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 03:37:56 GMT

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:
> >In article <1992Aug31.202746.2788@prodigy.bc.ca>, 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
> off by 
> >> most of the respondents to this thread, simply because the poster is 
> >> presenting an argument posited by (gasp!) a theologian.
> >
> >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evidence, historical references in the scrolls in question and the carbon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'll have to trust you on this, since I haven't read her book.  
> Obviously, therefore, I'm not saying her argument makes any sense; I'm 
> more concerned that blind acceptance of the consensus position is causing 
> people to ignore or reject valid hypotheses.

Most people i know who have read Thiering's books have done so in the light
of the rest of the study on the scrolls and the intertestamental period. 
They have all then concluded that Thiering's hypothesis is fanciful to say 
the least. No-one is rejecting Thiering because 'the 'big guys' say she's 
wrong and so she must be'. We are rejecting her because we don't consider
her thesis to stand up to scrutiny. I wouldn't call this 'blind acceptance'. 

>Furthermore, I was under 
> the impression that the carbon dating of the scrolls was not consistent 
> with the consensus; it is certainly true that some influential scholars 
> resisted carbon tests for years.  When were the scrolls finally tested?  
> 1989?

No, 1991. I am still in search of any authorative account of the tests
and the results, but they certainly don't exclude the consensus position.
 
> >> As far as the credibility of the consensus position is concerned, Geza 
> >> Vermes and other such 'reputable scholars' have been under fire
> lately; 
> >> their methods and objectivity are questionable, their loyalties are to 
> >> the Vatican and Papal infallibility, not to scientific illumination.
> >
> >I would check your sources of that information. Dr Vermes is a jew, and
> his
> >historical research into the background and origins of Christianity has
> won
> >him few fans among orthodox christians. If he believes in papal
> infallibility
> >then I will happily eat my own face.
> 
> Okay, maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.  I'll figure out who I'm 
> talking about, and then I'll repost.

Good. I'm no fan of the dickheads whose petty jealousies have been holding
up the pace of scrolls research for the last few decades, but I am very
suspicious of the 'it's all being hushed up by the almighty Vatican'
theory. (but, hey, I'm a sceptic!)
 
> >> 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.  
> >
> >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.
> 
> Do we have a consensus on what we mean by 'consensus?'  I think we'd 
> probably agree that the biblical account is ridiculous and inconsistent.  
> How far do "repuatable" scroll scholars stray from that account?  Has it 
> changed much since 1989?

Some of the ones who are christians obviously believe it, but that is of very
little relevance to scrolls research since (unless you believe Babs Theiring)
the major scrolls were written well before Jesus was even born. When the 
scrolls were first discovered there was some highly premature speculation
that they were going to blow christianity out of the water. As it turned out
they were from a century or more before Jesus and so of little direct relevance
to the origins of christianity, but many people remain sure that somewhere
amongst the scrolls is something which will destroy christianity. Now, I 
wouldn't exactly weep tears of blood if that happened, but ALL the scrolls
scholars who have now looked at the material which has been released (including
the jews and other non-christians) say that this simply isn't going to happen.

> >> 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.
> >
> >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.
 
> I should repeat that I'm not defending Thiering's work.  On the other 
> hand, baiting me to admit that I believe in a conspiracy is not nice; do 
> you want me to lose all credibility because I admit that it's possible 
> that a group of people with power and influence and a vested interest in 
> biblical history might actually be attempting to control biblical 
> research?  That maybe they have been maniuplating scroll research since 
> 1947?  I've cross-posted to alt.conspiracy, because you said the 'c' word.

Considering the large number of people from all kinds of backgrounds and religious
and philosophical backgrounds who have had access to the scroll material over
the years the chances of a cover-up by the church is almost totally unlikely.
The scrolls give us an insight into some aspects of intertestamental judaism
and as such are a vital source for historians of the jewish background to 
christianity, but don't hold your breath waiting for a Qumran document which
reads "It was all a hoax. Signed J. Christ' because it ain't goin' to happen.

> Who were the Essenes?

A sect of Jews who may or may not have been associated with the scrolls.

> Why does everyone think Jesus was a peaceful guy?

Because that's the way the gospels portray him, though they could well 
have had ulterior motives for doing so.

> Why did the Romans rescue Paul from a crowd that wanted to stone him?


Because they didn't like riots, they liked to preserve the 'Pax Romana' and
he was a Roman citizen.

> Did the Romans have any interest in propogating a religion that advocated 
> herd-like behaviour and the denial of intellectual thought?

Probably, but they almost certainly didn't realise it, otherwise why would
they have devoted so much time and resources over two centuries to wiping
Christianity out?

> Do current governments have such an interest?
Yes. (is this relevant?)

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil