Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But still more plausible than 'the teacher of righteousness' being a Christian figure.

And what a surprise! I can see JohnT has appeared for this 'good cop/bad cop' schtick to follow (John2 setting up a calm rational approach and JohnT the rabid pit bull - both defending Eisenman both miraculously unfazed by the effect C-14 evidence has on Eisenman's hypothesis).

Interestingly Hoenig originally contended that the Psalm Scroll and its kabbalistic interest was that the Psalm Scroll was of medieval, Karaitic origin! He actually went so far as to argue that the scrolls weren't that old. That tops other scholars who claimed the Qumran texts were forgeries initially. In any event, Eisenman isn't alone in having postulated silly theories https://www.jstor.org/stable/1453807?se ... b_contents

The last note I care to make for the day, Blenkinsopp writes in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E.:

While there are obvious structural and organizational differences between the Judeo-Babylonian entity to which Ezra and Nehemiah belonged and the Damascus sect, which I take to be the parent of the Qumran yahad, there are ideological affinities that imply some degree of continuity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6NsxZ ... ra&f=false

I can't see beyond that page, but the "affinities" I can see on it (which I've seen echoed elsewhere) are interesting if not a slam dunk.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:24 pm Ok buddy. The C-14 dated closes the books on Eisenman and his theory. It's that simple. Maybe you can move Christianity into first century BCE or beyond. But stop playing dumb. If my father dies (and he has) and everyone knows he's dead and I go on a forum claiming I've had contact with him, spoke with him, saw him wearing this or that - I am denying the fact that he's dead. To advance Eisenman's hypothesis once you've been informed of the C-14 results is to deny the C-14 evidence. I call such a denial C-14 evidence because it shares all the attributes of a conspiracy theory insofar as it's primary purpose is push aside actual evidence.

Pure straw-man nonsense.

Not to mention the return of your delusional rant that Eisenman is here personally responding to your tripe.

If you want to know how to rule out your candidate for the Teacher of Righteousness, I suggest you read, "Crucible of Faith" by Philip Jenkins.

Just saying.

Stephan wrote:

To advance Eisenman's hypothesis once you've been informed of the C-14 results is to deny the C-14 evidence.

Not at all. As I've cited a number of times of the forum recently, he writes in JBJ that:

... such an argument [that the Dead Sea Scrolls are pre-first century CE] changes little regarding the position being developed in this book. All the doctrines, ideas, and orientations, all the exegeses that would then have been current among 'opposition' groups of the first century BC, can then be shown to have flowed full-blown and almost without alteration into the main 'opposition' orientation of the first century CE. Thus the argument of this book remains unaffected. Only the direct textual link to James or some other first century 'Righteous One' or 'Zaddik' would be broken ...

And:

There are also strong parallels between the Community led by James and the one reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is particularly true when one considers the relationship of James to the person known in the Scrolls as "the Teacher of Righteousness" or "Righteous Teacher" ... So many doctrines, allusions, and turns of phrase emerge from the material in the Scrolls common to both traditions that the parallels become impossible to ignore ...

But the subject of the person and teaching of James in the Jerusalem of his day is not only more important simply than his relationship to the interpretation of the Scrolls, it is quite independent of it. Even without insisting on any parallel or identification of James with the Righteous Teacher of the Scrolls, the Movement led by James ... will be shown to have been something quite different from the Christianity we are now familiar with.

But let's talk about the carbon dating. All copies of the Qumran Damascus Document that mention the Teacher are dateable by paleography and carbon dating to the Herodian era. As King, for example, notes in Unveiling the Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

When they [VanderKam and Flint] tested 4Q266 ... they found a paleographic range of 100-50 BCE. The AMS [carbon dating] testing revealed a range of 4-82 CE. According to the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which the paleographic testing of eight manuscripts (4Q266-4Q273) by j.T. Milik is given, we find different results. Milik agrees that on paleographic grounds, 4Q266 was written between 100-50 BCE in a Hasmonean style. However, 4Q267 to 4Q273 were written in Herodian styles ... the majority of the scroll versions of the Damascus Document can be dated to somewhere during the Herodian period and early part of the first century CE.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fZ9NA ... ge&f=false

And the Psalms Pesher, which also mentions the Teacher, is dated by paleography to the Herodian era, as Charlesworth notes here (https://books.google.com/books?id=ROama ... er&f=false), and while it may be due to castor oil contamination, it is carbon dated to 29-81 CE, as Grossman notes here: https://books.google.com/books?id=tJTSv ... te&f=false

That leaves the Habakkuk Pesher, which is dated by paleography to the Herodian era but is carbon dated up to 2 CE. But as noted in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context (2 Vols): Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (2011), edited by Lange, Tov and Weigold:

The lower calibrated radiocarbon ages of the Community Rule (1QS) and Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) around the turn of the millennium and the Common Era, however, could even indicate a date towards the end of the Qumran settlement and the First Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE).

https://books.google.com/books?id=xM7En ... te&f=false

@Secret Alias

I've long speculated that Joshua the High Priest was in fact Ezra. Do you have any thoughts on this?

The Teacher of Righteousness lived at a time of sectarian strife. I wrote a case for Alexander Jannaeus being the Wicked Priest and for a contemporary of his being the Teacher, here:
http://people.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf
After I wrote that, Vered Noam published a quite interesting paper, which is available via her name and "academia":
"The Story of King Jannaeus (b. Qiddushin 66a): A Pharisaic Reply to Sectarian Polemic," Harvard Theological Review 107:1 (2014) 31-58.
I suggest that the Judah/Yehudah mentioned in this baraita may be identical with Judah the Essene and the Teacher of Righteouness.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:36 pm But still more plausible than 'the teacher of righteousness' being a Christian figure.

And what a surprise! I can see JohnT has appeared for this 'good cop/bad cop' schtick to follow (John2 setting up a calm rational approach and JohnT the rabid pit bull - both defending Eisenman both miraculously unfazed by the effect C-14 evidence has on Eisenman's hypothesis).

So which one is Eisenman....John2 or John T, perhaps both?:

As a reminder to Secret Alias, I have a fascination is with trying to figure out who is the Teacher or Righteousness. I have read many books/articles on the subject. So, naturally, your post titled; "Who is the Teacher of Righteousness", piqued my interest. I joined the thread not because I think you will have anything useful say (been there done that before) but in hopes someone with actual knowledge might join in.

With that being said, I have a very short list of suspects for the Teacher of Righteousness and enjoy the thoughtful comments made by Ethan, Joseph D.L., Stephen Goranson and others, ---- Secret Alias not so much.

Thus the argument of this book remains unaffected.

Where is that rolling on the floor laughing emoji? That's like a Christian claiming that the non-existence of Jesus doesn't effect his religion. Who on earth would make this stupid claim? Eisenman and only Eisenman.

Joseph

No as I noted at the outset, I have no entrenched position other than ignore Eisenman.