Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11736Re: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles

Expand Messages
  • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
    Dec 8, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      My statement was that "The few scrolls that are dated to the first century
      BCE -- contemporary with the site of Qumran -- on unambiguous internal
      evidence... contain no sectarian language." Pesher Nahum is not one of these.
      While Qumran scholars agree almost unanimously that it refers to
      crucifixions in the first century BCE, this consensus view happens to be dead wrong,
      based on a bad restoration of a key lacuna in the text by means of
      entirely circular historical arguments premised on a first century date. I've
      written two excellent, well-reasoned articles showing that the pesher was in
      fact written in spring 160 BCE (namely "Temporal Patterns in the Pesharim
      and the Restoration of 4QpNah 3-4 i 2-3" and "Demetrius I and Pesher Nahum").
      I submitted them to a prominent journal on the scrolls a couple years
      back, but unfortunately they were rejected in peer review, not because of any
      technical problems in the articles, but because the reviewer amateurishly
      opined that their content was too controversial. This is the sort of
      unconscious academic censorship that happens when you have an entrenched
      scholarly viewpoint.

      Eventually I plan to have my articles on Pesher Nahum, the Damascus
      Document and a few others published in book format. With the complete argument
      presented in a single volume, it should become clear that the true
      historical background of the scrolls is the Hellenistic Crisis and Maccabean War.
      Until then the scrolls field will have to limp along in its current dismal
      state, where Pesher Nahum is virtually the only text for which scholars
      imagine the historical issues have been satisfactorily resolved.

      Best regards,
      Russell Gmirkin

      1) Russell Gmirkin made (on 4 Dec 2009) some mistaken assertions. For
      example,
      he wrote:

      > [....] (1) The few
      > scrolls that are dated to the first century BCE -- contemporary with the
      site
      > of Qumran -- on unambiguous internal evidence, such as the Mishmarot and
      > the Alexander Jannaeus text, contain no sectarian language. [....]

      Gmirkin's claim is mistaken; for example, 4QpesherNahum is surely a
      sectarian
      text, and Qumran scholars agree almost unanimously-text, an
      distinction-distinct
      refers to crucifixions in the first century BCE, all (but one) specifying
      88
      BCE.







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic