For many years now, list members will have appreciated Stephen
Carlson's contributions.  I am sure that you would all like to join me
in taking a moment to congratulate him on the successful defense of
his PhD here at Duke this week.  His thesis title was "The Text of
Galatians and Its History".  Those of you who know Stephen's work will
not be surprised to hear that his thesis was outstanding, and his
defense of it exemplary.  If we awarded "honors" here at Duke, or
"graduation with distinction", this thesis would have received that
award.  Very many congratulations, Stephen, on a richly deserved PhD,
and all the very best for your future!

Mark Goodacre

--
Mark Goodacre
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://www.markgoodacre.org

If and when (hopefully the latter) Stephen's dissertation is published, I'm sure
there are many of us who would love to read it. Hence, an email to the list
indicating where it will be available would be most appreciated, particularly by
this old man. Excellent scholarship, I've found, works better to ease pain than
the various foods recommended to the 'smitten'--and certainly better than the
pharmacy industry's pain medications: it acts salvare.

Blessings to all,

Tom

_________________
Thomas A. Kopecek, Ph.D. (Brown)
Professor Emeritus
Central College
Pella, Iowa

Contact at Home:
1536 Elk Horn Drive
Roberts Creek Lake
Otley, Iowa 50214-8513
Landline: 641-627-5692
Cell: 641-204-9392
Email preferred: kopecekt@...<mailto:kopecekt@...>

-----Original Message-----
From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Goodacre
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:25 PM
To: Synoptic-L; Crosstalk2
Subject: [XTalk] Congratulations to Stephen Carlson

For many years now, list members will have appreciated Stephen Carlson's
contributions.  I am sure that you would all like to join me in taking a moment
to congratulate him on the successful defense of his PhD here at Duke this week.
His thesis title was "The Text of Galatians and Its History".  Those of you who
know Stephen's work will not be surprised to hear that his thesis was
outstanding, and his defense of it exemplary.  If we awarded "honors" here at
Duke, or "graduation with distinction", this thesis would have received that
award.  Very many congratulations, Stephen, on a richly deserved PhD, and all
the very best for your future!

Mark Goodacre

--
Mark Goodacre
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://www.markgoodacre.org


------------------------------------

The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com\
>

To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups\
.com>

List managers may be contacted directly at:
crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com<mailto:crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com>

Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 08:25 PM 4/14/2012, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>For many years now, list members will have appreciated Stephen
>Carlson's contributions.

Indeed, I have!

>  I am sure that you would all like to join me
>in taking a moment to congratulate him on the successful defense of
>his PhD here at Duke this week.  His thesis title was "The Text of
>Galatians and Its History".  Those of you who know Stephen's work will
>not be surprised to hear that his thesis was outstanding, and his
>defense of it exemplary.  If we awarded "honors" here at Duke, or
>"graduation with distinction", this thesis would have received that
>award.  Very many congratulations, Stephen, on a richly deserved PhD,
>and all the very best for your future!

Stephen,
Congratulations! Now, how about sharing some of that with us? :-)
And also, what's next for you? A teaching job?

BTW, Stephen, it is a measure of your stature
that you have lured Tom Kopecek out of lurkerdom to add his kudos.
If we had a category for Favorite Senior
Academics on this list, I would nominate him for
it. There are a number of folks on this list who
have been my mentors, and Goodacre, Carlson, and
Kopecek are among them. Thanks!

Bob Schacht
Northern Arizona University




>Mark Goodacre
>
>--
>Mark Goodacre
>Duke University
>Department of Religion
>Gray Building / Box 90964
>Durham, NC 27708-0964 �  � USA
>Phone: 919-660-3503 �  �  �  � Fax: 919-660-3530
>
>http://www.markgoodacre.org
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
>To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 05:41 AM 4/15/2012, Thomas Kopecek wrote:
>If and when (hopefully the latter) Stephen's dissertation is
>published, I'm sure there are many of us who would love to read it.
>Hence, an email to the list indicating where it will be available
>would be most appreciated, particularly by this old man. Excellent
>scholarship, I've found, works better to ease pain than the various
>foods recommended to the 'smitten'--and certainly better than the
>pharmacy industry's pain medications: it acts salvare.
>
>Blessings to all,
>
>Tom

I second that motion!

Bob Schacht
Northern Arizona University


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for the kind words.  I have chosen to make my dissertation available
on ProQuest/UMI and Duke Space
http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/browse without
embargo.  As soon as I notice that it's up, I'll announce it.

Stephen

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Thomas Kopecek <kopecekt@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> If and when (hopefully the latter) Stephen's dissertation is published,
> I'm sure there are many of us who would love to read it. Hence, an email to
> the list indicating where it will be available would be most appreciated,
> particularly by this old man. Excellent scholarship, I've found, works
> better to ease pain than the various foods recommended to the
> 'smitten'--and certainly better than the pharmacy industry's pain
> medications: it acts salvare.
>
> Blessings to all,
>
> Tom
>
> _________________
> Thomas A. Kopecek, Ph.D. (Brown)
> Professor Emeritus
> Central College
> Pella, Iowa
>
> Contact at Home:
> 1536 Elk Horn Drive
> Roberts Creek Lake
> Otley, Iowa 50214-8513
> Landline: 641-627-5692
> Cell: 641-204-9392
> Email preferred: kopecekt@...<mailto:kopecekt@...>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Mark Goodacre
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:25 PM
> To: Synoptic-L; Crosstalk2
> Subject: [XTalk] Congratulations to Stephen Carlson
>
> For many years now, list members will have appreciated Stephen Carlson's
> contributions. I am sure that you would all like to join me in taking a
> moment to congratulate him on the successful defense of his PhD here at
> Duke this week. His thesis title was "The Text of Galatians and Its
> History". Those of you who know Stephen's work will not be surprised to
> hear that his thesis was outstanding, and his defense of it exemplary. If
> we awarded "honors" here at Duke, or "graduation with distinction", this
> thesis would have received that award. Very many congratulations, Stephen,
> on a richly deserved PhD, and all the very best for your future!
>
> Mark Goodacre
>
> --
> Mark Goodacre
> Duke University
> Department of Religion
> Gray Building / Box 90964
> Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
> Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
>
> http://www.markgoodacre.org
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
> crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>
> List managers may be contacted directly at:
> crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com<mailto:crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
--
Stephen C. Carlson
Ph.D., Duke University


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mealand <D.Mealand@...>
Sent: March 04, 2012 2:10 PM
To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [XTalk] Pentecost and charismata



  Seem to remember this book looked at routinization in NT period:
  The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of
  Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline
  Writings By: MacDonald, Margaret Y.. Cambridge Univ Pr, 1988

  It is also worth considering if Acts dates from a later more ordered
  phase just why it describes the very early period quite as it does.

  David M.

  ---------
  David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

  --
  The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
  Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post

[The entire original message is not included]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This announcement was issued recently by Corpus Christi College, Oxford
--------
We were saddened to learn today of the death of The Revd. Christopher
Evans FBA, Emeritus Fellow, Chaplain and Divinity Lecturer at Corpus
(1948-58) at the age of 102 on 30 July. His funeral will be held on
Monday, 6th August at 12.15 at All Saints, Cuddesdon.
---------

Prof. Evans also later held the Lightfoot chair at the University
of Durham, and then a chair in New Testament in the University of London,
King's College.


---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Would any members of thee group be kind enough to suggest for each (or any) of
the Gospels what they consider to be the best commentaries for the purposes of
source criticism and/or historicity?
Thanks
Gary Greenberg
NYC

Web site: Bible Myth and History

Author of the following books

101 Myths of the Bible
The Moses Mystery
The Judas Brief
King David Versus Israel
Who Wrote the Gospels?
Manetho: A Study in Egyptian Chronology


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not a commentary, but on assessing the historicity of Gospel pericopes
there's surely nothing more exhaustive (even while incomplete) as John
Meier's series (4 volumes and counting) *A Marginal Jew*. Latest volume
contains the mind-blowing claim that Jesus may well have taught "Love your
neighbor as yourself."

Jeff Peterson
Austin Graduate School of Theology
Austin, Texas

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Gary Greenberg <garygreenberg@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Would any members of thee group be kind enough to suggest for each (or
> any) of the Gospels what they consider to be the best commentaries for the
> purposes of source criticism and/or historicity?
> Thanks
> Gary Greenberg
> NYC
>
> Web site: Bible Myth and History
>
> Author of the following books
>
> 101 Myths of the Bible
> The Moses Mystery
> The Judas Brief
> King David Versus Israel
> Who Wrote the Gospels?
> Manetho: A Study in Egyptian Chronology
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On source criticism, not any of them.   REally the commentary genre is a real
problem here -- tends to be stuck in an old paradigm. And I think Jeff's comment
about historical Jesus issues is spot on: Marginal Jew is simply the best (and
can be mined for just a tone of information about various issues in the
gospels).

But I am going to assume you are looking for the best historical-critical
commentaries that have loads of good material about the setting, etc., including
sources but also form-critical / redaction critical issues etc.  So here goes my
choices:

1.  On Mark, I would use Joel Marcus in the Anchor Bible series.  (best overall
is a lit-crit commentary, Sowing the Gospel)

2.  On Luke, probably the best overall remains Joe Fitzmyer's two volume in
Anchor Bible, even though it's dated.  A good companion would be Joel Green's
volume in the NICNT.  For the Farrer approach on sources, it's Goulder's work, A
New Paradigm, but aside from the source issue it is not that helpful (in my
opinion).

3.  On Matthew, I would use Dale Allison and W.D. Davies three volume work in
the ICC series.  As a more recent backup from a slightly different tack (but
with loads of references to ancient materials) I would use Craig Keener's volume
on Matthew.

4.  On John, a bit more difficult because of a bias in the main commentaries on
the historical background.  But I would say Rudolf Schnackenburg's 3 volume
series. Again perhaps augmented by Keener's fine 2 volume work.  For good
historical perspectives, the various volumes from the SBL on John, Jesus and
History -- while seminar papers and not commentary -- are invaluable for
updating and giving perspective on the commentaries.

Mark A. Matson
Milligan College
http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
________________________________________
From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Gary
Greenberg [garygreenberg@...]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:32 PM
To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [XTalk] Gospel Commentaries

Would any members of thee group be kind enough to suggest for each (or any) of
the Gospels what they consider to be the best commentaries for the purposes of
source criticism and/or historicity?
Thanks
Gary Greenberg
NYC

Web site: Bible Myth and History

Author of the following books

101 Myths of the Bible
The Moses Mystery
The Judas Brief
King David Versus Israel
Who Wrote the Gospels?
Manetho: A Study in Egyptian Chronology


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links



     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Gary,

Let me put in the good word for "The Five Gospels" and "The Acts of
Jesus" from the Jesus Seminar.  Not all on this list think that "the
Marginal Jew" is the be all and end all of historical Jesus research.
And for a fair contrast to such as Allison, Keener, etc., one needs to
read the works of the Jesus Seminar.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC
On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:

> On source criticism, not any of them.   REally the commentary genre
> is a real problem here -- tends to be stuck in an old paradigm. And
> I think Jeff's comment about historical Jesus issues is spot on:
> Marginal Jew is simply the best (and can be mined for just a tone of
> information about various issues in the gospels).
>
>
> From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] on
> behalf of Gary Greenberg [garygreenberg@...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:32 PM
> To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [XTalk] Gospel Commentaries
>
> Would any members of thee group be kind enough to suggest for each
> (or any) of the Gospels what they consider to be the best
> commentaries for the purposes of source criticism and/or historicity?
> Thanks
> Gary Greenberg
> NYC
>
> Web site: Bible Myth and History
>
> Author of the following books
>
> 101 Myths of the Bible
> The Moses Mystery
> The Judas Brief
> King David Versus Israel
> Who Wrote the Gospels?
> Manetho: A Study in Egyptian Chronology
>
>

1. *The Five Gospels* presents a nice overview, and often the collective
    judgment of the vote is congruent with what I would call the "gravitational
    weight"of scholarly opinion. But the vote makes the individual scholars'
    methodologies and arguments underlying them opaque.  A judge can give all
    the instruction in the world to jurors, but in the end you never know why
    the decided as they did.  (This was the argument Charles Black made that
    led to the Supreme Court ruling that overturned US death penalty laws in
    the early 1970s.)



Some of the Jesus Seminar folks seem to have a blind spot re
eschatology/apocalyptic, IMO,perhaps because of theories about the
stratification of Q.  I found it bizarre that the JS volume on JBap
blithely declared that JBap was an apocalyptist but that his disciple Jesus
was not.

Hard not to admire Meier for sticking largely to his methodology (criteria
of authenticity), and it's proved very fruitful, but it also narrows his
lens and excludes The Context Group; we'll have to wait for Vol. 5 to see
whether he ignores the literary/rhetorical-structural literature on
parables.  As I recall he has taken no account of Winters' and Theissen's
critique of the Criterion of Dissimilarity (and suggested alternative) as
his series progressively comes to fruition.

I recommend the Historical Jesus "textbook" by Gerd Theissen and Ann Merz
as the best one-volume introduction.  It does a nice job of covering much
of the literature, and has some fresh thinking and unique material, like
the analysis of the "Words of Institution."

Steve

Steven Deedon
New Haven, CT
stevendeedon@...
http://stevendeedon.wordpress.com

"Openness is all." -  Thomas Merton, in "Recollections of Thomas Merton's
Last Days in the West," Brother David Steindl-Rast.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I suggest complementing the AB with new Hermeneia volumes: Adela Collins on
Mark, Francois Bovon on Luke (the second volume, originally in French, not
published in English yet). Harry Attridge,who is the General Editor of the
series, has taken up the task to write the Hermeneia commentary on John.

Steve

Steven Deedon
New Haven, CT
stevendeedon@...
http://stevendeedon.wordpress.com

"Openness is all." -  Thomas Merton, in "Recollections of Thomas Merton's
Last Days in the West," Brother David Steindl-Rast.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Aug 18, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Steven Deedon wrote:

>   1. *The Five Gospels* presents a nice overview, and often the
> collective
>   judgment of the vote is congruent with what I would call the
> "gravitational
>   weight"of scholarly opinion. But the vote makes the individual
> scholars'
>   methodologies and arguments underlying them opaque.  A judge can
> give all
>   the instruction in the world to jurors, but in the end you never
> know why
>   the decided as they did.  (This was the argument Charles Black
> made that
>   led to the Supreme Court ruling that overturned US death penalty
> laws in
>   the early 1970s.)
>
>
>
> Some of the Jesus Seminar folks seem to have a blind spot re
> eschatology/apocalyptic, IMO,perhaps because of theories about the
> stratification of Q.  I found it bizarre that the JS volume on JBap
> blithely declared that JBap was an apocalyptist but that his
> disciple Jesus
> was not.
>
Steve,

In the old days of this group we went over this more than once and you
can search the records for those debates.  All I'll note is the
description of "blind spot" is completely inaccurate to described the
long and patient work that was done to sift through the words and
deeds attributed to Jesus across every available resource.  Yes, this
included the acceptance of the work done on strata in Q, but also work
on Thomas and the wisdom materials in many strands of the tradition.
Their report is an avowed consensus report of scholars done across
more of a decade of open debate.  One may surely disagree with the
consensus on any number of points (and, of course, many scholars of
the group did have and keep their disagreements on this matter), but
this characterization of the work is simply not an accurate
description of what was achieved and the continuing importance of
these two works as a basis to continue the serious scholarly
enterprise of debating these issues.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

Interesting that Marginal Jew and the
Five Gospels feature as they do in the
recent exchanges.

Would someone care to list 6 or more items in
particular they would rate as the most significant
places where the two differ over whether something
should, or should not, be assigned to "stage 1" of
the tradition, or point to such a list if someone
has already produced one?  The list might need to
make adjustments to allow for the cases where a
judgement is made that "p was not said, but
something very like it may well have been said"
or something similar.

David M.


---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

>
> Steve,
> In the old days of this group we went over this more than once and you
> can search the records for those debates. All I'll note is the
> description of "blind spot" is completely inaccurate to described the
> long and patient work that was done to sift through the words and
> deeds attributed to Jesus across every available resource. Yes, this
> included the acceptance of the work done on strata in Q, but also work
> on Thomas and the wisdom materials in many strands of the tradition.
> Their report is an avowed consensus report of scholars done across
> more of a decade of open debate. One may surely disagree with the
> consensus on any number of points (and, of course, many scholars of
> the group did have and keep their disagreements on this matter), but
> this characterization of the work is simply not an accurate
> description of what was achieved and the continuing importance of
> these two works as a basis to continue the serious scholarly
> enterprise of debating these issues.


It's important to note that while their report did constitute an "avowed
consensus", that that was a consensus (of a sort) *among the scholars who
participated in the seminar.* As to whether their two works is "a basis to
continue the serious scholarly enterprise", I think few would disagree,
*if* by that you mean that a serious scholarly treatment should at least
take seriously and engage with their report. I think it'd come as no
surprise that many scholars found significant problems with their
methodology, their criteria and the consequent report.

Take, for example, one scholar responding to "the Jesus Seminar is
consensus" claim:

The Jesus Seminar portrays itself to the media as the representative voice
of New Testament scholarship today, going over the heads of the clergy to
tell unsuspecting laymen, who have been duped by the Church, what Jesus was
really like. They claim some 200 participants in the Seminar, who are
supposed to be the embodiment of a scholarly approach to the New Testament.
Just one evidence of this pretension is that they have named their
translation of the gospels "The Scholar�s Version"��as though the teams of
linguists and experts who produced such translations as the RSV, NEB, or
NIV were not scholars! [...] Well, the reality turns out to be much
different. Their claim to have 200 scholars in the Seminar is grossly
inflated: that figure includes anybody who in any way was involved in the
Seminar�s activities, such as being on a mailing list. The real number of
regular participants is only about 40. And what about the scholarly
credentials of the members? Of the 74 listed in their publication The Five
Gospels, only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament
studies. More than half are basically unknowns, who have published only two
or three articles. Eighteen of the fellows have published nothing at all in
New Testament studies! Most have relatively undistinguished academic
positions, for example, teaching at a community college. According to
Johnson, "The numbers alone suggest that any claim to represent
�scholarship� or the �academy� is ludicrous."{22} *****Indeed, it is the
Seminar�s claim to represent the consensus of scholarship that has really
burned New Testament scholars.***** [emphasis added] And I want to
emphasize I�m not talking about the reactions of conservatives or
evangelicals: I�m talking about the broad spectrum of New Testament
scholars. For example, Howard Kee denounces the Jesus Seminar as "an
academic disgrace," and says that its conclusions are "prejudicial" and
"peripheral," not "a substantive development in responsible scholarly study
of the historical Jesus."{23} [1]


Speaking only for myself, I found the book *The Five Gospels* incredibly
helpful as one perspective on Jesus and especially as a resource to learn
interesting facts about 1st century Palestine. I only hope that any claim
to it being *the* consensus interpretation of the Gospels will be viewed
cautiously.

Best wishes,
Jared Nuzzolillo
Fort Lauderdale, FL

[1] - William Lane Craig,
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover1.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks to all those who replied.
Gary

Gary Greenberg

For all those who are going to SBL this year, the Fall meeting of the
Jesus Seminar is being held in conjunction with SBL this year.  The
meetings will be Friday and Saturday.  There will be a twin focus on
Rudolph Bultmann with such scholars as Helmut Koester, Karen King and
Schubert Ogden as lead presenters and the meeting of the Bible Seminar
with lead presentations by Lee McDonald from Acadia  Divinity College
and David Carr from Union Seminary (NYC).  You can find out the
details at the westarinstitute.org site.  For those who have never
actually seen the workings of the Jesus Seminar and who are going to
SBL in Chicago this November, I highly urge you to go.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

To: XTalk
Re: Alpha Christianity at SBL
From: Bruce

Gordon Raynal has just mentioned the Jesus Seminar meeting at SBL this Nov,
with its celebration of Bultmann. That reminds me of another event at SBL,
which I venture to mention. I first give a little background.

JSem and Bultmann are a very logical pair. Bultmann more or less establishes
the view of the Gospel material which JSem takes as a starting point. That
view is that all the Gospels are late, none has any standing as an
eyewitness account, and all therefore stand roughly equal as sources of
Dominical Sayings. Then all the sayings in the Synoptics can be put in a
single pile and stirred well, and from that pile modern individuals can pick
what seem to them to be possibly genuine in origin.

That view is risky on at least two counts, both of which require careful
reading of the texts, but what else are we here for?

(1) The line in Mk (13:14) which leads to its post-70 or near-70 dating is
more naturally read as an allusion to Antiochus IV Epiphanius, who had
desecrated the Temple in an earlier time (the quote, which Matthew following
Mark makes explicit, is from "the holy prophet Daniel"), and thus a
reference to the threatened desecration of the Jerusalem and other temples
by Caligula in 40. Since Caligula died early the following year, and the
threat at once disappeared, Mk 13:14 as a refuted prediction could not have
been written later than 40. When a Gospel wants to point to the destruction
of Titus and not the threatened desecration of Caligula, it does not do what
Mark does, and it does not do what Matthew, following Mark, continues to do;
it does what Luke does at the corresponding passage (Lk 21:20), and refers
explicitly to armies surrounding Jerusalem. The Gospel writers surely had
their limitations, but they were probably not so dumb that they could not
tell an idol from an army. It then follows that not only Mark, but Matthew
who fails to update Mark, are both pre-70 documents. Luke, which in its
present form follows Matthew, is then the first post-70 Gospel. Matthew is
still pre-70, and Mark, coming well before Matthew, is significantly
earlier. This puts Mark at minimum back into the lifetime of Paul, and
establishes Mark as a source of much more value than Bultmann allows.

(2) Mark itself is stratified. The Caligula reference, which Mark is at
pains, in 13:14, to have properly decoded by his readers (sic), is itself in
a late layer of the Mk 13 Apocalypse, as Taylor showed in an appendix to his
commentary. Then Mk 13:14 itself was written in the year 40, and there is
material in Mk 13 which must be still earlier, since that prediction was
inserted into it. This puts a certain amount of Mark back into the 30's,
long before any witness of Paul. There are also the widely recognized pair
of predictions, Mk 14:28 and 16:7, where the following verse talks past the
verse in question, and responds instead to the verse preceding it. Other
examples abound, and need not be repeated here.

The implication of all this is that much of Mark is early, and part of it,
the part into which the rest has been interpolated, the ground narrative of
Mark, is *very* early. This is a different picture than the one on which
Bultmann relied. If we rely instead on Mark, we get a picture of Jesus
different from the usual one (which is heavily weighted toward that most
effective of all Second Tier Gospel passages, the Sermon on the Mount). That
Markan Jesus is a figure which gradually develops, and the various
interpolations in effect mirror those developments; Paul's Jesus represents
a later stage of that development.

At its early end, the stratified Mark links up with several other documents
widely recognized as "primitive" (meaning, very early): the Epistle of
James, the Didache, the pre-Pauline hymn embedded in Philippians 2, and so
on. That is, if we take only the earliest Mark as our basis, we find a
surprising amount of consistent documentation in extant texts, some of them
canonical or embedded canonical.

Jesus did not found, but did give rise to, the earliest Christian movement.
To the earliest stage of this movement, the earliest Mark and other
acknowledged "primitive" documents are consistent witnesses. This
Christianity, not surprisingly, differs from the theologically and
administratively more developed Christianity of the second half of the 1st
century. To this earlier version, I have given the name Alpha Christianity.
For a summary of these findings, see

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/index.html

There has been a certain amount of interest in this result, among scholars
and among what might be called the larger Christian public. For some years
now, we have sponsored an Alpha Christianity meeting at the annual SBL, not
a panel, but a time when interested persons can get together, raise
questions, and make suggestions for future research. This year's meeting
will be at 8 AM on Monday 19 November, in the main convention site; exact
room to be announced (or will be searchable sv Alpha Christianity on the SBL
listing, when SBL finally gets the bugs out; be sure to check "Include
Additional Meetings").

That is the announcement. Thanks for the opportunity to make it.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Almost needless to say, if anyone will be making an SBL presentation
compatible with, or of direct interest to, the Alpha Christianity subject, I
would be glad to be told of it, and will give it suitable notice and
publicity on our web page and elsewhere.

Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP  is, as is well known, not
a modern phenomenon.  It is something that has been engaged in since at
least the third century CE, beginning, so far as we know, in the Latin
West somewhere between  the years 200 and  206 with Tertullian in his De
Oratione (On Prayer).  And it has continued until this day.  But as it
was assumed since Tertullian's time up until the modern period that
“there is comprised in the prayer an epitome of the entire Gospel” (ut
re vera in oratione breviarium totius evangelii comprehendatur), and
given that the LP was regarded as the basic tool, along with the Creed
and the Decalogue, for teaching Christian doctrine and achieving a
“Christ centered life”,  almost all of this discourse and commentary was
not concerned with establishing what the original (or even the
evangelistic) meaning and intent of the LP might have been.  And even
when exegesis was undertaken,  it was done so in order to fit the
meaning of the prayer within the context of a presumed unified biblical
witness to theological apriorii  and under the hermeneutical assumption
that of Scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter).

But of course,  this changed with the realization  that -- to use
Krister Stendahl's words – "the Bible contains revelation that could be
grasped in the clear form of eternal truth unconditioned and
uncontaminated by historical limitations, could no longer be maintained
and that grasping  both what a Biblical text meant, as well as what it
might mean,  could only be determined by reading that text from within
the historical and cultural and religious context in which it had been
produced".

So today,  with perhaps the devotional commentaries on the LP as the
exception,  virtually everyone who discusses the LP does so with the
intent,  and through the use of historical critical methodologies, to
uncover what Jesus (or the evangelists who record the LP) saw as that
prayer's aim and original meaning.

I  note all of this because I am interested in discovering is who it was
who, under this realization,  first moved away from the pre-modern
understanding of what the LP was all about, and produced the first
historical critical commentary on/discussion of the LP? Does anyone know?

With thanks in advance,

Jeffrey




   -- --- Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon. 1500 W. Pratt Blvd Chicago, IL
jgibson000@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP  is, as is well known, not
a modern phenomenon.  It is something that has been engaged in since at
least the third century CE, beginning, so far as we know, in the Latin
West somewhere between  the years 200 and  206 with Tertullian in his De
Oratione (On Prayer).  And it has continued until this day.  But as it
was assumed since Tertullian's time up until the modern period that
“there is comprised in the prayer an epitome of the entire Gospel” (ut
re vera in oratione breviarium totius evangelii comprehendatur), and
given that the LP was regarded as the basic tool, along with the Creed
and the Decalogue, for teaching Christian doctrine and achieving a
“Christ centered life”,  almost all of this discourse and commentary was
not concerned with establishing what the original (or even the
evangelistic) meaning and intent of the LP might have been.  And even
when exegesis was undertaken,  it was done so in order to fit the
meaning of the prayer within the context of a presumed unified biblical
witness to theological apriorii  and under the hermeneutical assumption
that of Scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter).

But of course,  this changed with the realization  that -- to use
Krister Stendahl's words – "the Bible contains revelation that could be
grasped in the clear form of eternal truth unconditioned and
uncontaminated by historical limitations, could no longer be maintained
and that grasping  both what a Biblical text meant, as well as what it
might mean,  could only be determined by reading that text from within
the historical and cultural and religious context in which it had been
produced".

So today,  with perhaps the devotional commentaries on the LP as the
exception,  virtually everyone who discusses the LP does so with the
intent,  and through the use of historical critical methodologies, to
uncover what Jesus (or the evangelists who record the LP) saw as that
prayer's aim and original meaning.

I  note all of this because I am interested in discovering is who it was
who, under this realization,  first moved away from the pre-modern
understanding of what the LP was all about, and produced the first
historical critical commentary on/discussion of the LP? Does anyone know?

With thanks in advance,

Jeffrey




   -- --- Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon. 1500 W. Pratt Blvd Chicago, IL
jgibson000@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Does anyone here have a copy of C.H. Turner's /Catholic and Apostolic/?
I'm in great need of a scan of p. 81 and p. lviii n. 139.

With thanks in advance,

Jeffrey

--
---
Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
Chicago, IL
jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Apologies for cross posting


Please come to the 16th annual E-Lister's Meeting at the the Society of
Biblical Literature's Annual Meeting in Chicago.

This meeting will take place on Saturday, Nov. 17th at 11:30 a.m. the
Eisenbrauns Press booth (# 439) in the Exhibit Hall  (Hall F2) in the
McCormick Convention Center (McCormick Place West Level 3).

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to one hitherto known only as an electronic
personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous SBLs.

So come along and join us there!

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

--
---
Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
Chicago, Il.
jgibson000@...

I'll be at both the Jesus Seminar and SBL events.  I'm not sure I'll
be able to make it to the Saturday meeting.
Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC
On Oct 15, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Jgibson wrote:

> Apologies for cross posting
>
>
> Please come to the 16th annual E-Lister's Meeting at the the Society
> of
> Biblical Literature's Annual Meeting in Chicago.
>
> This meeting will take place on Saturday, Nov. 17th at 11:30 a.m. the
> Eisenbrauns Press booth (# 439) in the Exhibit Hall  (Hall F2) in the
> McCormick Convention Center (McCormick Place West Level 3).
>
> As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
> opportunity to place a face to one hitherto known only as an
> electronic
> personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous SBLs.
>
> So come along and join us there!
>
> Yours,
>
> Jeffrey Gibson
>
> --
> ---
> Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
> 1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
> Chicago, Il.
> jgibson000@...
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

1) John J. Collins, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Biography (Princeton UP, copyright
2013[?]). This "Lives of Great Religious Books" series contribution offers a
breezy, journalistic overview from one of the Scrolls editors. It's readable and
mostly reliable. It rightly notes (p. 33) that, early on, several (including I.
Sowmy) independently raised the possible Essene connection, but (p. 34) writes
that "it is not clear exactly when Sukenik reached this conclusion." Actually,
his son Y. Yadin published excerpts from his diary in the Eretz Israel 8 Sukenik
volume (1967), with dates. Coverage of the relevant history of scholarship
before 1948 is somewhat hit-or-miss: mentioning Scaliger on Philo but not
Conybeare; mentioning some mistaken etymologies but not the likeliest ones, for
which, see now J. VanderKam, The DSS and the Bible (2012) 100-104 ('osey
hatorah). Collins recounts several, but surely not all, of the Scrolls
controversies. For example, omitted is Yadin's claim that B-Z Wacholder in Dawn
of Qumran plagiarized him. There are some misspellings, including Rafael for
Raphael Golb. An OK read.

2) Joan E. Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford UP, 2012).
This major work deserves long, detailed reviews, so this note is merely for
starters. To be brief, Taylor has really, and in detail, strengthened the case
that some Essenes lived at Qumran for parts of the first centuries BCE and CE.
The book covers much ground, and has strengths and weaknesses. It is unreliable
and practically self-contradictory about Essene etymology. It makes a
questionable argument that NT Herodians was another name for Essenes, yet does
not cite the directly-relevant text by Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden
Law...(1985) 80-83 (much less my BA 1985 p. 127 review of it). She goes on at
length about healing--a subject admittedly of interest to most religious [or
non-religious] groups, but has little to show that healing was a remarkably
characteristic feature of Essenes, beyond a few passing words in Josephus.
Steckoll's dig is cited as if reliable. She cites a YouTube video by John
Allegro (who did say Essenes were healers, but on other days said other things)
averring that Essenes grew healing herbs at Ain Feshkha (p. 306). Draws on
Anakephalaiosis as if authored by Epiphanius (despite K. Holl, T & U 1910).
Writes of "4QTherapeia"--4Q431, 4QM130, that J. Naveh and J. Greenfield et al.
consider a writing exercise--in a most curious manner, leaving unanalysed
whether she regards it evidence for Essene healing (pages 306 & 329--inaccurate
in the index). 306: "...Allegro noted texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls that
seemed to have associations with healing, particularly a text once known as
4QTherapeia." 329: "Specific medical or pharmacological terms have been
suggested in only one text, originally called 4QTherapeia (4Q341). Allegro was
particularly interested in this, reading it as designating a variety of
medications. However, because of the difficulty in comprehending this, the
identification of it as a writing exercise is currently assumed." Given Taylor's
claims about healing, leaning on so little, a reader might expect to hear if she
considers Therapeia an appropriate name, and why. But the book's weaknesses on
etymology and healing (and, we shall see, maybe or maybe not on Herodians)
should not keep readers away from the book's many, many strengths. It includes
much of interest.

Stephen Goranson
www.duke.edu/~goranson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Apologies for cross posting


Please come to the 16th annual E-Lister's Meeting at the the Society of
Biblical Literature's Annual Meeting in Chicago.

This meeting will take place on Saturday, Nov. 17th at 11:30 a.m. the
Eisenbrauns Press booth (# 439) in the Exhibit Hall  (Hall F2) in the
McCormick Convention Center (McCormick Place West Level 3).

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to one hitherto known only as an electronic
personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous SBLs.

So come along and join us there!

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

--
---
Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
Chicago, Il.
jgibson000@...

As many of you know,  a small number of witnesses to the text of Lk.
11:2 testify that the second petition in the Lukan version of the
version of the LP read not "May your Kingdom come" but "May your Holy
Spirit come upon us and purify us".

I'm wondering how one should assess this variant.  Is it original? Is it
commentary on what the kingdom petition is all about?  Or is it
something else?.

Any thoughts?

Jeffrey

--
---
Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
Chicago, IL
jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 08:28 AM 11/28/2012, Jgibson wrote:
>As many of you know,  a small number of witnesses to the text of Lk.
>11:2 testify that the second petition in the Lukan version of the
>version of the LP read not "May your Kingdom come" but "May your Holy
>Spirit come upon us and purify us".
>
>I'm wondering how one should assess this variant.  Is it original? Is it
>commentary on what the kingdom petition is all about?  Or is it
>something else?.


How about another alternative? That these two versions are both
original, but with different factions within the followers of Jesus?
e.g., between the zealots who may have been allied with Bar Kochba on
the one hand, and the pentecostals of Acts and Paul on the other hand?

Bob Schacht
Northern Arizona University

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jgibson
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:28 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Cc: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com ; biblical-studies
Subject: [XTalk] Variant in Lukan version of LP

As many of you know,  a small number of witnesses to the text of Lk.
11:2 testify that the second petition in the Lukan version of the
version of the LP read not "May your Kingdom come" but "May your Holy
Spirit come upon us and purify us".

I'm wondering how one should assess this variant.  Is it original? Is it
commentary on what the kingdom petition is all about?  Or is it
something else?.

Any thoughts?

Jeffrey

--
---
Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
Chicago, IL
jgibson000@...

The three petitions. "Holy be YOUR name" and "Let come YOUR kingdom" and
"Let be done YOUR will" are each consistently FOR God while that variant is
what some scribe figures is going to happen to US if the KoG did come. I
don't know which mss it is but it, unlike the rest of the prayer, doesn't
appear (I need to see the actual Greek) to have Aramaic structure.  I think
it's scribal fancy.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
Houston, TX



------------------------------------

The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

List managers may be contacted directly at:
crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

Joan Taylor in this book strengthens the (already-strong) case that some Essenes
lived at Qumran and elsewhere for parts of the first centuries BCE and CE. The
book covers much ground, and has strengths and weaknesses.
Taylor provides detailed analysis of the earliest sources on Essenes. Of course
these have been studied often before, but one of the best sections of the book,
in my view, is her discussion of Dio Chrysostom on Essenes. Among her
conclusions: �Dio Chrysostom, a contemporary of Joseph and Pliny, is an
independent source on Essenes.� (p. 165) If this is true, and I think Joan is
right about this, and Dio was not quoting Pliny (or his source, Marcus Vipsanius
Agrippa in my opinion), then Dio adds additional early attestation of Essenes by
the Dead Sea, and for several reasons, the northwest part of it, which includes
Qumran, where scrolls were found. She gives many other good reasons that link
Essenes, Qumran, and many of the scrolls.
She goes on at length about healing--a subject admittedly of interest to most
religious (or even non-religious) groups--but has little to show that healing
was a remarkably characteristic feature of Essenes, beyond a few passing
words--not specific to the Dead Sea--in Josephus. Previously, the announced
title of the book listed on her online CV was The Dead Sea Essenes and Ancient
Healing. I think it was a wise choice to change the title to de-emphasize
healing. But that leaves the discussion as rather an orphan. She cites a YouTube
video by John Allegro (who did say Essenes were healers, but on other days said
other unreliable things) averring that Essenes grew healing herbs at Ain Feshkha
(p. 306). She writes of "4QTherapeia"--4Q431, 4QM130 (M for a text assigned to
J.T.Milik, but traded to Allegro) that J. Naveh and J. Greenfield et al.
consider a writing exercise--in a most curious manner, leaving unexplained
whether she regards it as evidence for Essene healing (pages 306 &
329--inaccurate in the index). 306: "...Allegro noted texts from the Dead Sea
Scrolls that seemed to have associations with healing, particularly a text once
known as 4QTherapeia." 329: "Specific medical or pharmacological terms have been
suggested in only one text, originally called 4QTherapeia (4Q341). Allegro was
particularly interested in this, reading it as designating a variety of
medications. However, because of the difficulty in comprehending this, the
identification of it as a writing exercise is currently assumed." Given Taylor's
claims about healing, leaning on so little, a reader might expect to hear if she
considers Therapeia an appropriate name, and why. She cites J.H. Charlesworth
(though not J. Greenfield), in a publication of small distribution, without
informing readers that he retracted his support for the "Therapeia" reading. She
speculates that some empty glass vessels from some (late?) period at Qumran may
possibly have once contained medicine. Well, maybe, maybe not. Diagnosis: a weak
case. Further, though her survey of the Dead Sea area and its botany may be of
interest to some readers unconcerned with the scrolls, her own survey (with S.
Gibson) showed that Qumran had no good roads or dock installations, and they
concluded that Qumran was not a major trade or commerce center, but was,
relatively, isolated. Of course Essenes lived elsewhere, too.
Similarly weak is any suggestion that the name Essenes came into Greek and Latin
(in various spellings) from the Aramaic for healers. And that outsiders named
them is mere asserted speculation. I call Joan Joan, but I did not name her
Joan. The etymology of Essenes is probably from Hebrew 'osey hatorah (observers
of torah), as is self-attested in Qumran Essene texts. Her dismissal of the
evidence is meager. She cites J.B. Lightfoot (1875!), who chose another
etymology (one she does not accept anyway). Lightfoot raised no philological
objection to the now increasingly recognized etymology, but dismissed it on
now-invalid historical grounds. If Lightfoot had lived to see the in effect
pre-1948 predictions for 'osey hatorah appear in the Qumran texts, I suggest he
might have changed his mind. She ventures into the realm of multiple meanings
for Pharisees/Perushim but without citing A. Baumgarten JBL 1983 on specifiers
and separatists. Consider rabbinic texts that list types of separatists
including those who boast "what is my duty that I may do it?" (E.g., Sota 22b)
The book makes a doubtful assertion that Herodians in the New Testament (Mark
and Matthew) were Essenes called by another name. The publisher apparently
advertises this book as the solution to "the mystery" ("a solution to the
mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls")--as if there were one and only one mystery
obtaining here. She credits Constantin Daniel (RQ 1967) with the proposal, not
listing his other, sometimes bizarre, hidden-naming New Testament proposals. The
proposal had already been made by Ernest von Bunsen in The Angel-Messiah of
Buddhists, Essenes, and Christians (1880) p.264. She does not cite the
directly-relevant text by Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law... (1985)
80-83 (much less my Biblical Archaeologist 1985 p. 127 review of it, already
raising doubts). Herodians are included in her section of sources on Essenes,
distorting her composite reconstruction of them. It might have been fairer to
analyze recognized sources on Essenes first, then turn to the Herodian
conjecture. She claims Herod's descendants continued to honor Essenes; she
asserts (p.120) "The Herodians simply cannot be Herod's officials in Mark."
The book sometimes reads as an academic "corrective," starting with an
exaggerated wrong view that Essenes were small and disconnected, then delivering
a vision of Essenes as the opposite: large and intensively connected. (I do
agree that Essenes were more numerous than Sadducees.) If Pharisees turned to
Herodians (healers?) for political help (there was no penalty for disagreeing
with just Pharisees), those Pharisees (and those Pharisees were no friends of
Essenes!), then oppose Jesus' healing--and this imagines Essenes (healers?)
plotting against Jesus? Rather, among the minority of Jewish followers of Jesus
were some Essenes, and Paul, said to be a former Pharisee (and no Sadducees).
Faith and works arguments pre-dated Jesus. Her analysis of Philo (who used a
source, maybe Posidonius or Strabo) suggests--against centuries of readers--that
Philo did not present Essenes as peaceful. In her reading she says that
peacefulness "evaporates." (p. 33) But, e.g., Josephus called Essenes "ministers
of peace." (War 2.135) She rightly dismisses the misreading of Josephus of a
rebel leader "John the Essene." She cites S. Mason that this was rather John of
Essa (a place)--in effect according again with peacefulness. Actually an earlier
scholar (A. Schalit) saw that, in a volume of the Josephus Concordance edited by
K. Rengstorf who asked, in the late 1950s, where was the name Essenes in the
scrolls, which is answered above. Yes, the War Scroll raises questions, of a war
that never happened, a war like one in the worldview of Daniel and John's
Apocalypse in which the evil empire will be destroyed, but largely predestined
through God and angels.
She does not cite J. Zias (and others) on the great probability that the
east-west oriented burials containing women and children were later bedouin (not
Essene) burials. She speculates that the tombs excavated might not be a
representative sample, and women (of what time period?) might be present in
greater proportion. Maybe, maybe not. About pre-1948 scholarship, she briefly
notes debates about faith versus works, but slights the great debates pro and
con on monasticism (Philo has the earliest known Greek uses of "monasterion") in
which much discussion of Essenes occurred (including guesses that Hebrew was
little-used then so Aramaic might be the name-source).
She uses the word "importantly" a lot--which is fine, but, importantly, she does
not feature the great importance to this history of the scrolls' Wicked Priest
and Teacher of Righteousness--identified, in my view, online in my "Jannaeus,
His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene."
Was Azariah de Rossi's Me'or Enayim published in 1567 (p. 5) or 1576? Does the
Adam and Burchard collection of ancient texts include German translations of all
of them (p.21)?--not my copy. Did S. Pfann suggest cave 3 and 11 deposits were
made by second century zealots (p.288 n68) or first century ones? (Pfann, BAIAS
2007 p.167: "...caves 11Q and 3Q derive from priestly and lay Zealot parties at
the end of the First Revolt.") Taylor somehow proposes a later (than most
think), post-70 possible end-date for deposits. I do agree with her against the
view once expressed online, not by her, that all eleven-cave scroll deposits was
"ONE EVENT."
The book's weaknesses on etymology and Essenes-as-healers and Herodians should
not keep readers away from the book's many strengths on Essenes, Scrolls and the
Dead Sea, all three. It includes much of interest and should be obtained by all
major university libraries.

Stephen Goranson
www.duke.edu/~goranson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]