[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: yahad ostracon
>From RGmyrken:
>My contact from the Manchester conference tells me that the ostracon
>contained a
>date, "Year 2".
>
>First, can you confirm this datum? And doesn't this indicate the ostracon
>probably dates to 68 CE, i.e. the second year of the revolt?
>
That is one good possibility, though not certain. It fits withe the
palaeographical analysis of Cross and Eshel (which she says is independent,
but I don't entirely regard her opinion as independent of Cross!) But no
matter, really.
>Then this may indicate a link between Qumran and the texts ca. 68 CE, i.e.
>coincidentally about the time the scrolls may have been deposited, but what
>does this really imply about the history of Qumran or of the sectarians'
>connection with this site in earlier archaeological periods?
>
Nothing. It still remains possible that the site was previously occupied by
others.
Philip R Davies
Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield