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

Re: orion new Qumran Essene ostracon

  The discussion has moved on, and I'm working backwards through my
backlog. Still, you and others might like to know that some of
the material you asked about has been published.

According to Stephen Goranson (8/14/97):

> 	This discovery makes publication of the de Vaux Qumran ostraca more
> urgent. The PAM photos (42.684ff) are not all clear; the new photographic
> methods are worth a try. Similarly, regarding the 4Q mss letters,
> contracts, accounts, lists (?) (4Q342ff): their readings (which appear to
> be difficult) can be compared, and the issue of their questi oned provenance
> revisited.

A number--I don't know how many--of the more strictly "documentary"
materials previously ascribed to Cave 4 by the Beduin from whom they were
purchased have been published in DJD 27, by Ada Yardeni, who has
identified them as coming from Nahal Seelim. I understand that the volume
appeared in bound form at the Editors' meeting, so you may be able to put
pressure on your library to acquire it rapidly, or order it yourself.

On the Qumran ostraca, the *other* Qumran ostraca that are listed in
Reed's Catalogue, I have no information. I find myself wondering why this
ostracon found by Strange's Expedition has been numbered 1, together with
another found at the same time labeled 2. Or is it similar to the
cemetery, where graves excavated by de Vaux are labeled T3-T36 or so,
and by Steckoll's are labeled G2-9 or so? That is, should the ostracon
we've been discussing be termed S.1, together with S.2, while de Vaux's
discoveries would be called V.1.-V.?, for however many have any writing on
them that was discerned by his excavations.

Sigrid Peterson  UPenn   petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu