Agreed those things are possible. But it's equally possible that they (whoever
they were; I
agree with you about the whole Essene thing) just bought jars wherever they
could and put
scrolls they had already made into them. That's my gripe: the article goes
immediately from
jars from different sites to the scrolls had to have come from the same
places. It's a
flying leap, nothing more, but the average reader isn't going to pick that up.
On 7 Mar 2007 at 11:53, Jim West wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Maybe they are presuming that the jars were made at the very location
that the scrolls were written and then immediately shoved inside them.
(the scrolls into the jars that is).
It really isn't outside the realm of possibility is it that if scrolls
are being produced jars are also being produced at the same location to
store them in?
Mind you, I don't think there was an Essene encampment at Qumran. I
think it was as Hirschfeld saw it (but alas, that's a minority viewpoint!)
best
jim
--
Jim West, ThD
http://drjewest.googlepages.com/ -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com -- Weblog
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Dave Washburn
Bash the ground until bananas come out.
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot