[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Golb's Theory
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Philip Davies wrote:
> I'm not sure tha Golb links the presence of women and children with Q being
> a fort (I must check), but their presence has long been explained away as
> due to the Roman attack on Q (some of the persons were said to have died
> prematurely).
Sorry, but could you explain? How does an attack by Romans explain the
presence of women and children? And what role does "premature death" play
in all of this?
> Golb DOES imply that since Q was attacked, it was a fort. I agree
> it was fortified (if minimally), but not sure that means it was built for
> that purpose.
>
This seems a bit confused. Golb says that Q is a fort because of various
structural clues - the "tower" chief among them. I don't think he ever says
that because Q was attacked it was a fort. Or could you point me to a
place in his text where he says so? He does say that the signs of the
struggle are problematic for the Essene theory because the Essenes were
supposedly "pacifists" - but this is a different point.
Best, Asia