Re: [Megillot] clay and scrolls
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: g-megillot@mcmaster.ca Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [Megillot] clay and scrolls On 8 Mar 2007 at 8:52, Søren Holst wrote: Dave Washburn wrote: [snip] But then it turns around and notes that the jars came from different places, and it appears that it just sort of automatically jumps from that to the idea that if the jars came from different places, then the scrolls may have, too. It seems to me that the simpler explanation would be that a scroll-producing group bought jars from different places and put their scrolls in them. Alternately, if the jars and the scrolls are from various places, then it seems unlikely that we have a breakaway community with a scriptorium making scrolls to put in the jars. I don't see how we can have it both ways. But my main problem was what appeared to be an automatic leap from diverse-source jars to diverse-sources scrolls therein. I don't see any good reason to make that leap. Does that clear it up? Dave Washburn Bash the ground until bananas come out. --- A jar is well-defined not by the clay but by the potter! A scroll-producing group (a kind of anachronistic Megillot Inc ?) that hides material without leaving a single snippet in the production facility, well, that was already part of the Essenes hypothesis of the deceased Hartmut Stegemann, a backward orientated cargo-cult hypothesis (Johann Maier) dead as a dodo since long, for it still took the literary refs. to the Essenes - versus Roland Bergmeier's investigations of the early 1990s - for literal per se, viz for historical in toto. Unfortunately, Stegenmann's hypothesis offers absolutely no argument to deal with the two clearly to be decided social (tooth-)classes within the 1953er Collectio Kurth identified by Olav Roehrer-Ertl in 2000 (Pustet; cf. Brill publication 2006). _Dierk _ RU Nijmegen, NL --- kullu nafsin dsa 'iqatu l-mawt (surah 3.185) *all living is pervaded by the taste of death* [Momentum of Shiite al-Mahdi Messianism]
Re: [Megillot] clay and scrolls
On 8 Mar 2007 at 8:52, Søren Holst wrote: Dave Washburn wrote: I frequently wonder why otherwise competent scholars come up with statements like this one: --- Although chemical analysis indicated that several cave jars were made from clay found near Qumran, it also showed material from five other locations, suggesting that the scrolls might have originated in many different sites. --- How? All it suggests is that the JARS might have originated in many different sites. It says nothing at all about the scrolls therein. ** I don't have any particular axe to grind about this, but wouldn't it be fair to say that it not only suggests the jars *might* come from different places, but almost conclusively demonstrates this (unless unprocessed clay was carted around)? About the *scrolls* it obviously only suggests they *might* come from different places, but that was what the offending quote said in the first place. I guess some slightly louder reservations than just the word might could be a good idea if the quote is meant for journalistic consumption, buit there's nothing *wrong* being said there, is there? I should probably have included more context, but I have a thing about bandwidth. I'll try to clarify. A few paragraphs before this one, the article set out the standard Essenes-at- Qumran theory, mentioned the scriptorium and all the rest. The clear implication is that some group at Qumran produced the scrolls in their scriptorium (I put that in quotes because I don't think that's what the room was, but that's another topic and I still have that thing about bandwidth). But then it turns around and notes that the jars came from different places, and it appears that it just sort of automatically jumps from that to the idea that if the jars came from different places, then the scrolls may have, too. It seems to me that the simpler explanation would be that a scroll-producing group bought jars from different places and put their scrolls in them. Alternately, if the jars and the scrolls are from various places, then it seems unlikely that we have a breakaway community with a scriptorium making scrolls to put in the jars. I don't see how we can have it both ways. But my main problem was what appeared to be an automatic leap from diverse-source jars to diverse-sources scrolls therein. I don't see any good reason to make that leap. Does that clear it up? Dave Washburn Bash the ground until bananas come out. ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] clay and scrolls
Dave Washburn wrote: I frequently wonder why otherwise competent scholars come up with statements like this one: --- Although chemical analysis indicated that several cave jars were made from clay found near Qumran, it also showed material from five other locations, suggesting that the scrolls might have originated in many different sites. --- How? All it suggests is that the JARS might have originated in many different sites. It says nothing at all about the scrolls therein. ** I don't have any particular axe to grind about this, but wouldn't it be fair to say that it not only suggests the jars *might* come from different places, but almost conclusively demonstrates this (unless unprocessed clay was carted around)? About the *scrolls* it obviously only suggests they *might* come from different places, but that was what the offending quote said in the first place. I guess some slightly louder reservations than just the word might could be a good idea if the quote is meant for journalistic consumption, buit there's nothing *wrong* being said there, is there? kol tuv Soren ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
