Eisenman and the DSS

[Stephan Huller]

It was hardly interesting as nothing of any substance was ever brought up by those making wild claims about the origins of the Qumran community. It was all based on wild speculation and misinformation.

[The Crow]

It was hardly interesting as nothing of any substance was ever brought up by those making wild claims about the origins of the Qumran community. It was all based on wild speculation and misinformation.

I gotta ask but what wild speculation and misinformation is that Stephen? If you have a link to other info I would like to see it. Like I said I did not follow up on the claims of that site.

[Hawthorne]

You can run along now content that you've scored some point or other.

Ah. Touched a nerve. "spin" you are not qualified as far as I know to evaluate the studies I posted. Post your qualifications, then we'll see. You can say what you want. Your claim that there was "absolutely no evidence" is refuted. Thank you for acknowledging that, "spin."

I get the sense you are trying chide me into a defense of the citations. As I stated from the start, I shared them to discount your overstatement. I presume you want to modify that now, "drspin?"

Here:

he water for such springs doesn't come up from the sea, but down from the mountain behind. What is the extent of the geological characteristics able to produce such springs?

Nobody is even remotely claiming that the water is "coming up from the sea." (Really? that's what you thought?) The study does control for the possibility of contamination by sea water (for example, in the case of possible flooding). Rabin considers that parchment production in the vicinity of the Dead Sea is not sufficient to establish a Qumran connection. His point is that the hypothesis of a connect would be strengthened if the inks were produced locally. So he is not relying only on the Cl/Br ratio of the parchment itself, but also compared the ink with "a local variety of gum Arabic, a binder for soot inks commonly used in antiquity...abundant in Qumran and its vicinities."

Again, I am not stating that this is conclusive. There are two studies that converge on the idea that scrolls were produced locally. I feel that the authors of those studies are more qualified to analyze the results that is some anonymous person called "spin." That being said, all studies have their limitations and flaws. I am sure that is the case here. As I said in my very first post, the point of posting these studies was to call to question your firm assertion that there is absolutely no evidence of scroll production at Qumran.

[Hawthorne]

It was hardly interesting as nothing of any substance was ever brought up by those making wild claims about the origins of the Qumran community. It was all based on wild speculation and misinformation.

I gotta ask but what wild speculation and misinformation is that Stephen? If you have a link to other info I would like to see it. Like I said I did not follow up on the claims of that site.

Early researchers made hasty generalizations that created a sort of paradigm that has since been credibly called into question. The case isn't closed and I believe most experts still lean toward a Qumran origin for at least some of the scrolls.

Here is some background:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/w ... -11781900/

also, just wikipedia has some information on this:

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

[Stephan Huller]

FWIW Hawthorne spin really is qualified here. Some of us know more than others. Eventually you'll figure it out. He might not be right (that's something that will come out in the course of more study) but I know for a fact he's qualified to discuss the DSS. And as I said I am not the only one who knows this fact.

[spin]

Ah. Touched a nerve.

(Trivial rant omitted.)

he water for such springs doesn't come up from the sea, but down from the mountain behind. What is the extent of the geological characteristics able to produce such springs?

Nobody is even remotely claiming that the water is "coming up from the sea." (Really? that's what you thought?)

Calm down. Given your reticence to say anything definite on the subject, I figured it was best to be clear.

The study does control for the possibility of contamination by sea water (for example, in the case of possible flooding). Rabin considers that parchment production in the vicinity of the Dead Sea is not sufficient to establish a Qumran connection. His point is that the hypothesis of a connect would be strengthened if the inks were produced locally. So he is not relying only on the Cl/Br ratio of the parchment itself, but also compared the ink with "a local variety of gum Arabic, a binder for soot inks commonly used in antiquity...abundant in Qumran and its vicinities."

"Qumran and its vicinities" includes at least from Jericho to Ein Gedi, all places liable to the same sorts of springs. Given the analysis of Qumran as a production center, some of its production could have been processing vellum at Ein Feshkha. Herod and the Hasmoneans looked to the Jordan/Dead Sea valley as their safe territory with palaces at Jericho Machaerus and Masada. It's a half day trip from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and vice versa. Maybe a bit longer uphill.

Again, I am not stating that this is conclusive. There are two studies that converge on the idea that scrolls were produced locally. I feel that the authors of those studies are more qualified to analyze the results that is some anonymous person called "spin." That being said, all studies have their limitations and flaws. I am sure that is the case here. As I said in my very first post, the point of posting these studies was to call to question your firm assertion that there is absolutely no evidence of scroll production at Qumran.

The anonymous person called "Hawthorne" just seems to have some hangup about engaging on issues on internet, preferring to cite stuff unanalyzed. And no, you didn't just objectively post these studies: you were deliberately engaged in dialectic.

[DCHindley]

And no, you [Hawthorne] didn't just objectively post these studies: you were deliberately engaged in dialectic.

I wonder, would you call Hawthorne a "left" or a "right" Hegelian?

DCH

[Stephan Huller]

You follow this stuff closely David. I thought I was the only person paying attention here. Reassuring.

[spin]

And no, you [Hawthorne] didn't just objectively post these studies: you were deliberately engaged in dialectic.

I wonder, would you call Hawthorne a "left" or a "right" Hegelian?

DCH

I provided a thesis. H aimed at providing an antithesis in search of a synthesis.

[DCHindley]

You follow this stuff closely David. I thought I was the only person paying attention here. Reassuring.

Nothing like a little Hegelian dialectic to stimulate the ol' brain cells.

I just thought it was funny that spin was bringing up dialectic when I am not so sure that Hawthorne knows what it is, but that was probably spin's whole point.

The "left" and "right" thing was just for fun. If I remember correctly, "right" Hegelians apply dialectic as Hegel conceived it, which was not intended to be radical, but conservative. The "left" Hegelians took it a different direction, one that Hegel himself probably did/would not approve of, e.g., Bruno Bauer and Marx/Engels.

DCH