Is it perhaps possible for the scholarship of the 3rd millennium CE to avoid
man-in-the moon-like terminology of old, such as 'Qumran-Essenes', or
should I introduce the 'Temple-Essenes' of the Herodian cult-architecture
epoch to make the game more interesting?
Again - the community behind the scr
I wrote that the Aramaic ostracon published by Yardeni (IEJ 40 1980) concerned
delivery of dates (I had date formulas on my ming, but it was about figs.
S Goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/
G. Doudna's text still misrepresents and/or misunderstands Qumran archaeology,
paleography, and radiocarbon, in support of claimed deposit of all Qumran
scrolls in first century BC--a proposal already by these means (and probably as
well by historical sources) disproven.
"Doudna's extensive reb
> [snip] Calling on early Qumran deposit is not only a deus ex
> machina but one undefined: Ian Young does not investigate whether the
Doudna/
> Ian Hutchesson dating has made any credible claim, has any merit, can
really
> toss out paleography, archaeology, C14, says that's outside the bounds of
Ian Young has presented and discussed an article (DSD 9 [2002] 364-
90) on Masada texts, but it misdates both Masada and Qumran texts.
It is not the case that all see the MT situation at Masada as Young has it.
E.g. E. Ulrich, "Two Perspectives on Two Pentiteuchal Manuscripts from Masada.'
in Em
Correction: the article by Jutta Jokiranta, " 'Sectarianism' of the Qumran 'Sect':
Sociological Notes", appeared in _Revue de Qumran_ 20/2 (2001), 223-239.
(Thanks to Carla Sulzbach of McGill University for calling this to attention.)
The Jokiranta article is important because the term "sect"
