. Bergmeier - that's self-explanatory.
_Dierk
- Original Message -
From: "Jim West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran history (brief rep
At 04:18 PM 12/27/2004, you wrote:
Well, Stephen, then Zangenberg has already done with Zias in the meantime.
I've thought the battle would last somewhat longer - what a bummer!
_Dierk
I don't mean to intrude on this fascinating discussion. But a quick
question. Sometimes, as we all know, what w
TECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran history (brief replies To R. Gmirkin)
> Dierk, the word in the text I cited, the new book by Y.H., page 161, note
222,
> is indeed "refuted."
> S. Goranson
>
> Quoting Dierk van den Berg
Dierk, the word in the text I cited, the new book by Y.H., page 161, note 222,
is indeed "refuted."
S. Goranson
Quoting Dierk van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Even more worse, for Zangenberg was indeed meant.
>
> Hirschfeld_ QUMRAN IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD, Reassessing the
> Archaeologica
From: "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran history (brief replies To R. Gmirkin)
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Goranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
>
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Goranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:13 PM
Subject: [Megillot] Qumran history (brief replies To R. Gmirkin)
[...]
> P.S. Y. Hirschfeld p. 161 n. 222 claims J. Zangenberg (2000)
"systematical
Dear Russell Gmirkin,
Maybe we should agree to disagee on a few things, for now.
1. When you quoted me you totally omitted the sentence in which I gave my view
that it was mistaken of G. Doudna to analogize Qumran's circa 900 manuscripts,
and their usage, and their deposit with "ONE EVENT," wit
