[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
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.