Re: Recent and inexcuable off topic posting - may we please deal with archaeology?

"David" <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193316657.610325.49180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 24, 4:11 pm, "JMB" <johnmbyrne[remove]@mysmart.ie> wrote:
"David" <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
...
So if I post to sci.lang I can claim a grounding in linguistics?

The fact of the matter is that you have NO IDEA of my grounding
in Qumran Archaeology but you could find out on your own by
consulting the sci.arch archives going back years.

I've read enough of your posts to know you haven't got a clue about
archaeology, or at least you have never used any archaeological knowledge
here.


(After the earthquake of 31 BC it was transferred to Mird because
Qumran was then defiled.) BTW, there was a main Essene sanctuary,
a headquarters or mother house, and a network of outposts.
(on this point and others please study in close detail -

by Dr. Barbara Thiering
"The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer using Fixed Lengths
of Hours", Dead Sea Discoveries, 9, 3, 2002, pp. 347-363.)

Thiering has too many flaws for me to take seriously. Got any other
experts
to refer to?

This does not cut the mustard. Please get out into the open your
examples of alleged Thiering flaws so that we can have at it.

Most basic one: her "technique" has not been published to a degree whereby
any other expert can repeat the procedure and attain the same results.
Leading to the clear conclusion that she makes it up as she goes in order to
get the results she wants. Either way though, her work is not archaeology,
so it has no place here.


Otherwise, check Wikipedia article on Qumran - Humbert and Chambon
etc.

Or check the entry on Thiering herself, and read the historic entries to see
what her followers have deleted from the main page.


From the Temple Scroll to your local church (2)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/5310

"It may be demonstrated that in period 1b they built a substitute
sanctuary at Qumran, making sure that it was not
interpreted as a real temple, but establishing a place
where the annual ceremony of atonement could be
held. It was in the open courtyard called loc. 111,
placed north-south, not east-west like the Jerusalem
temple. It had the same dimensions as the wilderness
tabernacle, 30 cu long from inside the north wall to
outside the south wall, and 10 cu wide inside the
side walls. A line of embedded stones is still to be seen
there, with an opening at the centre 10 cu down from
the north wall. Overlooking this 10 x 10 square are
two large windows on either side, east and west, readily
interpreted as used by witnesses standing outside,
watching the atonement ceremony to ensure that it was
effectively performed. The rooms around it were
the side-chambers that surrounded all fixed temples."

...
My goal has been to start a sci.arch discussion to resolve the
matter.

Then that is a very foolish goal, as the contents of the DSS are not a
matter for archaeologists.

On the contrary the contents of the DSS are a matter for
archaeologists.
Otherwise, they go off on crazy tangents.

The DSS can, at most, part-provide a context. On their own they can do
very
little, and are a waste of time discussing from the outset. If you have
something archaeological to discuss, that interests other posters, then
by
all means do. Quoting from one source that itself only considers the
point
of view of a single person who does not have any support for her ideas
from
her peers is not a discussion.

Her peers failed to review her in the scholarly journals in the first
place
with but rare and outdated exception.

Those that have have pointed out flaws. Those that haven't have better
things to do. None of that is archaeology.


Ordinarily, I would agree with you but this situation with this one
scholar
slipped between the cracks of peer review.

No she didn't, her followers just don't want to acknowledge the reviews.
But still not archaeology.


To sum up, it is the Thiering dating scheme for the composition
of the scrolls that makes her unique as a powerful authority.

You have a strange definition of "powerful authority". But when do you plan
on getting around to archaeology?


Things heat up dramatically on any scroll that touches on Christian
Connections,
Teacher of Righteousness, Wicked Priest, 18 pesharim, Damascus
Document or even the Temple Scroll, which is still being integrated
into DSS scholarship.

Do I need to remind you what group this is? None of that has anything to do
with this group. This is an archaeology newsgroup, and above is not
archaeology.


I believe you need to rethink your position on the importance of the
contents of DSS and where they fit into the world of archaeology.

They don't fit in at all. History, maybe, possibly theology. Perhaps even
mythology/religious studies, but not archaeology (except for the actual
scrolls themselves, which are afterall artefacts, but the contents are
irrelevant).


...
You have a prejudice or bias.

Of course I do. This is sci.archaeology, so most posters here have a
bias
towards archaeology.

That's not what I was talking about. To get straight to the point,
you need to take your blinders off.

And you need to start eoither discussing archaeology or *** off out of this
group.


I already suggested Dead Sea Discoveries, the top professional
journal, for "context".

No, it is mainly to do with content of the scrolls. Not an archaeological
matter.


Of course, you would be the judge as to how much value my
proposed background would offer you if you studied some.

You're in an archaeological newsgroup, even if you knew half as much as you
claim to, it would bring very little value to any on-topic discussions here.


So that your overall perspective
may change, here are excerpts from a very important
review of a book by the Israeli scholar Jodi Magness -

More good news
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/5479

Again, from a single, non-archaeological, bias source. Come up with
something better.

I am sorry to have to overrule your judgment again.

You're not in any position to overrule anything about any of the regular
posters here.

Magen Broshi
and Hanan Eshel speak with considerable scholarly authority.

They might, but your yahoo group doesn't.


I am not saying it's the final word but they mark a significant
turning point.

"'Speaking about the archaeology of Qumran and
ignoring the manuscripts is ludicrous.'"

IMHO, The title of Dr. Magness book, "The Archaeology of Qumran
and the Dead Sea Scrolls" shows an intersection between
archaeology and the DSS.

You should read the book before making those claims. Many books have
titles
that do not reflect the contents.

Why do you blindly assume that I have not read the book?

Unless you are completely retarded, when you read a book and something
**in** it backs up your claims, you don't refer to the title of the book and
claim that it is what backs up your claims.


The fact of the matter is that I have. I have mentioned this fact
before in a few sci.arch posts since Dec, 2006. Were Tom
McDonald sharp, he would have picked up on this point
but he did not.

Why should he?


Bottom line - sci.archers have not shown me that they
have much interest, like you, in Qumran Archaeology.

Quite possibly because they don't. It's one, relatively small, minor, and
insignificant site in the grand scheme of things.

The few times that conversation got started, it quickly
branched off into wild theories, some of them coming
from misguided professional archaeologists...

But you simply don't have the ability, or the knowledge to be taken
seriously when you say that.


I am available on sci.arch to participate in Q & A.

You're questions are usually silly and/or leading, so we aren't likely to
bother answering them, and you simply don't have enough knowledge of the
subject for it to be worth our while asking you anything.


I am no lover of argument for argument's sake.

Were differences of opinion to crop up, I would work at
a professional level towards resolving them.

Move to another newsgroup, where the contents of the DSS are on topic. If
no specialised one exists, set one up. If you truely care that much about
them, then discuss them with others who care, not here.




.

Quantcast