[b-hebrew] Use of Qahal in Qumran Scrolls

Herman Meester crazymulgogi at gmail.com
Fri Dec 16 03:29:08 EST 2005

The below disqualification of Golb isn't very strong. The book "misses
sectarianism". Is that an argument why the book is no good? Golb has
objections against the unfounded idea that the fortress at Qumran was
not a fortress but a "monastery". That is the very thing he is
convinced of. Of course he doesn't pay the same amount of attention to
a supposed "sect" as some other scholars do, because he doesn't
believe all those scrolls were written by a "sect"! He shows, for
example, that Phariseic thinking too is represented among the scrolls.
Which doesn't fit the traditionally supposed Qumran "sect".

2005/12/15, goranson at duke.edu <goranson at duke.edu>:
> That book by N. Golb includes factual errors. It misses sectarianism.
> And, in my
> view, it presents neither good textual nor physical evidence for its prefered
> scenario.
> But this probably isn't helping Jimmy who asked about qahal in Qumran. Do you
> mean word study, such as may be aided by a concordance (Abegg et al, Brill,
> 2002?), by Theological Dictionary OT and so on? Or do you mean more about the
> sectarian organization or history or what?
> best,
> Stephen Goranson
> "Jannaeus, His Brother Absal;om, and Judah the Essene"
> http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
> Quoting Herman Meester <crazymulgogi at gmail.com>:
> > Hi Ken,
> > Idiosyncracy is not an argument pro or against anything; Newton,
> > Galilei, Chomsky, Sokrates, Jesus, Copernicus, I guess Einstein too,
> > Lachmann (leading to the 'discovery' of "Q") and quite a lot of
> > others, had, strictly speaking, idiosyncratic ideas but did cause a
> > paradigm shift or breakthrough. The Jerusalem hypothesis is very
> > convincing. Golb put an entire list of strong arguments in his book.
> > The number of scholars that support a certain theory, too, as they
> > wanted me to remember well in philosophy class, doesn't mean anything
> > either. The first scholar that suggested microbes exist was laughed at
> > by his fellow doctors.
> >
> >
> > 2005/12/15, Ken Penner <ken.penner at acadiau.ca>:
> >> Anyone reading _Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls_ should be aware that
> >> Golb's views are highly idiosyncratic and not convincing to most
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list