[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
response to 3 Copenhagen listmembers
My views are somewhat different than they have been represented in
some recent posts by Fred Cryer, Greg Doudna, and N. P. Lemche. I am in
favor of (and surely do not fear) the new technological tests (see, e.g.,
BA 1991 p.172), including pottery tests. On Qumran ceramics, I have
recommended the publications of J. Magness, which recognize that the type
of jar which has been called the "scroll-type" jar is indeed rare and
does link the Qumran ruins and several of the caves. (See, e.g., Annals
NY Academy Sci. v.722 and DSD 2 (1995).) By "scroll-type" jar I mean
merely that they were jars found with scrolls in several of the 1Q to
11Q caves; if one wishes to put the term in quotes, as I often do, or
create an alternate name, or suggest they had additional uses (as did,
e.g., J. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1956, p.77-8), very well.
The reason I mentioned possible logistic difficulty in doing the
tests is that, I think, these jars are located now in several countries,
under several ownerships, public and private (e.g., M. Schoyen owns one
that J. Allegro formerly owned; it is said to have the letter "beth"
written inside and outside and "possible offsetting of ink" inside.
If I'm mistaken, and it is easy to perform the various tests that many,
for a good while now, have wished, good.
I eagerly await more contributions from Magness, the Eshels, Broshi,
the NTOA Fouilles series, and anyone with information or insight. I concur,
e.g., with the Nov. 11 & 12 posts by Wm. Schniedewind. What I think is not
likely, though time will tell, is a contribution which overturns
practically all previous work. That there have been so many proposals makes it likely tha
likely that some historically-reliable observations have already been
expressed. The so-called consensus is only so-called. I am persuaded by
evidence of Essene residence and writing at Qumran and elsewhere, Essenes
in numbers (old estimates:"more than 4000" and "myriads") which are
sufficient and commensurate, without "elastic." But I do not accept some old
views, sometimes called "consensus," on identity of the wicked priest,
on dating the beginning of Ia, the end of IB, etc. To research Essenes one
need not limit the possibilities to a meaningless, later subset of
(questionably-defined) Sadducees. Essenes are attested by Philo and Pliny,
who use early sources and do not mention Sadducees. If one asks who wrote
and collected the scrolls, it seems to me not useful and not scientific to
limit the acceptable answers to non-communitarian Jerusalemites.
Thank you. Sincerely,
Stephen Goranson UNC-Wilmington
P.S. On another subject: though I made some critical observations on the
new book by Wise, Abegg, and Cook, please note that I made favorable
observations also.