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

orion repeating disproven assertions

Stephen writes:

>After repeating disproven assertions,

Assertion 1: Pliny relates the Essenes' location to Ein Gedi. To refresh
Stephen's poor memory Pliny writes: infra hos Engada oppidum fuit. (hos =
"these" and refers to the Essenes.) Stephen must have lost a cylinder, if he
thinks this assertion is disproven.

Assertion 2: Pliny uses the present tense for the Essenes while describing
the fact that Jerusalem and Ein Gedi had been destroyed. If this doesn't
reflect the facts about the passage from Pliny, could someone who is a
little less biased than Stephen obviously is, please explain it to me. Yes,
I know about the interpretation Stephen depends on that requires the passage
to be an unidentified reference to an Agrippa source. Interpretations aren't
facts. Stephen has lost track of this.

>Ian asked one new question: who
>looked arround Ein Gedi before Yizhar Hirschfeld?

So then you may in fact know about what has been found there, unpalatable
though it may be.

Stephen has this uncanny habit of confusing his desires with facts as can be
seen with his first phrase. Can someone see where Stephen or anyone on this
list has disproven the two assertions I've repeated at the start of this post?

>But I do not call Pliny the "linchpin." 

Stephen doesn't seem to understand the grave situation he is in. Without
Pliny to connect the Essenes to Qumran, he is left with his interpretation
of the significance of the name "Essene" (one of many) and has as much
chance of being right about the dss as Robert Eisenman.

>Even more important evidence is the fact that the texts (more precisely,
>some of them, e.g. S and some pesharim) tell us they are Essene.

The texts clearly refer to, and give priority to, the sons of Zadok. Stephen
ignores this, because he has the load of an Essene hypothesis to support.
Had the texts used shamerim instead of 'osey, he'd probably be calling the
dss writers Samaritans.

No proof has yet been offered for an Essene hypothesis. It is just as
unsupported now as when Stephen relit the Essene torch.

Archaeology has moved on. It's no longer finding "writing tables" with
dishes in the middle of them and claiming "scriptorium" in order to fill
anachronistic models.

Face this, Stephen:

You can't get any proof from the texts. You can't get any proof from the

No Pliny means no Essene hypothesis.  

It's that simple.

Things fall apart; the concensus doesn't hold.

Ian Hutchesson