Re: [ANE-2] Re: Qumran as an Essene Sect
- To Jim:
This type of water jar was also found in the ruins of Jewish homes in Jerusalem that were destroyed in the year 70 by the Romans. Some of the larger homes from those days had miikvehs, amphorae, mosaic tile floors, etc.
The artifact is consistent with other artifacts found on the site for a Roman era date for the site. The artifact is of interest as it was associated with the Jewish cult that stone vessels insured the ritual purity of items contained in them, thus water that was ritually clean might be used to wash items without making the items unclean.
I do not have the expedition report to link the artifact to the site, only that it was on display with artifacts from Qumran, in the West Bank, as late as 2006.
There is danger in admitting a theory that this one piece of evidence might be used to support some far flung theory, when in fact it is part of numerous observations about the corpus of materials dug at Qumran that support a Roman era date for the site that are too numerous to put in this email. The fact that the scrolls are considered part of the site may bother some people. This is not my concern.
Exisistential theorems about nothing can be proven are a waste of time.
David Q. Hall
Jim West <jwest@...> wrote:
David Hall wrote:
> In the Qumran Museum is a limestone water jar turned on a lathe used for ritual cleansing of the type used by the Jewish people of the first century. This is evidence of Jewish occupation of the community. The fact that one of the caves where the scrolls were found was a stone's throw from the ruins of the community was another key factor in determining the probability of the existence of a Jewish group there. There were pools in the ruins that we1Q interpreted as probable mikvehs. The scrolls were entirely indicative of a group using the Tanaach and concerned with the covenant.I was digging in my back yard a while back, clearing off some brush. I
dug down a bit and discovered an old pot- broken of course, but clearly
legible on the bottom was the phrase "made in mexico". Does this mean
that Mexicans once inhabited the area in which I now live?
I think it may be something of a stretch to say that a jar of a certain
type proves the existence of this or that inhabitant. Now, to be sure,
if that's the only type of jar in the place that's one thing.
It seems to me that we are so often prone to extrapolate from
fragmentary information grandiose (and yet essentially unsupported)
Pots don't prove much- except that people inhabiting a certain place may
have made them, may have purchased them elsewhere, may have imported
them, or that they may simply have been left by travellers tired of
carrying them. We need more evidence than pots. It seems to me.
Jim West, ThD
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://petrosbaptistchurch.blogspot.com -- Weblog
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]