[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Hirschfeld's Excavations
> Dave Washburn is, of course, correct that we discussed "infra" and related
> topic many months ago and that the best argument for "south of", as used in
> context by Pliny, was that there was no site physically above Ein-Gedi. That
> is why I am wondering how Roitman can (apparently) be so sure that "infra"
> sourth of the Essenes rather than "below" the Essenes given the Hirschfeld
Agreed. Based on what little I know of Latin I never did really buy
the "south of" argument in the first place, but this seems to put the
final nail in its coffin.
> But the other issue is that in the January 1998 BAR article two of the three
> persons being interviewed take the position that there was no land passage
> from Qumran to Ein-Gedi in about 100 BCE to 70 CE. If true, then only the
> Hirschfeld site qualifies as being removed from the coast and the noxious
> odors of the Dead Sea. It is only the bey low level of the Dead Sea in the
> more recent century that moves Qumran off of and away from the Dead Sea's
> noxious odors.
Either I'm a little slow in my vocabulary or there's a possible typo
here :-) Am I correct in speculating that this should have been
If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.