[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Ioudaios: The Dead Sea Scrolls



>From dsuter@catadon.stmartin.eduWed Aug 21 06:21:46 1996
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 18:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David W. Suter" <dsuter@catadon.stmartin.edu>
Reply to: ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU
To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls



On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote:

> 	I am curious concerning the feelings of the listusers regarding the various
> claims that certain materials may have been "suppressed" for dogmatic reasons.  I 
> realize that the "scandal" of the DSS has been fodder for various "conspiracy" books..I 
> have read them..but I am more interested in concerns that can be substantiated.  I admit 
> that I am very intrigued with 7Q5 and honestly believe that it may be a fragment of the 
> autograph Mark.  I am not alone in this belief but also recognize the opposition.
> 
> 	Are there those who believe that early Christian writings could have been found 
> in Cave 7 and been "spirited away" but for this "overlooked" fragment?  It would seem to 
> me that if indeed there was material that could prove embarassing to "orthodoxy," Dr. 
> Allegro would have danced with glee.
> 
> 	What are the opinions out there? I am really quite interested in the consensus 
> of the Judaios list.

Since I've made a comment on off-topic discussions, let me respond to an 
on-topic question that no one else seems to have picked up on so far.  

It strikes me that most members of the list would not give much credence 
to the various conspiracy theories that have surfaced in the popular 
press or to the claims that NT mms were present in the caves.  It seems 
to me that the delay in publication is to be explained differently.  In 
looking at the microfilms of the fragments when they were made public, I was 
overwhelmed with a sense of the magnitude of the task.  I have since come 
to the conclusion that the fundamental problem behind the delay in 
publication lay in the original plan for their publication--a larger team 
was needed as well as some form of accountability for the progress of the 
work.  Milik's work on the Books of Enoch, for example, contains some 
excellent work, but it goes well beyond the task of publishing the texts 
of the fragments, developing, for example, theories about the Similitudes (a 
section absent from the Qumran fragments) that have not withstood the test of 
scholarly evaluation.  

Much of the discussion on IOUDAIOS of late has centered around the issue 
of the connection between the manuscript finds and the ruins of a 
building compound at Qumran, as well as the issue of the nature of the 
community, or communities, producing the manuscripts.  In this regard, 
I'm surprised that so far no one has picked up on the announcement on 
Orion over the weekend by Esthie Eshel of the contents of one of the 
ostraca found at Qumran this spring.  According to her note, it contains 
the deed of an estate, including a house and a slave, to the Yahad.  The 
implication, I believe you will find, is that this ostracon, found along 
a wall between the cemetary and the building complex, provides a link 
between the scrolls and the buildings.  

If you are interested in consulting discussion of the DSS on IOUDAIOS, 
check the archives for this past March and early April.

David Suter
Saint Martin's College


>From jpman@accesscomm.netWed Aug 21 06:21:57 1996
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:20:49 -0600
From: Jack Kilmon <jpman@accesscomm.net>
Reply to: ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU
To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls

David W. Suter wrote:
> 

> 
> Since I've made a comment on off-topic discussions, let me respond to an
> on-topic question that no one else seems to have picked up on so far.
> 
> It strikes me that most members of the list would not give much credence
> to the various conspiracy theories that have surfaced in the popular
> press or to the claims that NT mms were present in the caves.  It seems
> to me that the delay in publication is to be explained differently.  In
> looking at the microfilms of the fragments when they were made public, I was
> overwhelmed with a sense of the magnitude of the task.  I have since come
> to the conclusion that the fundamental problem behind the delay in
> publication lay in the original plan for their publication--a larger team
> was needed as well as some form of accountability for the progress of the
> work.  Milik's work on the Books of Enoch, for example, contains some
> excellent work, but it goes well beyond the task of publishing the texts
> of the fragments, developing, for example, theories about the Similitudes (a
> section absent from the Qumran fragments) that have not withstood the test of
> scholarly evaluation.

	Then you attribute the delay to too few scholars (I agree) and too
much "scholaring" on the material they were assigned?
> 
> Much of the discussion on IOUDAIOS of late has centered around the issue
> of the connection between the manuscript finds and the ruins of a
> building compound at Qumran, as well as the issue of the nature of the
> community, or communities, producing the manuscripts.  In this regard,
> I'm surprised that so far no one has picked up on the announcement on
> Orion over the weekend by Esthie Eshel of the contents of one of the
> ostraca found at Qumran this spring.  According to her note, it contains
> the deed of an estate, including a house and a slave, to the Yahad.  The
> implication, I believe you will find, is that this ostracon, found along
> a wall between the cemetary and the building complex, provides a link
> between the scrolls and the buildings.

	The issue of connection between the Qumran site and the scrolls
...or in fact the Essenes themselves...has not yet been settled in my mind.
I will be interested to see how this ostracon connects the mss to Qumran.
For a long time I was very skeptical that Qumran was ever a "monastery" of
Essenes but the inkwells softened that skepticism.  My tendency now is to
view the "Hasa" as a variable group of 4,000 or so (in Palestine) with most
living in Jerusalem.  The 300 or so at Qumran may have been set apart for some
religious reason.  Perhaps the mistake may be in viewing the Essenes in the
same context as Pharisees and Sadducees as if they were one central group under
a specific authority.

Jack Kilmon
JPMan@accesscomm.net