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

Re: orion Re: perspectives, Essenes



    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

Stephen Goranson wrote:

> I will try again. Since:
>         Pliny's source clearly referred to Qumran/En Feshkah. The
> scrolls
> embody the views of Essenes with as much fidelity (or more) as one can
>
> reasonably expect of ancient historians. The new Qumran ostracon, even
> with
> various letters which reasonable people can question, is clearly a act
> of
> conveyance whose closest parallel is surely Serek hayahad which is
> surely
> Essene.  The scrolls include the Hebrew self-designation 'osey hatorah
>
> which led to the name "Essenes."

    I am not convinced where Pliny was referring, or since Qumran was
notoccupied by anyone when Pliny wrote, his source.  I was under the
impression,
however, that Pliny was speaking/writing in the 1st person from his
excursion
at a time when Qumran was in ruins.

>         The real question for open-minded historians is not whether
> Qumran
> and Essenes are related, though anyone is free to try to keep the two
> hermetically separated, if they wish.

    I am not convinced that an Essene ever set foot at Qumran.  I
don'tdeny it, I just don't see enough evidence.  Essenes at Qumran or
not,
however, the DSS are convincingly Essene.  *IF* these Essene
writings did not come from a putative Qumran community, and given
the "many hands" of the texts, isn't it more likely they came from
the Essene quarter of the city?


--
Díman dith laych idneh dínishMA nishMA
   Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net)


 http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium