[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
method and obliviousness
Dear Greg,
I find some of your posts quite informative and others confusing. Thanks for
the former. As for the latter: Is Jerusalem the "obvious" source of
Qumran mss? No. Why do you denigrate scenarios? Don't historians
ineluctably pursue the most plausible reconstructions? Isn't it a
scenario when you imagine inkwells being removed from masada via
"voluntary departure"? (I leave aside issues of definition concerning
suicide.) Did Masada--and Sepphoris--and Dura-Europos not experience
destruction??
Frankly the inkwell explanations lately seem less a product of rigor
in methodology than creative obliviousness.
I am confused about Fred Cryer's repeated posts claiming some disconnect
between the settlement dates at Qumran and the AMS mss dating. He implies
you're with him on this puzzling conclusion. Do you not accept the AMS
dates as given in 'Atiqot 1996 which includes first century of the
common era dates?
I must have missed something, but what precisely are you claiming and
asking about your two dates of 62 BCE and 68 CE?
Again, thanks for the good parts. Sincerely,
Stephen Goranson UNC-Wilmington