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

Re: Golb's Theory

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Jim West wrote:

> Golb suggests 
> 1- that Qumran was a fort
> 2- that women and children were found in the cemetary.
> That 2 is irrefutable goes without saying;  it does not follow that 1 is
> true because 2 is true.  Yet this seems to be the implication.  But what
> evidence does Golb posess to suggest that women and children could be found
> at a Jewish fort?

Golb does treat the presence of women and children as unproblematic for the 
"fort" theory, but then, aren't the strictly gender-segregated military 
camps and invention of 19th century? Wifes and camp-followers do not 
sound all than unusual in the days of old.

Also, Golb does try to make some hay out of the fact that the settlers 
could not have been the celibate Essenes, but he is quite aware of 
the argument as to whether we have proof that Essenes are necessarily 
celibate. He [Golb] quotes Josephus' comment about non-celibate Essenes 
several times. 

I do not think its quite correct to say that for Golb the presence of 
women is a direct proof of the "fort" theory - its really just one of the 
several clues that he gathers against the "Essene" supposition. Its the 
collective weight of such clues [e.g. absence of autographs, signs of 
fighting, copper scroll...], not each one of them alone, that disproves the 
older theory, in Golb's view.

Best, Asia