[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion-list Donkey-Trail, More than Enough
Dear Joe Zias,
You write:
> Once again I have to set the record straight :-) Cave 1 contained 8
> jars, three of which held manuscripts (7) also these caves were later
> cleared out by the archaeologists and the pottery restored.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my distinct impression that
Cave 1 contained no intact jars, but only "a mass of broken pottery" (per
Roland de Vaux, _Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls_ p. 48). From my
memory, the plates in DJD 1 contains photos of reassembled jars, but nothing
intact. De Vaux discusses the question of the association of the scrolls
with jars at pp. 99-102 and notes that archaeologists found no manuscripts in
jars. So perhaps there were three jars in cave 1 which were assumed or
inferred to have held manuscripts based on their classification as "scroll
jars", but I think this is less than a fact: again, correct me if I'm wrong.
There was a scroll fragment stuck to linen which was in turn sticking to the
upper part of a jar, but this is (as de Vaux notes) the closest thing to
direct archaeological evidence of manuscripts in jars, and I don't know the
type of jar this specific sherd belonged to. Was this sherd identified as
from a large "scroll jar" or from a smaller jar (as the bedouin boy described
the only jar in which he found scrolls in cave 1)? Perhaps your information
is better than mine (and de Vaux's?).
Also, there are "scroll jars" found in caves with no manuscript
fragments, as well as manuscript fragments in caves (e.g. cave 5) with no
pottery remains. So IMO the association of manuscripts with jars, especially
"scroll jars", is perhaps best abandoned.
Additionally, you write:
> Need an Essene document for proof of the connection between the scrolls
> and the essenes? Try the manual of discipline for a starter
I would point out that the connection between the scrolls and the Essenes
of Josephus is _limited_ to the manual of discipline. The chart of
"Parallels between Josephus and Qumran" at pp. 123-24 of Beall's book,
_Josephus' Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls_ is
revealing in that 22 of 26 parallels come from 1QS (and the other 4 are to my
mind unconvincing). These 22 entries also contain 2 citations of CD, but
these come from portions of CD which display knowledge of the Serekh
literature (i.e., 1QS). The same description holds true for his list of
"Probable Parallels" - these come predominantly from 1QS (and passages of CD
that contain organizational material derived from 1QS). That is, the Essenes
appear to have known a single scroll of the Qumran corpus, namely 1QS.
By contrast, there are _no_ parallels (and a number of contradictions)
between the Essenes of Josephus and the older halachic portions of CD, and no
convincing parallels with other halachic writings such as 4QMMT or 11QT. (On
halachic vs. organizational [serekh] legal materials in CD see Hempel, _The
Laws of the Damascus Document_.) As Schiffman has shown, 4QMMT, 11QT, and
(the halachic) portions of CD have commonalities with each other and with
Sadducee positions. But, I emphasize, not with the Essenes. So are the
organizational rules of 1QS more normative than the halachic materials of
other scrolls? Because the identification with the Essenes is based
_exclusively_ on the former. (And indeed I believe that the organizational
rules or serekhim were authored by a different group than the halachot.)
By the way, I find your postings as a rule very informative and
interesting. I hope you don't find my comments unduly argumentative.
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin
For private reply, e-mail to RGmyrken@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@mscc.huji.ac.il with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.