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: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:32:37 GMT

In article <graham.715412056@galois>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

> 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 c) historical references in the scrolls

[deletions]

> 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.

They also differ in that the consensus position is based squarely on the 
accepted methods of historical inquiry while Thiering's is based on a 
'technique' of interpretation for which there is no evidence, which contradicts
itself, which seems to be based largely on Thiering's whims and a circular
argument. I know which I'd tend to trust.
 
> (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!

I think both are fantasies, but Thiering's is based on no evidence except
that which she manufactures with her wonderous 'pesher technique'.
 
> 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.

Sorry Graeme, she's a theologian not a historian. 


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?

The consensus opinion maintains nothing of the sort. I'm not talking about 
the bloody christians Graeme, I'm talking about all the scholars who consider
the scrolls in question to be of second or first century BC date. Virtually
the only scholar in the world who accepts a first century AD date is Thiering
herself. Many of these scholars are jews, are you saying *they* believe in a
physical resurrection of Jesus?!
 
> 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.

That's quite possible, but I'd say unlikely given the nature of Thiering's
evidence and her bizarre methodology. I am batting with the consensus opinion
because I find their arguments solid and convincing. I began Thiering's
book with an open mind, but it soon became clear that she is a crank. I
say again, I suggest that people read her book before they defend her. The
idea behind Thiering's book is attractive, but it does not stand up to 
scrutiny. She's in the same class as Von Daniken: an interesting initial
idea and an iconoclastic approach, but the evidence is a farce.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil