Re: Ancient latrine fuels debate at Qumran

Doug Weller wrote:
On 9 Jan 2007 06:10:07 -0800, in sci.archaeology, Carl wrote:


Now, getting outside archaeoloogy, the vast majority of scholars accept
that Qumran
was Essene, based mostly on textual analysis of DSS.

You're including Norman Golb, Itzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg?

I guess not.
...

Hi Doug,

I respect the arguments of Jodi Magness.

More good news
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/5479

Excerpt -

"Here are excerpts from a very important review, in Dead Sea
Discoveries 11, 3,
of a book by the Israeli scholar Jodi Magness. The review, in unusually
laudatory terms, marks a turning point in Qumran studies, the end of
the last
regime.

"The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Jodi Magness,
Grand
Rapids Michigan and Cambridge UK: Eerdmans, 2002. $26. ISBN
0-8028-4589-4

Review by Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, Jerusalem, Bar Ilan University

....

(..) The reviewers are of the opinion that it is possible to prove on
the basis
of archaeological finds alone, even without the aid of the wealth of
the
manuscripts, that in the last 150 years of the Second Commonwealth
Qumran was
occupied by a monastic community.

(..) In her defense of de Vaux's identification of Qumran as a
religious
establishment, Jodi Magness is right. There is no doubt, the settlement
was an
Essene community.

Magen Broshi. Hanan Eshel Jerusalem, Bar Ilan University."

All the best,
David Christainsen

.

Loading