[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion Cryer and Golb
I guess I need to clarify my earlier comments about Golb's most recent essay
regarding the "yahad" ostracon. I meant, in no way, to suggest that Fred's
article fell short in demonstrating the inviability of the Cross / Eshel
reading. Yet, in spite of Fred's good work, Cross and Eshel again set forth
their view in a recent publication. In response to this Golb too showed the
impossibility of their suggestion. (And Dave Washburn is right in saying
that he has said the same thing all along- because he has).
As a result of Golb's article I suggested that it is now really impossible
to call the ostracon "the yahad ostracon" and that such should no longer be
suggested. But, let me be clear, I did not mean to slight or devalue Fred's
study by failing to mention it. That I could not do.
On another note, the Garcia-Martinez "Study Edition" arrived yesterday and
it really is excellent. Vol. 2 is breathlessly awaited as is Ulrich's
"Qumran Bible" which will contain the Biblical mss from Qumran. With all
these various texts now easily accesible perhaps we can depart from the now
outmoded (IMO) Essene = Qumran hypothesis and the texts can speak for
themselve to a broader audience.
Best to all, (but especially to Fred)