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: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:01:36 GMT

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evidence, historical references in the scrolls in question and the carbon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

>  What gives?  I 
> was under the impression that paleography is an inexact science at best, 
> at worst, it is ranked with numerology in its reliability.

Paleography *is* and inexact discipline, but taken together with other evidence,
it can be used to establish a general date. The general date established in this
case rules Thiering's hypothesis out.   

> Since I'm at 
> work, I don't have any references handy, so can someone please summarize 
> the paleographic methodology, explaining why it is superior to carbon 
> dating, and how it provides the proof that the "reasonable" position 
> accepted as the consensus is the correct one.

No-one is claiming it to be superior to carbon-dating. I have a talk I gave on
Thiering available on E-Mail. Drop me a line and I will send it to you.
 
> I haven't read Thiering's work, but it seems to have a superficial 
> correspondence at least to other theories I've encountered, which are far 
> more plausible than miracles and Catholic doctrine.

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.
 
> 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.

   
> 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.

> 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.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
> 
> Naturally, my employer does not care about this subject at all.
> 
> Steve
> 
>