[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Armchair Speculations
In response to the post of Mike Sanders (below):
Wasn't the "welcome" of that one post by Jim West a rejection of
its proposals (a rejection now accepted by J. West)?
Is there reason to assume these calendars were the same? Is there
reason to think they differed?
CD presents the appearance of the teacher of righteousness in the
past. According to the "speculation" below, D--or certain parts of D--would
have to have been composed at the earliest sometime after c. 10 BCE. For a
variety of reasons, including relationships with other texts, paleographic
descriptions, and C14 dating, most scholars consider some of the Qumran
copies (and even moreso the composition) of D to be earlier than that. Not
all of these datings agree precisely, but, e.g.: Ada Yardeni dated 4Q266
to "from about the first half or the middle of the first century BCE" [DJD
XVIII p26]; a C14 test gave a 2-sigma range of 45 BCE-120 CE. A C14
reading for 4Q267 gave a 2-sigma range of 194-45 BCE; Yardeni called it
"early Herodian" [p.96].
Joseph Baumgarten wrote (DJD XVIII, p. 6): "The 4Q manuscripts tend
to enhance the general reliability of the text extant in the Genizah
versions of CD."
Though almost all agree that the 31 BCE earthquake caused damage at
Qumran, the proposal that a long abandonment followed that has been
dismissed by M. Broshi, Y. Magen, J. Magness, Y. Meshorer, and others. If
the latter are correct, that date would appear to be a weak candidate for
the "age of wrath."
Stephen Goranson firstname.lastname@example.org
>As the list seemed to welcome the "wide-eyed" speculations
>of Jim West, I wondered if I might elicit the group's
>critique of some of my own, engendered late at night over a
>bottle of pepper vodka with friends slightly less critical
>than this group.
>May I start with the Damascus Document and make one
>assumption. That the dates used when it was written were
>the same chronological dates agreed upon in the middle of
>the second century CE by Rabbi Akivah and his student Rabbi
>I am not advocating these dates to be correct, only that
>the writer of CD thought them so. One of the reasons that
>Akivah thought that Bar Kosiba was the messiah is because
>of that chronology as I will attempt to show.
>In the Akivah/Yossi chronology the first Temple was
>destroyed 421/20 BCE.
>70 years later there was the return i.e. 350/51 BCE.
>Then according to CD 30/31 BC would be "The Age of Wrath"
> 390 years after the Nebuchadnezer event. The earthquake as
>described by Josephus as being
>" such a one as had not happened at any other time" could
>certainly be described as that.
>With that chronology it can be seen that 70 CE comes 490
>years (70 weeks of days) after the destruction of the first
>Temple and one understands why Akivah 70 years after that
>is looking for the Messiah and picks Bar Kochbar.
>The question is therefore, if this is correct, what was the
>"plant root" that sprang from Israel and Aaron around the
>time of the destruction of Qumran around 30 BCE and what
> happened 20 years later? Was "The Teacher of
>Righteousness" born on that date or did he begin his work?
>It is time for Jim to wreak his revenge.
>Mike_Sanders@photoad.com (private e-mail)
>BibleMysteries@photoad.com (web site e-mail)
>From: Jim West [SMTP:jwest@Highland.Net]
>Sent: Saturday, December 13, 1997 10:59 AM
>Subject: orion re: minimalism
>For Ms. Leerner's benefit I will restate my earlier (now
>1- the OT was composed originally in Greek
>2- The function of the Qumran center was to translate these
>make them widely available to the Hebrew and Aramaic
>inhabitants of the land.
>What this has to do with minimalism I fail to see.
>What place a discussion of my so called "minimalist"
>leanings would have on
>Orion I likewise fail to see.
>Thus, my statement of non-participation in a discussion of
>Orion seemed quite proper. But if Avital wishes it, I will
>gladly carry on
>such a discussion. The implication that I am trying to
>avoid stating my
>views or defending them is kind of silly given my complete
>openness on this
>and other issues on this and other lists (as those who know
>me know well).
>Adjunct Professor of Bible
>Quartz Hill School of Theology