[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Shanks DSS book
[The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
I have before stated that there no purpose is served by replying to Steven
Gorensonīs arguments--as indeed many exchanges between him and other
scholars on this list have shown. Nor do I understand why he is still on
this list.
However, G's claim that "Essene" is well attested in the DSS in the verb
asah is simpy outrageous, for reasons that were explained about 30 years
ago by Geza Vermes, and which I reiterated not so long ago on my own hook.
Stretching an inaccurate philological claim into a very dubious
identification of "Essenes" in order to make wondrously self-assured claims
about the nature of the alleged "Essene" theology of one or another work
found in the caves is preposterously circular methodology. It would be
meaningful only to someone who in advance of the philological evidence and
for quite other reasons is convinced that the "Essenes", whoever they were,
wrote some or all of the DSS. I think we all gather that G thinks this to
be the case, but it would be nice not to have to be reminded of it so
frequently by such disingenuous nonsense as today's post contains.
Fred Cryer