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

Re: Golb's Theory

In a message dated 96-09-07 Ed Cook writes:

>Isn't the discussion of Golb's theory moot if the newly discovered ostracon
>implies that Kh. Qumran = the/a site of the Yahad?  Doesn't that strongly
>connect the scrolls and the sect described in them to the site itself? 
>Actual texts (e.g., Tell Dan) have a way of demolishing way-out theories.

Jim West replies:

>Yes, if we could only know what this ostracon says!  So again, I plead with
>the researchers who have access to it- just tell us what it says!!

The newly discovered ostracon will not completely resolve this issue, 
even if we knew what it said.

A very critical issue so far not raised in the list is the _dating_ of the

For instance, if the ostracon is first century CE, this at most might imply
the site 
was occupied by sectarians in the first century CE.  It would have no bearing

at all on whether the sectarians founded the site of Qumran, or whether
Qumran was originally a Hasmonean fortress occupied by the sectarians at a
later stage in its existence.  The issue of the original purpose and
inhabitants of Qumran has to be 
carefully distinguished from the issue of its purpose and inhabitants during
the Jewish War, 200 years later.

Russell Gmirkin