Freethought & Rationalism Archive

XKV8R · 03-29-2009, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

All intriguing! Inkwells are evidence for writing, but not of what is written.

exactly! which is why i'm curious to see what bar-nathan concludes about who was doing the writing.

-bc

XKV8R · 03-29-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I think "fort" is overstating the case. The place had a tower and minimal defenses, but it couldn't withstand anything serious. The outer walls were always too flimsy, but it probably was some official installation, such as a communications point or an observation center.

agreed. i don't use the word 'crappy', but i make very clear that it was a poorly built field fort (following m&p) that was only built because of the remains of some pre-existing structure and a cistern.
-bc

XKV8R · 03-29-2009, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let me guess... you think that the big stepped cisterns were used as miqwa'ot, when use of non-moving water for ritual bathing would lead to stagnation. Think of a year's ritual bathing. Yuk.

not all stepped pools at qumran were miqva'ot. and yes, yuk. the water in my pools is quite brown and, well, yuk. jodi disabused me of that notion early on with her 'club-med' comments. lol. no more blue water. all 'yuk' now.

-bc

XKV8R · 03-29-2009, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

When L.91 alone contained more than the combined 110, 117 & 118, I think "doubled" is somewhat conservative. Let's not forget the feeding channel which is thought to have collected rain water off roofs and which ran under the higher water system and into L.117. It means that the first water system never got past there until the wall between L.106 and L.109 was breached, so everything beyond is later water storage expansion, L.91, L.56/58 and L.71.

good point. i've had many conversations with david stacey about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And I wish you luck with it.

thanx. much appreciated.

-bc

spin · 03-30-2009, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XKV8R

so i take it you don't think the scrolls have anything to do with qumran?.... ;-)

i do, just not all of them. i know i know, how convenient. but it works.

If you accept that most scrolls came from elsewhere (read: Jerusalem), it's somewhat arbitrary to think that some were not -- without any evidence to support such a distinction. I haven't seen any supporting evidence that any scroll has a connection with the site of Qumran. Perhaps you've seen sufficient repetition of scribal hands to justify the hypothesis that there was scroll production at Qumran. Well, you probably haven't. So how does it work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by XKV8R

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I think "fort" is overstating the case. The place had a tower and minimal defenses, but it couldn't withstand anything serious. The outer walls were always too flimsy, but it probably was some official installation, such as a communications point or an observation center.

agreed. i don't use the word 'crappy', but i make very clear that it was a poorly built field fort (following m&p) that was only built because of the remains of some pre-existing structure and a cistern.

Interestingly the kilns that were below the apron of L.48/49 would be contemporary with the first Hasmonean construction, so the production of pottery was there at the beginning, which complicates the picture of the foundation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XKV8R

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let me guess... you think that the big stepped cisterns were used as miqwa'ot, when use of non-moving water for ritual bathing would lead to stagnation. Think of a year's ritual bathing. Yuk.

not all stepped pools at qumran were miqva'ot. and yes, yuk. the water in my pools is quite brown and, well, yuk. jodi disabused me of that notion early on with her 'club-med' comments. lol. no more blue water. all 'yuk' now.

So when you said, "all of the expanded areas were for industry, ritual purification", what do you base this expansion in "ritual purification" on then? If this is a production center, it is bound to be a ritually unclean environment -- down to the herd of animals if we can believe the suggestion of the production of parchment.

As you see L.77 as a "refectory", it's a shame you didn't get back to me on these questions:

Quote:

Don't you find the kitchen in a very strange location??

Have you thought about when L.77 was built?

To me they should be important questions for those who advocate a sectarian reading of Qumran. L.77 was built outside the original compound structure. That suggests it was built after L.56/58 were turned into a cistern complex. (I go with Milik against de Vaux over dating issues for L.86/89.)

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.