 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Why Wacholder misfires badly in his review of Thiering... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| crunch... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Redating the Teacher of Righteousness, by B. E. Thiering. Australian
and New Zealand Studies in Theology and Religion, 1. Sydney:
Theological Explorations, 1979.
Wacholder's review of Thiering is available in JSTOR
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp.
147-148
-----
Extract -
The possibility, if not the likelihood, that John the Baptist is
identical with the Teacher of Righteousness lurks behind every page of
this book.
Thiering argues that nothing really stands in the way of this
reconstruction of Qumran history except the palaeographical evidence.
According to the theories developed by Cross and Avigad, 4Q Da dates
from the Hasmonean period, 150-100 B.C.E., but in Thiering's view it
could not have been written prior to the fourth decade of the first
post-Christian century. The author concludes that although the
Herodian script is properly dated the archaic is not. What
palaeographers view as a specimen of archaic script and date to 150
B.C.E., Thiering classifies as a late form of the Herodian alphabet.
The scripts found at Qumran have been influenced by the style adopted
by Palmyrene engravers in the first century B.C.E. She is not
concerned at all that the Palmyrene epigraphic evidence etched on
stone may not be applicable to alphabets written on parchment.
[
Some lessons in paleography 3
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4813
"The Palmyrene inscriptions showing these letter forms are a century
later than
the Hasmonean period in which Cross has placed the group. Cross offers
a
historical explanation, that there was an archetype in the 2nd century
BC
represented by the Qumran texts, and the Palmyrene scribes then
diverged from
it, preserving the same forms a century later. He supports this by
citing the
date in 141 BC of the rise of the autonomous states, Nabatea and
Palmyra as
independent of Judea. But this conclusion gives rise to an obvious
objection.
Cross is maintaining that the Palmyrene forms, having separated,
stayed the same
for another hundred years! Palmyra was an active commercial and
political
centre, much more active than Qumran. Its forms would have evolved
quickly.
Moreover, in J. Cantineau, Grammaire du Palmyrenien Epigraphique
(Cairo:
Imprimerie de l'Institut Francais d'Archaeologie Orientale, 1935), it
is shown
that Palmyrene continuously evolved, its development traced from 44 BC
to AD
272.
The presence of Palmyrene scribes in Jerusalem is known by
inscriptions, one of
them dated in the first half of the 1st century AD. (J-B Frey, Corpus
Inscriptionum Iudaicarum II (Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia
Cristiana,
1952). The similarity between Palmyrene and the Qumran texts in
question,
including 1QS, is much better accounted for by seeing them all as
coming from
the Herodian period, the work of Palmyrene or Palmyrene trained
scribes."
]
She manufactures a chronology, reducing a clear passage into
gibberish. CD 1:5 asserts that the plant of Aaron began to bloom 390
years after God had given Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon.
Letytto (1:6), according to the author, does not refer to the past but
to the future, being a prophecy: "when he will give" and not as it is
generally understood "after he had given." Nebuchadnezzar, moreover,
stands here for the ruler of Rome, referring to Pompey's occupation of
the Holy Land in 63 B.C.E. The numeral 390, therefore, has no meaning
except as a citation of Ezek 4:5. This is not true of the 20 years
which follow. These are the 20 years after Augustus had removed
Archelaus from the throne. Thiering chooses 6 C.E. on the basis of
Josephus's account that the Zealots commenced their activity in
Galilee in that year. In her view, the Essenes joined these Galileans
at that time.
[
Official Thiering website
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_Period_of_Wrath.html
Extract -
One of the main passages relied on by the consensus case is in the
Damascus Document (CD) 1: 5-11. If the dates it gives are taken
without reference to other relevant facts, it can be understood to
give a 2nd century BC date for the Teacher, although even then there
were obvious difficulties. The passage reads:
"In the Period of Wrath (Heb: beqets charon) 390 years for His giving
(Heb: letitto) them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,
He (God) visited them, and caused to spring up from Israel and from
Aaron a Root of Planting to inherit His land and to prosper in the
goodness of the earth. And they understood their iniquity and they
knew that they were guilty men. But they were like blind men groping
for the way for 20 years. And God understood their deeds, that with a
perfect heart they sought Him. And He raised up for them a Teacher of
Righteousness (Heb: moreh tsedeq) to direct them in the way of His
heart."
The phrase "390 years for His giving them into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon" was taken to mean "after He gave".
From the known date of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem, in 587
BC, it was at first concluded that the Root of Planting had appeared
in 197 BC, and the Teacher, 20 years later, in 177 BC. But that was at
once seen as impossible. It would place the Teacher even before the
appearance of the Seleucids, and everything about him showed that he
belonged much later than this. The consensus case was left with the
view that the writers must have been approximate only in their
calculation from Nebuchadnezzar - as was not impossible- and the
Teacher's date, later in the 2nd century BC, would be known if his
circumstances fitted known data, such as the control of the temple by
the Hasmonean high priests from about 150 BC onwards.
Three very relevant facts remained unobserved.:
That the term Heb: letitto does not mean "after He gave" - that
meaning has to be read into it. It means "for His giving".
That the exact figure of 390 years is derived from a biblical passage,
and is fully accounted for by that passage, without reference to
actual history. In Ezekiel 4:4-5, the prophet performs a symbolic
action, lying on his side for 390 days, each day standing for a year,
the duration of the time when God would punish Israel.
The pesharim fully illustrate their equation of all OT enemies, both
Assyrians and Babylonians, with the Kittim in the Qumran period. The
Kittim are certainly the Romans, as is established. The NT gives
evidence of how far this equation could be taken, using the word
"Babylon" as code for Rome (1 Peter 5:13, Revelation 18:2-3).
Taking these facts into account, the passage is better understood to
be a prophecy, believed to be authorised by Ezekiel 4:4-5, of the
length of time that a Roman occupation would last, 390 years. It does
not refer back - there is no "after" - but forward. The writers are
going even further than the NT, not only using "Babylon" as a code
name for Rome, but "Nebuchadnezzar" as a code name for the ruler of
Rome. If the date of the Period of Wrath was known, the date of the
Teacher's appearance would be known, 20 years later.
]
Here and there this book has some redeeming qualities. The critique of
the conventional chronology of Qumran or the rejection of Jonathan as
the person behind the sobriquet, the wicked priest, has much to
commend itself. So does placing the Temple Scroll prior to any of the
other sectarian literature in the Qumran library. That the sanctuary
mentioned in this lit- erature refers to the one constructed on earth,
not to a symbolic temple, is also worthy of men- tion. The author's
main thesis can only be characterized as utterly implausible.
-----
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crunch <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> 28/10/2009 21:39 wrote:
"I really dislike reinventing the wheel and really dislike
repeating myself." (David Ch.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Thomas Zahr... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Alaca <p.alaca at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
[quote]crunch <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> 28/10/2009 21:39 wrote:
"I really dislike reinventing the wheel and really dislike
repeating myself." (David Ch.)
[/quote]
Personally I'd rather drink it
--
Cheers,
Thomas = |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Thomas Zahr <usenet at (no spam) zahr-mail.de> 29/10/2009 20:30 wrote:
[quote]Peter Alaca <p.alaca at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> 28/10/2009 21:39 wrote:
"I really dislike reinventing the wheel and really dislike
repeating myself." (David Ch.)
Personally I'd rather drink it
[/quote]
I like to see and hear them. Never heard one misfire. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:58 pm
|
|