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

Re: Golb's Theory

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Philip Davies wrote:

> I'm not sure tha Golb links the presence of women and children with Q being
> a fort (I must check), but their presence has long been explained away as
> due to the Roman attack on Q (some of the persons were said to have died
> prematurely).

Sorry, but could you explain? How does an attack by Romans explain the 
presence of women and children? And what role does "premature death" play 
in all of this?

>       Golb DOES imply that since Q was attacked, it was a fort. I agree
> it was fortified (if minimally), but not sure that means it was built for
> that purpose.

This seems a bit confused. Golb says that Q is a fort because of various 
structural clues - the "tower" chief among them. I don't think he ever says 
that because Q was attacked it was a fort. Or could you point me to a 
place in his text where he says so? He does say that the signs of the 
struggle are problematic for the Essene theory because the Essenes were 
supposedly "pacifists" - but this is a different point.

Best, Asia