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

Re: orion Re: Ib and II dates

Stephen Goranson wrote:
> To me the Qumran inkwells look more like Roman period ones than Hellenistic.

    What do Hellenistic inkwells look like?  Are any published 
    for the region by which you can support this statement?

> De Vaux, Laperrousaz, Milik, and Cross, who were at the dig, and others, 
agree on > evidence of a fire in 1st cent. BCE. 

    What is the reference for Cross?  (I don't see a 1b fire in 
    _Ancient Libr. of Qumran_.)  I don't think Laperrousaz and Milik
    had more than De Vaux in print on this point.  Larger issue: how
    does one evaluate claims from authority which cannot be verified?
>     J. Magness wrote:"...'scroll jars' are not attested at Qumran in any 
pre-31 BCE contexts. > In fact, the presently available evidence 
indicates that they are found only in period II 
> contexts at Qumran . . . (ASOR  1996 > newsletter abstract.)

    If established through argument and evidence this would indeed 
    argue strongly for a Period II deposit date for the Scrolls.  But 
    after reading all of Humbert and Chambon and all of De Vaux I 
    cannot see how a claim for indication of exclusive Period II 
    dating of all, or any, scrolls jars at the site can be made on 
    the basis of existing information.  As a counterexample, for 
    Locus 2 De Vaux reported finding a "scrolls jar" buried completely 
    in the lowest, i.e. 1b, floor.  There were 1st CE coins on the 
    floor and around the jar.  Looks to me like the coins are dating 
    not the floor or the jar (as reported by De Vaux) but rather the 
    latest people using the floor.  The jar (it seems transparently 
    to me) looks like it went in 1b.  Do you know how J. Magness deals 
    with this?    Greg Doudna