Science and Technology news... :: View topic - I am extremely annoyed with Wikipedia

David · Guest

Qumran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran

"In their book Archaeology of the Hidden
Qumran, The New Paradigm (Helsinki, 2002)
Minna Lonnqvist and Kenneth Lonnqvist
brought a modern approach to the Qumran
studies based on contextual archaeology
with its spatial studies and interpretation
of symbolic language of the archaeological
data, arguing that the Dead Sea Scrolls had
been driven out from their archaeological
context by the text scholars who had only
focused their studies on the scrolls. Ever
since the publication of the book
contextualism has been part of the Qumran
studies. The Lonnqvists, who had carried out
a survey in situ at Qumran, studied unpublished
archaeological finds and read scrolls, argued
that the scrolls and the settlement are
associated to an Essene-type of group which,
however, finds the closest parallels in the
contemporary Jewish Therapeutic group known
to have lived in Egypt."

*****

Who got there first, way before Lonnqvists (BTW
I commend their work), on a multi-disciplinary
approach to Qumran Studies taking in the
archaeology, textual studies, linguistics, and
calendar etc. and knew all about the Therapeuts?

Answer: Dr. Barbara Thiering

Yet, here is Wikipedia>s stunning ignorance and
lack of proper standard -

Academic Reception of her Work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering#Academic_Reception_of_her_Work

It is Dr. Vermes, instead, who has been
discredited on the issue of the Teacher
of Righteousness as the sect>s founder.

Even though he originally asked for the
carbondating of the relevant scrolls with
possible Christian Connections and so
was a mover and a skaker, he never
integrated the results (including paleography)
into the scholarship.

Barbara Thiering did. (Yes, there are
Christian Connections!)

David Christainsen

imipak · Guest

On Nov 20, 10:49 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Qumranhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran

"In their book Archaeology of the Hidden
Qumran, The New Paradigm (Helsinki, 2002)
Minna Lonnqvist and Kenneth Lonnqvist
brought a modern approach to the Qumran
studies based on contextual archaeology
with its spatial studies and interpretation
of symbolic language of the archaeological
data, arguing that the Dead Sea Scrolls had
been driven out from their archaeological
context by the text scholars who had only
focused their studies on the scrolls. Ever
since the publication of the book
contextualism has been part of the Qumran
studies. The Lonnqvists, who had carried out
a survey in situ at Qumran, studied unpublished
archaeological finds and read scrolls, argued
that the scrolls and the settlement are
associated to an Essene-type of group which,
however, finds the closest parallels in the
contemporary Jewish Therapeutic group known
to have lived in Egypt."

*****

Who got there first, way before Lonnqvists (BTW
I commend their work), on a multi-disciplinary
approach to Qumran Studies taking in the
archaeology, textual studies, linguistics, and
calendar etc. and knew all about the Therapeuts?

Answer: Dr. Barbara Thiering

Yet, here is Wikipedia>s stunning ignorance and
lack of proper standard -

Academic Reception of her Workhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering#Academic_Reception_of_h...

It is Dr. Vermes, instead, who has been
discredited on the issue of the Teacher
of Righteousness as the sect>s founder.

Even though he originally asked for the
carbondating of the relevant scrolls with
possible Christian Connections and so
was a mover and a skaker, he never
integrated the results (including paleography)
into the scholarship.

Barbara Thiering did. (Yes, there are
Christian Connections!)

David Christainsen
[/quote]
Wikipedia is the knowledge of its contributors and has no knowledge of
its own, per-se. To criticize Wikipedia for an error (when its concept
of peer-review is rather less formal than academic peer-review) is a
little unfair. I>m sure that if you provide the appropriate citations
from reliable sources, and contribute a non-POV addition to the text,
nobody will object. I>ve done so many times when I>ve found errors or
omissions. The only rule I>ve ever found - or followed - is that it
can>t be my own research, it has to be published by reputable sources,
and has to be neutral in presentation. True, not everyone follows
that, but those who don>t tend to be the ones who get edited and/or
pilloried.

David · Guest

On Nov 20, 2:39 pm, imipak <imi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]...
Wikipedia is the knowledge of its contributors and has no knowledge of
its own, per-se. To criticize Wikipedia for an error (when its concept
of peer-review is rather less formal than academic peer-review) is a
little unfair. I>m sure that if you provide the appropriate citations
from reliable sources, and contribute a non-POV addition to the text,
nobody will object. I>ve done so many times when I>ve found errors or
omissions. The only rule I>ve ever found - or followed - is that it
can>t be my own research, it has to be published by reputable sources,
and has to be neutral in presentation. True, not everyone follows
that, but those who don>t tend to be the ones who get edited and/or
pilloried.
[/quote]
First, thanks for responding accurately and
honestly.

The harsh fact of the matter:

Above and beyond Wikipedia>s policy (which
may have improved recently) here>s the
real problem -

Academics and laypeople worldwide have
objected to Dr. Thiering for over a quarter
century. She is discredited; her name is
mud and she never got a fair hearing.

Doubtless any correction by me will never
get thru the Wikipedia process. Therefore,
I am going thru the USENET route.

If you or anybody else wants to ask me
specific questions, bearing on what Dr.
Thiering and I (we were associated for
5 years) say is the real story on Christian
Origins unknown for 2000 years, please do.

David Christainsen

David · Guest

On Nov 20, 3:11 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote:
[quote]...
So why blame Wikipedia for a fair reflection of the facts?
[/quote]
Peter, I am not doing this; instead, I am correcting
the record on Qumran Studies including your
beloved archaeology.

[quote]Doubtless any correction by me will never
get thru the Wikipedia process.

And rightly so.
[/quote]
And wrongly so.

[quote]Therefore, I am going thru the USENET route.

Yes, you are pestering us with her for over year now,
an still nobdy shows any interest.
Give it up and move on. Write a book about her with
your truth, but leave us alone.
[/quote]
You allowed yourself to be pestered without
digesting the substance of what I was saying
for an interval of years.

Don>t you remember Eric Steven>s attempts
to educate you?

Years of prejudice on your part. It staggers
the imagination. It just too bad that the chickens
will come home to roost for you and your ilk.

In the end I demand a fair hearing for Barbara
Thiering in the court of WORLD OPINION.

David Christainsen

David · Guest

On Nov 20, 3:11 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote:
[quote]...
So why blame Wikipedia for a fair reflection of the facts?
[/quote]
Peter, I am not doing this; instead, I am correcting
the record on Qumran Studies including your
beloved archaeology.

[quote]Doubtless any correction by me will never
get thru the Wikipedia process.

And rightly so.
[/quote]
And wrongly so.

[quote]Therefore, I am going thru the USENET route.

Yes, you are pestering us with her for over year now,
an still nobdy shows any interest.
Give it up and move on. Write a book about her with
your truth, but leave us alone.
[/quote]
You allowed yourself to be pestered without
digesting the substance of what I was saying
for an interval of years.

Don>t you remember Eric Steven>s attempts
to educate you?

Years of prejudice on your part. It staggers
the imagination. It just too bad that the chickens
will come home to roost for you and your ilk,
meaning you will eat crow

In the end I demand a fair hearing for Barbara
Thiering in the court of WORLD OPINION.

David Christainsen

David · Guest

On Nov 20, 3:38 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote:
[quote]...
Go ahead preacher, go to the world opinion, but leave us alone.
[/quote]
Why do you even care?

You have never given a satisfactory explanation
for your own outrageous behavior.

David · Guest

On Nov 20, 3:24 pm, VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
[quote]...
David,
I>m not about to start blowing your
horn for you. I still think you are
going about a crusade and that you
are compulsive about your subject.

Just the same, I ran across a magazine
article in "Spirituality and Health"
which makes reference to one James D.
Tabor and his book _The Jesus Dynasty:
The Hidden Story of Jesus, His Royal
Family and the Birth of Christianity_.
I have not read the book, nor have I
read anything by Thiering except a few
references you have posted. The article
goes into quite a bit of what Tabor
wrote and some of it seems to parallel
what you>ve been writing about Thiering>s
theories, if not outright agree with
some things. Care to comment?

Is there a connection between Thiering
and Tabor? Did each come to their
findings independently?

I occasionally look in on some of your
posts. I>m interested in history. What
happened is history, what people said
is history, what people thought and were
trying to do with their philosophy is
properly the subject of theology and
I>m not terribly motivated in that
direction except as it pertains to
history. I just ran across the article
and wondered what you might have to
say about Tabor.
[/quote]
James Tabor impresses me as a conscientious
and courteous academic of depth.

He and Barbara Thiering came to their findings
independently. There is essentially no connection
between them except as highly competent scholars
who follow the rules of scholarly evidence. I myself
have never uncovered the slightest hint that James
Tabor has actually studied any of Barbara>s work.

Her methodology is UNIQUE and FORMIDABLE among
all of the world>s scholars for Qumran Studies and
Christian Origins.

James Tabor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tabor

"Tabor is involved in research on a tomb
found in 1980 in Jerusalem in the area
of east Talpiot. It contained ossuaries with
the names Jesus son of Joseph, two Marys,
a Joseph, a Matthew, and a Jude son of
Jesus. In his latest book, The Jesus
Dynasty, Tabor had discussed the
possibilities that this tomb might be linked
to Jesus of Nazareth and his family. He was
a consultant for the film, 'The Lost Tomb of
Jesus' produced by James Cameron and
Simcha Jacobovici and shown in March,
2007. Tabor is working on his own formal
publication of the results of his three years
of research on this tomb."

Society of Biblical Literature
James D. Tabor
Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth and The Talpiot Yeshua Tomb
http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=651

The bones of Jesus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2829

"****New Comment: A Fake Tomb of Jesus.****"
Use Find Facility on "Fake Tomb"
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_Questions.html

EXCERPT ---
Q. Mitchell Hackerman of New Jersey USA asks
for this site>s reaction to the latest media
sensation, the claim that the tomb of Jesus has
been found in Jerusalem, together with that of
other members of his family. Mr Hackerman
writes "All the news stations get one sided
Preachers who know nothing, yet dismiss
things based only on their belief systems."

A. There are two reasons for believing that
the ossuaries are fakes:

The first is that any normally observant person
would suspect that the inscribed limestone boxes
illustrated are not genuinely ancient. That is
despite the statement in the documentary that they
were discovered in 1980 and have been in storage
since. The archeological world is not as ordered as
it should be, especially in Jerusalem.

If the ossuaries with the names so clearly on them
were discovered in 1980, their publication then
would have made the discoverers both famous and
rich. It is more than suspicious that nothing was
known of them until Dan Brown demonstrated last
year that millions were to be made out of saying that
Jesus was an ordinary mortal who married Mary
Magdalene and had offspring.

There is now an industry of fakery, especially of
ossuaries. The editor of the Biblical Archeology
Review, Hershel Shanks, was deceived a few
years ago by one that looked genuine enough,
an inscription saying that a bone-box was that
of James the brother of Jesus. It was sold to a
museum but then found to be a clever modern fake,
reproducing letter forms found in the Dead Sea
Scrolls. That industry, which had developed
considerable skills, has no doubt not died out,
just gone quiet until this new way of financially
exploiting gullible people opened up.

The second reason is that full written evidence,
meeting the highest standard of proof, is available
that Jesus died in Rome in the 70>s AD. From that
evidence, it may be supposed that his bones were
substituted for those of Peter and are now in
St Peter>s basilica in Rome. Readers of this site
will know why that can be said.

The media, whose memories are as short as most
of their readers, know only the Either-Or of
Christian orthodoxy versus this new claim. The
only positive thing about it is that the new fraud
has gone through the door opened by genuine
historical research on the human Jesus that
has been going on since the 19th century.
Every step of the genuine research has been
met by denunciation, but in fact has gradually
disseminated enlightenment. There is no future
in that scene for petty crime.

B.T.

*****

Qumran without Texts and Texts without Qumran:
The Quest for Archaeological Objectivity
(click on the James Tabor Abstract)
http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Oded%5FGalor/Katharina%5FGalor/Conference/

David Christainsen

Peter Alaca · Guest

David <pchristainsen@yahoo.com> 20/11/2008 21:02 wrote:
[quote]On Nov 20, 2:39 pm, imipak <imi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
Wikipedia is the knowledge of its contributors and has no knowledge of
its own, per-se. To criticize Wikipedia for an error (when its concept
of peer-review is rather less formal than academic peer-review) is a
little unfair. I>m sure that if you provide the appropriate citations
from reliable sources, and contribute a non-POV addition to the text,
nobody will object. I>ve done so many times when I>ve found errors or
omissions. The only rule I>ve ever found - or followed - is that it
can>t be my own research, it has to be published by reputable sources,
and has to be neutral in presentation. True, not everyone follows
that, but those who don>t tend to be the ones who get edited and/or
pilloried.

First, thanks for responding accurately and
honestly.

The harsh fact of the matter:

Above and beyond Wikipedia>s policy (which
may have improved recently) here>s the
real problem -

Academics and laypeople worldwide have
objected to Dr. Thiering for over a quarter
century. She is discredited; her name is
mud and she never got a fair hearing.
[/quote]

So why blame Wikipedia for a fair reflection of the facts?

[quote]Doubtless any correction by me will never
get thru the Wikipedia process.
[/quote]

And rightly so.

[quote]Therefore, I am going thru the USENET route.
[/quote]
Yes, you are pestering us with her for over year now,
an still nobdy shows any interest.
Give it up and move on. Write a book about her with
your truth, but leave us alone.

VtSkier · Guest

David wrote:
[quote]On Nov 20, 2:39 pm, imipak <imi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
Wikipedia is the knowledge of its contributors and has no knowledge of
its own, per-se. To criticize Wikipedia for an error (when its concept
of peer-review is rather less formal than academic peer-review) is a
little unfair. I>m sure that if you provide the appropriate citations
from reliable sources, and contribute a non-POV addition to the text,
nobody will object. I>ve done so many times when I>ve found errors or
omissions. The only rule I>ve ever found - or followed - is that it
can>t be my own research, it has to be published by reputable sources,
and has to be neutral in presentation. True, not everyone follows
that, but those who don>t tend to be the ones who get edited and/or
pilloried.

First, thanks for responding accurately and
honestly.

The harsh fact of the matter:

Above and beyond Wikipedia>s policy (which
may have improved recently) here>s the
real problem -

Academics and laypeople worldwide have
objected to Dr. Thiering for over a quarter
century. She is discredited; her name is
mud and she never got a fair hearing.

Doubtless any correction by me will never
get thru the Wikipedia process. Therefore,
I am going thru the USENET route.

If you or anybody else wants to ask me
specific questions, bearing on what Dr.
Thiering and I (we were associated for
5 years) say is the real story on Christian
Origins unknown for 2000 years, please do.

David Christainsen
[/quote]
David,
I>m not about to start blowing your
horn for you. I still think you are
going about a crusade and that you
are compulsive about your subject.

Just the same, I ran across a magazine
article in "Spirituality and Health"
which makes reference to one James D.
Tabor and his book _The Jesus Dynasty:
The Hidden Story of Jesus, His Royal
Family and the Birth of Christianity_.
I have not read the book, nor have I
read anything by Thiering except a few
references you have posted. The article
goes into quite a bit of what Tabor
wrote and some of it seems to parallel
what you>ve been writing about Thiering>s
theories, if not outright agree with
some things. Care to comment?

Is there a connection between Thiering
and Tabor? Did each come to their
findings independently?

I occasionally look in on some of your
posts. I>m interested in history. What
happened is history, what people said
is history, what people thought and were
trying to do with their philosophy is
properly the subject of theology and
I>m not terribly motivated in that
direction except as it pertains to
history. I just ran across the article
and wondered what you might have to
say about Tabor.

Peter Alaca · Guest

David <pchristainsen@yahoo.com> 20/11/2008 21:27 wrote:
[quote]On Nov 20, 3:11 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote:
...
So why blame Wikipedia for a fair reflection of the facts?

Peter, I am not doing this; instead, I am correcting
the record on Qumran Studies including your
beloved archaeology.

Doubtless any correction by me will never
get thru the Wikipedia process.
And rightly so.

And wrongly so.

Therefore, I am going thru the USENET route.
Yes, you are pestering us with her for over year now,
an still nobdy shows any interest.
Give it up and move on. Write a book about her with
your truth, but leave us alone.

You allowed yourself to be pestered without
digesting the substance of what I was saying
for an interval of years.

Don>t you remember Eric Steven>s attempts
to educate you?

Years of prejudice on your part. It staggers
the imagination. It just too bad that the chickens
will come home to roost for you and your ilk.

In the end I demand a fair hearing for Barbara
Thiering in the court of WORLD OPINION.
[/quote]
Go ahead preacher, go to the world opinion, but leave us alone.

Peter Alaca · Guest

David <pchristainsen@yahoo.com> 20/11/2008 21:47 wrote:
[quote]On Nov 20, 3:38 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote:
...
Go ahead preacher, go to the world opinion, but leave us alone.

Why do you even care?

You have never given a satisfactory explanation
for your own outrageous behavior.

[/quote]
Look in the mirror, you idiot.

1st Century Apostolic Tra · Guest

"David" <pchristainsen@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e4ac5ec7-1ed6-4a80-a29d-504180d66af2@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 2:39 pm, imipak <imi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]...
Wikipedia is the knowledge of its contributors and has no knowledge of
its own, per-se. To criticize Wikipedia for an error (when its concept
of peer-review is rather less formal than academic peer-review) is a
little unfair. I>m sure that if you provide the appropriate citations
from reliable sources, and contribute a non-POV addition to the text,
nobody will object. I>ve done so many times when I>ve found errors or
omissions. The only rule I>ve ever found - or followed - is that it
can>t be my own research, it has to be published by reputable sources,
and has to be neutral in presentation. True, not everyone follows
that, but those who don>t tend to be the ones who get edited and/or
pilloried.
[/quote]
First, thanks for responding accurately and
honestly.

The harsh fact of the matter:

Above and beyond Wikipedia>s policy (which
may have improved recently) here>s the
real problem -

Academics and laypeople worldwide have
objected to Dr. Thiering for over a quarter
century. She is discredited; her name is
mud and she never got a fair hearing.

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

From the extract below she is shown to be off her rocker..... Jesus married and divorced, father of four children....etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering

While Thiering>s thesis attracted some controversy in the media when "Jesus the Man" was published in 1990, critics claim her ideas have not received acceptance by her academic peers. In a response to a letter Thiering wrote to The New York Review of Books, objecting to a review by Geza Vermes, Vermes gave his personal estimation of the academic reaction to her work:

"Professor Barbara Thiering>s reinterpretation of the New Testament, in which the married, divorced, and remarried Jesus, father of four, becomes the "Wicked Priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made no impact on learned opinion. Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering>s use of the so-called "pesher technique", without substance."

(The New York Review of Books, December 1st, 1994)

In 1993 Nicholas Thomas Wright, now Bishop of Durham, wrote:[1]

It is safe to say that no serious scholar has given this elaborate and fantastic theory any credence whatsoever. It is nearly ten years since it was published; the scholarly world has been able to take a good look at it: and the results are totally negative.

Historian Dr. C.B. Forbes from the Department of Ancient History of Macquarie University says "No reputable historian agrees with her identifications between people in the Scrolls and people in the New Testament, or believes in her "hidden history". Here she is utterly out on her own...Dr. Thiering>s ideas have no historical credibility."[2]

In 2005 Peter Flint, Professor of Religious Studies and Co-Director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute at Trinity Western University in British Columbia, wrote:[3]

"Her views and theories on Jesus and Christian origins have little basis in the scrolls, and even less in the New Testament. Her pesher technique misuses the concept of pesher, her datings of the scrolls are suspect and seem informed by an outside agenda, the connections she draws between Qumran and other nearby communities in the Judean Desert are highly questionable, and the links she finds between the scrolls and the New Testament are almost always without foundation."

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

No wonder Paul stated that the Lord has commanded women to be silent in the churches......and "To learn in silence will all subjection"

Jeff...

jerry warner · Guest

awwww! two bad creep.

David wrote:

[quote]Qumran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran

"In their book Archaeology of the Hidden
Qumran, The New Paradigm (Helsinki, 2002)
Minna Lonnqvist and Kenneth Lonnqvist
brought a modern approach to the Qumran
studies based on contextual archaeology
with its spatial studies and interpretation
of symbolic language of the archaeological
data, arguing that the Dead Sea Scrolls had
been driven out from their archaeological
context by the text scholars who had only
focused their studies on the scrolls. Ever
since the publication of the book
contextualism has been part of the Qumran
studies. The Lonnqvists, who had carried out
a survey in situ at Qumran, studied unpublished
archaeological finds and read scrolls, argued
that the scrolls and the settlement are
associated to an Essene-type of group which,
however, finds the closest parallels in the
contemporary Jewish Therapeutic group known
to have lived in Egypt."

*****

Who got there first, way before Lonnqvists (BTW
I commend their work), on a multi-disciplinary
approach to Qumran Studies taking in the
archaeology, textual studies, linguistics, and
calendar etc. and knew all about the Therapeuts?

Answer: Dr. Barbara Thiering

Yet, here is Wikipedia>s stunning ignorance and
lack of proper standard -

Academic Reception of her Work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering#Academic_Reception_of_her_Work

It is Dr. Vermes, instead, who has been
discredited on the issue of the Teacher
of Righteousness as the sect>s founder.

Even though he originally asked for the
carbondating of the relevant scrolls with
possible Christian Connections and so
was a mover and a skaker, he never
integrated the results (including paleography)
into the scholarship.

Barbara Thiering did. (Yes, there are
Christian Connections!)

David Christainsen[/quote]

Eric Stevens · Guest

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:52:57 -0600, jerry warner <jwarner@mchsi.com>
wrote:

[quote]David wrote:

Qumran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran

"In their book Archaeology of the Hidden
Qumran, The New Paradigm (Helsinki, 2002)
Minna Lonnqvist and Kenneth Lonnqvist
brought a modern approach to the Qumran
studies based on contextual archaeology
with its spatial studies and interpretation
of symbolic language of the archaeological
data, arguing that the Dead Sea Scrolls had
been driven out from their archaeological
context by the text scholars who had only
focused their studies on the scrolls. Ever
since the publication of the book
contextualism has been part of the Qumran
studies. The Lonnqvists, who had carried out
a survey in situ at Qumran, studied unpublished
archaeological finds and read scrolls, argued
that the scrolls and the settlement are
associated to an Essene-type of group which,
however, finds the closest parallels in the
contemporary Jewish Therapeutic group known
to have lived in Egypt."

*****

Who got there first, way before Lonnqvists (BTW
I commend their work), on a multi-disciplinary
approach to Qumran Studies taking in the
archaeology, textual studies, linguistics, and
calendar etc. and knew all about the Therapeuts?

Answer: Dr. Barbara Thiering

Yet, here is Wikipedia>s stunning ignorance and
lack of proper standard -

Academic Reception of her Work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering#Academic_Reception_of_her_Work

It is Dr. Vermes, instead, who has been
discredited on the issue of the Teacher
of Righteousness as the sect>s founder.

Even though he originally asked for the
carbondating of the relevant scrolls with
possible Christian Connections and so
was a mover and a skaker, he never
integrated the results (including paleography)
into the scholarship.

Barbara Thiering did. (Yes, there are
Christian Connections!)

David Christainsen

awwww! two bad creep.

Apart from top-posting, do you have a spelling problem?[/quote]

Eric Stevens

jerry warner · Guest

Eric Stevens wrote:

[quote]On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:52:57 -0600, jerry warner <jwarner@mchsi.com
wrote:

David wrote:

Qumran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran

"In their book Archaeology of the Hidden
Qumran, The New Paradigm (Helsinki, 2002)
Minna Lonnqvist and Kenneth Lonnqvist
brought a modern approach to the Qumran
studies based on contextual archaeology
with its spatial studies and interpretation
of symbolic language of the archaeological
data, arguing that the Dead Sea Scrolls had
been driven out from their archaeological
context by the text scholars who had only
focused their studies on the scrolls. Ever
since the publication of the book
contextualism has been part of the Qumran
studies. The Lonnqvists, who had carried out
a survey in situ at Qumran, studied unpublished
archaeological finds and read scrolls, argued
that the scrolls and the settlement are
associated to an Essene-type of group which,
however, finds the closest parallels in the
contemporary Jewish Therapeutic group known
to have lived in Egypt."

*****

Who got there first, way before Lonnqvists (BTW
I commend their work), on a multi-disciplinary
approach to Qumran Studies taking in the
archaeology, textual studies, linguistics, and
calendar etc. and knew all about the Therapeuts?

Answer: Dr. Barbara Thiering

Yet, here is Wikipedia>s stunning ignorance and
lack of proper standard -

Academic Reception of her Work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering#Academic_Reception_of_her_Work

It is Dr. Vermes, instead, who has been
discredited on the issue of the Teacher
of Righteousness as the sect>s founder.

Even though he originally asked for the
carbondating of the relevant scrolls with
possible Christian Connections and so
was a mover and a skaker, he never
integrated the results (including paleography)
into the scholarship.

Barbara Thiering did. (Yes, there are
Christian Connections!)

David Christainsen

awwww! two bad creep.

Apart from top-posting, do you have a spelling problem?

Eric Stevens
[/quote]
Im newe to usenette. But usenette is coming down nxt year
I guess all of us will be elsewhere. Good luck to you.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Archaeology Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2