Re: Ancient latrine fuels debate at Qumran

Doug Weller wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 15:47:57 -0800, in sci.archaeology, Carl wrote:
...
It depends upon their interests.

The bottom line is you don't appear to be familiar with the current
archaeological debate and you don't understand its importance. You wrote
"
Now, getting outside archaeoloogy, the vast majority of scholars accept
that Qumran
was Essene, based mostly on textual analysis of DSS.
"

Which shows, to me, that you really don't understand the arguments. Or are
just ignoring them. Textual analysis of DSS tells you about DSS. The
archaeology will tell you about Qumran.

To others reading this. I've been following, albeit loosely, this debate
elswhere. Wikipedia isn't too bad on this, so here's the url:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

So you can see that even the quote above about scholars 'outside
archaeology' is wrong.

Doug

Hi Doug,

It should depend also on truth established in scholarly circles
including other disciplines, not just on their interests of right now.

So, there has often been a wavelength problem in our communications.

For one thing, I am familiar with current archaeological debate, thanks
to Tom MacDonald.
However, I believe it to be far afield of the truth because to suggest
that Qumran was not
Essene is idle.

It is obvious to me that Jodi Magness has not yet been superceded. Why
not judge her
on her merits?

Also, my quote about scholars "outside archaeology" is right unless you
can show otherwise. In the future, please be more specific so that you
can be effectively
pinned down and others can learn from our exchanges.

It would help if you would commit to talk about the Qumran
sundial/"stone disk". If you did,
then we would quickly settle whether it was originally a sundial or not
on the objective
evidence. Why? It has long been already published to my certain
knowledge.

Best,
Dave

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast