[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion Several


I thank Mark Dunn for what I consider some very intelligent comments. 
The reign of Herod the Great is a little later than I have been 
looking at, but why not? its in the spectrum of possibilities, and Jericho is 
as possible as Jerusalem or Qumran as the location of the scrolls six 
months before they entered the caves.  With Herod you have traditions 
of destruction of temple records, the usual revolts being crushed, 
the legends of persecution at John the Baptist's birth.  Then there 
is the temple, the flourishing of a truly great state, and--perhaps of 
much significance for the scrolls--a context in which not only a 
temple but perhaps the canon comes about, which the Scrolls do NOT 
show but which IS assumed for 1st CE by Josephus and NT.

Mark Dunn's Herod the Great period would remove practically all 
existing radiocarbon and palaeography objections at one blow too.  
The advantage of these proposals of course is twofold.  First, 
it casts in relief that 68 CE never was stronger than plausible in 
the beginning, but it isn't realized until second or third 
possibilities get talked about.  Second, there is always the 
outside possibility that 68 CE could be correct after all, 
and this kind of discussion might get someone angry enough 
to produce some real evidence.  Which is gain for all. 

Greg Doudna
 



> From:          Dunnlaw@aol.com
> Date:          Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:08:08 -0400 (EDT)
> To:            orion@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il
> Subject:       orion Several
> Reply-to:      orion@mscc.huji.ac.il

> 1.  On the issue of a substantial number of texts being copied just before
> some "X" date (for example, the date of deposit), is there any reason to
> believe that many scrolls might not have been produced within a very short
> period of time, i.e., it would take a good scribe only a few hours (?) or so
> to produce a copy of Isaiah or Psalms.  If something like Isaiah was a
> favorite book, there may have been many copies available.  In other words,
> why do you need to postulate a whole generation for production of a
> substantial part of the material.
> 
> 2.  On the issue of non-retrieval of the DSS, isn't it reasonable to look for
> a simple explaination.  Many people store things away carefully and never go
> back to the attic or basement to retrieve them.   All those who don't have
> their college notebooks stored someplace, please stand up.   Because the DSS
> are very important now, isn't there a natural inclination to want them to
> have been important then.  Perhaps the scrolls just weren't that important in
> the overall scheme of things.  
> 
> 3.  Would scribes also produce the inscribed strips for phylactery?  Would
> these be sold?  Would, for example, copies of Psalms be sold, etc.?  Would
> writing scrolls be a way to support a sect?
> 
> 4.  If there was a library of 870 - 1000 or so scrolls, why isn't it
> reasonable to assume that before deposit it was probably in Jericho and moved
> from there along with many other items into caves in the general area.  There
> are several events during which a library might have been moved from there,
> e.g. (1) when Herod and ten bands of soldiers (5 Roman and 5 or Jewish
> origin) came to Jericho only to find that it had been deserted - where did
> they go to hide and with what, or (2) when Judas burned down the royal palace
> of Jericho in about 6 C.E.
> 
> Mark Dunn
> 
>