Re: [ANE-2] Re: [biblical-studies] more misinformation published about Qumran
- Free standing aqueduct?
There is a difference between an aqueduct built to at ground level or above ground and a subsurface aqueduct such as might be seen at the Valley of the Springs near Emmaus (Canada Park) where the aqueduct is several feet below ground in parts of the upper valley, or portions of the water system at Banias/Caesarea Philippi in Agrippa's palace where the water channel was below ground and covered by pavers in the entrance hall. I do not think that it is an earth shattering discovery to be able to describe an aqueduct that might have been built at the ground level with edges above ground, not to be free standing. The current exhibit may have been after excavation and may not include all the original stones.. As if one were expecting a triple level aqueduct bridge over a valley to be the true definition of free standing. Seems to be an arguement of semantics, perhaps overmeticulous. Not enough to reverse all that has been published about
David Q. Hall
--- On Wed, 10/22/08, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...> wrote:
From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...>
Subject: [ANE-2] Re: [biblical-studies] more misinformation published about Qumran
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 8:28 AM
Stephen and Joe,
Instead of endlessly attacking certain individuals, or playing the
numbers game (there was a time when the overwhelming number of
scholars believed the earth was flat!) it would perhaps be better to
await the publication of the 3rd volume of de Vaux's field notes
promised in the article, to be due 'within the next three months';
(and also the recently completed Oxford PhD thesis of Dennis Mizzi
who had access to all of the material at the Ecole).
And, Joe, those of us who point out errors in de Vaux's
interpretations are not 'nay-sayers' - as you would like to dismiss
us - but merely 'seekers after the truth'. Last year I published an
article showing that the 'main' aqueduct could not possibly have been
free-standing (as thought by de V) and that therefore much of the
dating of Qumran was wrong. I asked if anyone knew 'of a main
aqueduct on a Hasmonean or Herodian site crossing an inhabited,
builtup area, standing proud of its floor and thus creating a
considerable impediment ... to movement around the site'. No one has
yet come up with an example (and I would stretch that to include
Nabatean sites). Magness offered no examples but merely replied,
wishfully, that 'the main aqueduct apparently did rise above the
floors of some of the rooms at Qumran. This seems to be true mainly
in the northwest... .'
Oh and by the way Joe, although attention was drawn in the
introduction of the Brown Conference monograph to an internet article
of mine, I, too, did not receive an invitation to attend. What part
in the 'political' plot do I play I wonder?
Come to the ASOR meeting where I will offer a few exploratory
suggestions as to the function of Qumran!
--- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, Joe Zias <joezias@... > wrote:
> More misinformation is rather charitable in terms of the original
Jewish Week article quoted by Goranson.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]