Biblical Hebrew Forum

[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