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

orion 5 diverse observations

1) C14 tests of internally-dated Judaean wilderness (not Qumran) mss
matched fairly well. One might read the reports before criticizing them.
I personally don't think C14 is, at present, the most important
methodology vis-a-vis Qumran, but to consider one methodology, one need
not ignore all others.
2) The Hebrew word translated "keepers" does not have a zayin, but a
sade. Reading, e.g., in Anchor Bible Dictionary, might provide useful
3) The claim that a circa 70 CE date of cave deposit has zero
probability is manifestly and obviously false, even if it were the case
that every single Qumran text had been produced on a single day in 63
4) I have not yet read the full presentations of A.D. Crown (conference
paper) or Lena Cansdale (new book). (Their salt-seller inn proposal in
BAR was not persuasive [and included some puzzling assertions].) But, to
the best of my knowledge, Pliny scholarship does not agree with their
reading of Pliny, and rightly so.
5) Professor Golb, according to Jerusalem Post, still does not
acknowledge the many inkwells of Qumran as "writing instruments of
scribes" !?!??
S. Goranson   goranson@duke.edu