Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] the name Qumran

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the name Qumran
  • Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:27:04 +0200

2006/5/24, goranson AT duke.edu <goranson AT duke.edu>:

Can you show any known fort that resembles Qumran? Zealots occupied houses
and
the Temple--does that make those houses and the Temple forts? The female
and
child bones are post-70 bedouin burials, as Zias showed in Dead Sea
Discoveries. The khirbeh was burned and flooded--hence parchment would not
survive there, unlike in caves. But ostraca and inkwells were found. Who
said
"headquarters"? Masada literary evidence? The Copper Scroll records group
property, not individually-owned property; I do not call 3QCu a fake
(though
some items are listed twice, redeposited). Who said all the mss were
written at
one place? They are obviously written at more than any one place
(including
Jerusalem) and over many decades in time (but some sectarian hands are
repeated, as Tov's new book affirms: Scribal Practices and Approaches
Reflected
in the Texts from the Judean Desert). No, Pliny's source account reflects
15
BCE, not as Golb misunderstood as if Pliny visited Judaea post 70 (he
did not).
Several pre-1948 writers correctly read Pliny as locating Essenes (the
Qumran/Feshkha one site Pliny's source knew) on the "northwest" shore of
the
Dead Sea. The Qumran-Essene identification is based not only on Pliny and
Dio
and Solinus, but e.g. on the Josephus War 2 initiation so similar ti 1QS;
predestination; preserving books with named angels (unlike Sadducees) and
so
on.

regards,
Stephen Goranson
Durham NC
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson

(Apparently, this list is not the place to discuss this, but before I stop
doing so:)
maybe we can agree then, given the acknowledgement that there are definitely
mss. among the DSS that were *not* written by the "Essenes at Qumran" that
we should study each individual manuscript as if it has nothing to do with
Essenes, Qumran, etc.? This way, it doesn't really matter who was where and
when - let the texts speak for themselves, without attributing them to any
specific group. Seems to me to be the healthiest approach.
regards,
Herman




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page