[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Cave 7 Fragments
From: Judith Romney Wegner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: orion Cave 7 Fragments
V Chadwick wrote:
>>Have any of the fragments discovered in cave 7 been subject to C14 dating?
>>The predominantly Greek texts seem almost out of place amongst the finds
>>the nearby caves. I do not think that O'Callaghan's claims of possible
>>Testament fragments have been disproven yet and wonder if any scholar has
>>done any extensive research on the Cave 7 finds.
J.R. Wegner responded:
>Re: your statement that you "do not think C's claims of possible NT
>fragments at Qumran have been disproven yet." I am sure that technically
>you are correct. But that's because one has taken it seriously enough to
>be up in arms about it!
>Why exactly should scholars fee obligated to "disprove" any every wild
>assertion that is sent down the pike by anybody or his dog
Wow... sorry. I had no idea that this was such a wild assertion! I agree
with the fact that the burden of evidence would lie with O'Callaghan et al.
I personally do not assert that the tiny fragments are in fact NT, but I do
suggest that this cache of documents is quite distinct and possibly not
deposited/composed at the same time or by the same parties as the scrolls in
Caves 1 and 4. That was the intended thrust of my (rather hastily) composed
post. But I would ask why you would consider this suggestion so insane,
meriting analogy to your green cheese moon. Is it irresponsible to consider
that documents dating from possible the late 1st century CE might have been
deposited in Cave 7? Please tell me what makes you consider this scholar's
suggestion so ridiculous.