From: Steve Wart <swart@prodigy.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian
Organization: PTC Vancouver
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.0
     <1992Sep3.043237.22777@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:29:46 GMT

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evidence, historical references in the scrolls in question and the carbon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.  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?

>> 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.

>> 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?

>> 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.

>Tim O'Neill
>Tasmanian Devil

Who were the Essenes?
Why does everyone think Jesus was a peaceful guy?
Why did the Romans rescue Paul from a crowd that wanted to stone him?
Did the Romans have any interest in propogating a religion that advocated 
herd-like behaviour and the denial of intellectual thought?
Do current governments have such an interest?

Naturally, my employer does not care about this subject at all.

Steve