[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Mark Dunn: orion Palms/water etc. I.
Mark Dunn wrote:
>I would agree with SG's message of July 18th that there is no particular reason
>to "force the Essenes of Pliny's source away from Qumran."
We aren't being hypothetical here. For the dss to have been written by the
Essenes as the Essene hypothesis claims one has to establish that Essenes
were in fact at Qumran. This has not been done. Until it is, the Essene
hypothesis has no basis whatsoever. It is possible that the Essenes were in
fact at Qumran. When, I don't know.
It is clear from the archaeology that Qumran Ib was of Hasmonean
construction. It's location and it's lack of water supply would suggest that
it had a very specific purpose for existing, unlike Ein Feshka, Ein Ghuweir,
and Ein Gedi, each of which had its own water supply, whereas Qumran had a
very costly artificial means of supplying water. This suggests a military
purpose. (There aren't many alternatives.)
As I have elsewhere noted that current archaeologists at Qumran are working
on the understanding that Qumran II was a villa. Who needs to "force the
Essenes of Pliny's source away from Qumran"? What the Essene hypothesis
needs is some justification that there were Essenes there. There is nothing
much to suggest even a small possibility.
>they [the Essenes] may have been at Qumran just as they were in
>Jerusalem, Jericho, Masada etc.
Should that have been "just as they *may have been* in Jerusalem..."? If
not, I can't see how you could know.