Earlier in this thread I angrily wrote:That response doesn't answer the question. Whether it "fits" or not avoids the substantive "do you claim [they] are all from the first century CE?"That's true, agreed, John2, you have not claimed that all Qumran scrolls are from the first century CE.
But, in view of this thread, is it correct to say that you, John2, do claim that all Qumran texts that mention the Teacher of Righteousness and/or the Wicked Priest are all from the first century CE?
Yes. I do think the DSS that mention the Teacher fit a first century CE context.
Do you claim they are (against the evidence that they are not)?
It's how it looks to me but I am open to other ideas (but not Goranson's).
| When will this sink in: the major source on the teacher and the wicked priest comes from the first half of the first century BCE according to radiocarbon dating. That certainly means that theories placing them in the first century CE are - to put it plainly - crap. Grubbing for parallels will not change that. Bob Eisenman failed in his efforts to overcome the hurdle and overturn the radiocarbon evidence, so a first century context for the figures alluded to in the Damascus Document are seen today as conspiracy theory level waffle. Give it a miss. It's a rabbit hole. |
Radiocarbon dating errors involve contamination. Fresher carbon contamination provides dates that are too recent, such as when the scrolls scholars used castor oil and other such agents to clean the surface. Most errors provide dates that are too recent and it's extremely unusual to get older contaminants.
Both the Damascus Document(D) and the Pesher Habakkuk date to the first century BCE. (Israel Carmi, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls", in The DSS Fifty Years after Their Discovery, eds Schiffman, Tov & VanderKam, 886-887)
Statistics: Posted by spin — Thu Nov 21, 2024 12:18 am