Coins and Gospels

[StephenGoranson]

Donceel stated that some coins were intrusive, not Qumranian, not belonging to the hoard(s)--others may read him more accurately--and that he was able to disregard them.
The contents and date(s) of deposit are relevant, seems to me.
All agree that the coins were not kept in original sets (here I criticize de Vaux)--all the more possibility for mix-ups. (3 coins were given by the King to Nixon?!)
Even Lonnqvist, takes intrusion possibility (in 2007 that I just reread) more seriously than spin.
Yes KL wrote some peer reviewed articles--but are these 2007 and 2009 books peer reviewed?
Has *any* scholar written a positive review of either?
Or any review of any kind?
The 2007 book is listed in *4* libraries in WorldCat--pretty rare. Not many readers, apparently.

[spin]

Nothing there.

[StephenGoranson]

So no reviews? "Tacit" "acceptance"?
Low bar.
Minna and K. Lonnqvist previously (2002) published that Qumran (and marl caves) were completely underwater during part of first century BCE.
You accept that too?

[Roger Pearse]

Thank you Stephen for these additional details.

[DCHindley]

Sigh,

This just goes to show that there is no discussion about Qumran, or the DSS (whether connected or not), that does not quickly devolve into a pissing match. The published experts keep on confidently asserting this or that as facts, even when the evidence is inaccessible.

Why does this/these subject(s) have to be so emotionally charged?

[spin]

Sigh,

This just goes to show that there is no discussion about Qumran, or the DSS (whether connected or not), that does not quickly devolve into a pissing match. The published experts keep on confidently asserting this or that as facts, even when the evidence is inaccessible.

Why does this/these subject(s) have to be so emotionally charged?

What started off as what I thought was a passingly innocent piece of trivia, I now wish I hadn't bothered to include:

In another place Lonnqvist argues that the Qumran hoard is extremely late.[New Perspectives on the Roman Coinage on the Eastern Limes in the Late Republican and Roman Imperial Periods. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. Saarbrücken 2009, 222-227]

It wasn't necessary for the thread, yet it was wedged into an attack on Lonnqvist, as though shooting the messenger would nullify the message and anything else the messenger conveyed... ever.

[Roger Pearse]

I suspect the same is true for all topics which are subjects of political or religious controversy. One of the good things about patristics is that, although in the past it was bedevilled by this kind of thing, it no longer is, despite the best efforts of some US NT studies.

[StephenGoranson]

Several experts would not have failed to notice coins of Trajan. Simple as that. Intrusion, as Donceel explicitly informed.
I have not tried to "nullify" "anything else the messenger conveyed...ever."
For example, K. L. (in the 2009 book cited above) proposed different dates for the tenure of Pontius Pilate. And made comments on mints and dies. I would be interested to read reviews, if there are any.
(There are some new developments on Qumran, imo. Perhaps this is not the place for such.)

[Secret Alias]

I think I've watch the same people make the same kinds of evil against Morton Smith. It starts with 'he's weird' and then moves to 'he can't be trusted' and then finally the (alleged) 'consensus' card. I just hope K L is married. Why can't they just admit that it all comes down to them 'not liking' what an accredited scholar 'discovered' instead of engaging in this deceitful enterprise? The good news is these sort of appeals to 'consensus' go nowhere. And incidentally you'd be surprised who accepts these 'different dates' for Pilate - last I checked they were entertained or accepted by Evans, Mason, Charlesworth and many other 'notable' scholars viewtopic.php?t=797&p=17200

[DCHindley]

Stephen is correct that there are not a whole lot of reviews of any of Lönnqvist's books. His first one was named Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: The New Paradigm, 2002, the title of which just comes across as a little weird.

However, after a lot of effort, I was able to locate review B354r in an Orion Center publication: George J. Brooke, "Review: Minna Lönnqvist and Kenneth Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: The New Paradigm" in JSOT 27/5 (2003) 26-27. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this journal (or any journal) at the moment, having not renewed my local university library subscription (haven't used it for about 3 years). I hope that someone might be able to tell us if it was a positive or negative review.

They (Kenneth & Minna Lönnqvist) have been, on the other hand, frequently cited by respected Qumran researchers as well as in books and journals related to numismatics. So, they are not "Crack pots" so much as outsiders seeking to introduce a bit of doubt into the consensus about Essene origins of Qumran/DSS related documents. Like many persistent outsider scholars, when they could not get in the front door the came in around the back. Thing is, the mainstream did not find them and their POV as disturbing as they at first feared, and no one kicked them out either.

So, IMHO, their research really should be taken into consideration.

Just my 2 cents.

DCH