As already noted, a "triclinium" at Qumran would not be anachronistic, if it existed--it does not IMO (cf., e.g. R. Reich in JJS 1995, 157f), nor did the sometimes excessively-criticised de Vaux propose that. Pauline Donceel-Voute famously did; but, I think, Henri del Medico and Godfrey Rolles Driver did so during de Vaux's lifetime. And de Vaux, I think, did not call Qumran a momastery.
"Scriptorium," if I may suggest, is not anachronistic either, if it existed, as de Vaux did say. (And strawmanwise, I did not declare 200 scribes at Qumran at a time.) The plaster items, reconstructed on a new wooden frame at a guessed height, may have been used, e.g., for making the dry lines or for gluing or sewing papryus and skin skheets. There is not yet certainty on this, but merely declaring Qumran, site of more inkwells than any other site in that (large) era and area not a place of writing, will not suffice. (Hirschfeld's new book is unreliable on inkwells and locus 30.) "Scriptorium" was used, e.g., by Sir Alan H. Gardiner, in "The House of Life," J. of Egyptian Archaeology 24 (1938) 175 and by others in many other studies of ancient writing that are not accused of anachronism. The plaster items may be scheduled for publication in the Ecole Biblique series. One could contact J.-B. Humbert to ask, or the IAA or the Hebrew U, Science and Archaeology group (e.g. Jan Gunneweg; Joe Zias, et al.) with suggested tests. But money may be a factor as well. What is anachronistic, or at least inappropriate, I suggest, is the use of the term "halakha"--i.e., in the Rabbinic Hebrew sense--in collocation with Qumran and/or Essenes. Essenes plainly opposed Pharisee halakha, and used cacophemism toward it. Meier's JBL 2003 150f article, IMO, is misleading, in part, because it brackets out the broader issue (and hence the actual evidence) of Essene and Qumran differences with Pharisees. J. VanderKam in the Tov Festschrift (Emanuel, SuppVT 94, 2003 p465f) provides additional evidence about Qumran Essene (dis)regard of Pharisees. One might also usefully ask whether using "halakha' rather than legal determinations is appropriate when discussing Sadducees, Samaritans, Philo, and Karaites. Dierk, do you have the citation of the article unclearly described as involving Stegemann, Bruno, and Bergmeier? The orion Jan. 2005 conference schedule is out. Some interesting titles. Eyal Regev has written some interesting sociological analysis (e,g., comparing Essenes and Shakers--who died out slowly, no sudden event there), but I hope his paper title, "From Enoch to John the Essene: An Analysis of a Sect Development," does not rely too heavily on "John the Essene" being an Essene. As Schalit in the Josephus Concordance Namerworterbuch has suggested, the so- called "Essene" part of that name (unlike Judah, Menachem, and Simon, Essenes) may be a mix-up with a gentilic. There has been much poor writing on Qumran C14. The Arizona and Zurich reports are good, but have one significant lack: the fragment or column locations of the samples tested. They do tell us this (column location) in the case of 1QIsaiah, which is helpful: both labs tested the same sheet of skin. But, e.g., Yadin said the first sheet of 11QTemple was a replacement sheet; hence it may differ in age from other sheets. Now Martin Schoyen claims (with good reason) to own parts of that first sheet. So what sheet was C14 tested? A similar question obtains, e.g., with a 4QDamascus ms. So I have requested (and have not yet received) this information. Without seeking a long exchange with Russell on source criticism now, I will mention that I was recently requested by a well known DSS scholar to publish in his volume my M. Agrippa material (though I declined for the moment); and the George Nickelsburg FS (R. Argall) makes use of my Posidonius and Strabo JJS 1994 material. N. Damascus as source for Philo, Pliny, and Josephus all, seems quite unlikely--to me. More attention may be useful on the 4Q448 relationship between columns A and B/C. Both are dualistic. Both reflect war. To imagine Jonathan in B/C praised-- what about him is supposedly praised? If he is imagined the good one, who is the bad one--and why is the bad one unnamed? Caution of parallels proposed merely based on (L. The previously-known A text, in variant versions, was often (in many pre-4Q448 publications) called "proto-Essene" or simply "Essene." Interesting that it includes the word "yahad." (Perhaps compare 4Q177 5-6 18.) best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
