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

orion dating; Essenes; a priori

-> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 15:50:51 +0000
-> From: Stephen Goranson <goranson@acpub.duke.edu>

 Maybe one big batch (still partly-extant), of whatever dates,
-> came from the "land of Damascus," or Jerusalem, at a given date. Maybe
-> Qumran production had its ups and downs. The survival of texts as well
-> as the rate of texts sent or taken away earlier may be uneven. Etc.
->  In my opinion, it is not those who have *arrived* at the conclusion
-> that some Qumran texts and the site Kh. Qumran/Ein Feshkha are Essene
>  In context, from my perspective, the AMS information has added, among
-> other things, confirming circumstantial evidence to what I already knew:
-> the Qumran ms collection is Essene. Historians who refuse to deal with
-> Essenes, in my view, limit the possibilities in their accounts of Qumran
-> history.
-> Stephen Goranson    goranson@duke.edu

What keeps the DSS from being other than Essene?

Why can some at least not be from other sources?

Couldn't Qumran have been a depository or repository for scrolls from
other Jewish sources?

There are varying views within this discussion group I see.

Dale M. Cannon