spin

While I would appreciate moderators keeping an eye on progress, I would prefer anyone who has something substantive to bring into the fray being able to do so.

(As I've already said, I have no interest in simply rehashing the opinions of scholars in the issue, but will happily consider any evidence gleaned from the scholars, along with any other evidence.)

So, I'll go for the sweatshirt and jeans. If it degenerates, we could shift over.


spin

Toto

A formal debate would be a good way of organizing material. Most of us don't have the expertise to jump in.

I suggest that you use the formal debate as a framework. We can set up a peanut gallery in BCH for others to comment.

But it's up to you and Apikorus.

Doctor X

I would be interested in "sitting in the stands."

I was "brought up" being told that the DSS were written by a "religious community" that became identified with the Essenes.

I read Golb's book and enjoyed it very much. Not to name-drop, but, apparently, one of the problems with acceptance of his theories is that it challenges an entrenched belief--it is hard to re-learn stuff--and that he is an acerbic person. I had the opportunity to meet him and wanted get him to autograph a copy of my book. A mentor recoomended I not try that: "He's not that way. He'd probably think your from Mossad or something. Seriously!"

Certainly his rhetoric has a lot about his "injur'd merit!" I can imagine fence-sitters hoping he is not right so he does not get the satisfaction!

So . . . I have not paid a lot of attention. A few time when the DSS-Essene has come up on these boards, I have wanted to raise a "what about Golb's work?" expecting to have a blast of flame hit me!

--J.D.

spin

It's this almost universal upbringing which has my goat up.

You scratch someone who believes it to find out why and you get that that is what all the scholars think, so you ask why and get nothing substantive in response. That's when you take a long hard look at what the evidence is and I have found nothing to support it.

Golb has received a great deal of scorn for being a responsible academic proposing something that goes against the whole commonly held set of presuppositions. Attacked from all sides, he is understandable in his reaction, I think.

He has fairly successfully put up a solid case against the Essene connection himself. The problem is that people don't want to consider the implications of no Essenes without having a supply of pethadone.


spin

spin

Well, I'm ambivalent on the matter.

I'm sure both Apikorus and I can organize our material regardless, if no-one else wants to take part. (I'm sure people can kibbitz.)

I'll demur to anyone's better judgment.


spin

Toto

Okay - you can debate informally if you would like.

I can make this thread a "sticky" so you can always fine it, it you wish, or you can actually start the debate in another thread that I can stick to the top.

Jayhawker Soule

Those who have not yet availed themselves of the opportunity to do so might wish to check out Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and Judaean Desert Discoveries, edited by Emanuel Tov - a collection of papers addressing the DSS. For eample ... {edited by Toto to fix link}

Apikorus

I'll try to write something tomorrow night. Pliny is a good place to start, and spin has already provided material there.

spin

Well, I was hoping for a substantive argument presented in favour of the proposition that the Essenes are the sect of the scrolls at some point!

And I think Toto's idea ("you can actually start the debate in another thread that I can stick to the top") is a good one.


spin

gregor

I look forward to following the debate.

A favor, perhaps, for those with only slight DSS experience. Some (like me) are not familiar with alot of the professional disputes, having only read a few books (e.g. Eisenman and Wise). Could you provide some explanation of any particularly germane issues.

For example, rather than just saying "Golb was attacked for his theory," could you provide explanations like "Golb's theory of _____, postulated in his book of 19XX was roundly attacked by professor XX in his book of 19XX because ____."

Thanks