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

6946Re: Qumran inkwells and other facts

Expand Messages
  • kessler_paul
    Jan 2, 2008
      I for one didn't bother responding to the "evidence" in your review
      of Golb because it just seems like a rehash of claims and invective,
      and certainly not "evidence." Your method is to set up a straw horse
      and beat on it, ignoring evidence that does (as recognized in the
      Church History review of Golb which you ignore) favor the Jerusalem
      theory, and presupposing the truth of the Qumran-Essene theory
      despite advances in research to the contrary. The consequences of
      this kind of discourse can be seen on the Amazon.com site itself,
      where someone did respond to your review. See

      Paul Kessler (NY)

      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, goranson@... wrote:
      > One possible reason for difference between Qumran and Masada, in
      > to whether animal skin scrolls would survive, is that Qumran got
      > more than Masada, because Qumran's location and sometimes-broken
      water system
      > brought more water to it, which would rot scrolls, moreso than
      Masada, which
      > was not flooded from land above it and whose water system was below
      it. Also,
      > Masada had casemate walls; Qumran not, among additional differences.
      > Again, there was writing on clay and stone found in Kh. Qumran,
      which is
      > published in Humbert and Gunneweg, Khirbet Qumran...II: etudes...
      2003. I wish
      > those posting on this subject would read that before more
      declarations. And why
      > cite declarations on Dead Sea Scrolls from some (e.g. Hirschfeld)
      who were not
      > Dead Sea Scroll scholars?
      > Those interested in the tentative suggestion of Yael Olnick {also
      in English as
      > Olenick) can read her Early Roman-Period Pottery Inkwells from
      > Israel--People and Land I (1983-1984) 55-66 Hebrew; 10-11, English,
      on inkwell
      > types. We await full Shufat publication.
      > For a review of Edna Ullmann-Margalit's book Out of the Cave, see
      > http://tinyurl.com/2z3fwn
      > In many posts no one responded to the evidence in the recently-
      posted review of
      > N. Golb, Who Wrote the Scrolls that tells against his proposal.
      Plus, if these
      > were Jerusalem libraries, why are there no indications of ownership
      > retrieval?
      > Interestingly, Ulrich makes another three-cave scribal connection
      > Ulrich, Eugene. "Identification of a Scribe Active at Qumran:
      > 1QPsb-4QIsac-11QM." In ??????: ?????? ??????? ????
      > ????? ?-?. ?????? ?????? ????? [Meghillot: Studies in
      > the Dead Sea Scrolls V-VI. A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant], ed.
      > Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov, *201-*210. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute
      and Haifa
      > University Press, 2007.
      > Would you risk life to take a writing exercise (as found in Cave 4)
      > Jerusalem, during seige by the Roman army, to a cave many miles
      > One who is disinterested in evidence of six or so inkwells raises
      the question
      > (beyond new-found interest in Shuafat): what evidence would
      interest? And why,
      > from some posters, the differing levels of demands for evidence:
      > demanding for Essenes not to be pushed into limbo, and yet so very
      lacking in
      > stringency--even ignoring counter-evidence (e.g., from Josephus and
      from the
      > non-cross-section of available books at Qumran--for the Jerusalem-
      > one-time deposit ignoring connections to the site and to multiply-
      > Essene history?
      > Stephen Goranson
      > http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
      > ("Out damned spot," I think, is from Macbeth not Hamlet.)
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic