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
