But both Theiring and the folks on the other side of the argument can
put up a reasonable defence on their palaeographic evidence. It should
be noted here that one of the main proponents of the consensus positions
(name escapes me ... I think he was one of the first people to have
access to the scrolls and was the man who made up the John-and-Paul-
Macabeus consensus position) has admitted that some of his paleographic
techniques for dating the scrolls are not solid and cannot be relied
on for complete accuracy. So can one distinguish the two theories
in this respect?

As to c) this is where things get tricky. Theiring relies on a special
method of reading the scrolls and related texts which interprets
words in an allegorical and a political context. This technique is not
employed by the consensus position. Accordingly the two positions differ.

(Tim O'Neill) writes:
>I have read Thiering's work,and while I will agree wholeheartedly that the
>traditional christian interpretation is fanciful nonsense, it looks like
>solid and sober fact compared to Thiering's wild fantasy.

So people being brought back from the dead is "solid and sober fact"
compared to Thiering's wild fantasy that Jesus never died. Tim I suggest
you don't ask a doctor which of the two positions is fantasy!

Steve Wart <swart@prodigy.bc.ca> writes:
>> I find the entire situation quite pitiful:  historians with legitimate 
>> research and ideas are ridiculed or ignored, while religious fanatics 
>> with clearly political motivations are allowed to propogate a consensus 
>> that is ridiculous and inconsistent.  
(Tim O'Neill) writes:
>You could call Babs Thiering a lot of things, but 'historian' isn't one of
>them. I will be interested to hear of the 'ridiculous' and 'inconsistent'
> aspects of the consesus position in greater detail.

Barbara Theiring is indeed a historian - she just happens to disagree with
you. Moreover lets look at the consensus position. Now it maintains
that Jesis died on the cross and was then raised from the dead (Thiering
maintains that Jesus never died). Now putting aside any belief in god
which of these positions is ridiculous?

Steve Wart <swart@prodigy.bc.ca> writes:
>> They have a network of "experts" 
>> who have convinced the apathetic media that the scrolls really do not 
>> present a view of the past much different than what they have fed us all
>> along.
(Tim O'Neill) writes:
>So it's all some kind of conspiracy, is it? Could it possibly be that 
>Thierings thesis is a crackpot theory and the academic community is 
>drawing on many years of research and hard work to try to set the record 
>straight. I'd suggest reading Thiering's book before you defend it. I'm 
>no fan of christianity, but I am a BIG fan of solid research and good 
>history. Thiering's work is neither.

It is also possible that Thiering is right and the others are wrong.
You seem to be batting with the crowd just because they are a crowd.

graham

--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au