[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
however, that Pliny was speaking/writing in the 1st person from his
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
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)