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

Re: yahad ostracon

>Philip Davies wrote:
>> >Let's suppose that the ostracon is the real mcCoy. What would it clarify?
>> >
>> Thatan entity called yahad is not attested only in literary documents from
>> the caves but in a documentary text from near the site; the implication
>> being (I stress implication, but a strong one) tha there was a group at
>> Khirbet Qumran calling itself officiAlly the yhd.
>	The ostracon fascinates us because of the word YAHAD.  We immediately
>think of that which the sectarians call themselves in IQS, Serekh ha-Yahad.  I
>have been following the ostracon thread with great interest because of this.
>My feeling, however, is that some of the listusers are unfamiliar with the use
>of YHD in the DSS and wondering why the excitement.  I hope this clarifies the
No, Jack it doesn't. That wasn't the intention. Mine was a problem of
logical consequence. And I'm not too sure that I'd be able to accept even
Philip's cautious interpretation. I don't think there is any way to
ascertain the provinence of the ostracon -- unless it was something made on
the site with the same characteristics as other ceramic fabric, and, even if
ascertained, what the significance was, ie if it referred to the
inhabitants, if it reflects our understanding of yahad, etc.

Ian Hutchesson