Yaron Ben-Ami (2004) An analysis of the work of Magen and Peleg http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ben-Ami--The_Enigma_of_Qumran.shtml "Little wonder, then, that the scrolls tend to dominate any discussion of the site. However, Dr. Magen and Mr. Peleg have recently argued that scholars should focus their investigations on Qumran itself and not instinctively link the scrolls to the site." Please note the use of the polemical word "instinctively". As Dr. Maen Broshi says, "even today, 98 or 99 percent of scholars still believe that Qumran was an Essene monastery." So, I assert strongly that there is powerful evidence, already given in my recent usenet post, for the link between Qumran and the scrolls, for Qumran as an Essene monastery. "The identification of the scrolls as Essene in origin was soon contested by scholars who pointed out that the belligerent tone of some of the scrolls was hard to reconcile with the descriptions from Philo of Alexandria who depicts the Essenes as idealistic pacifists." My explanation here is a break-down between classical Essenes (140-31 BC), who were peace- loving and Low Essenes, who were zealots (c. 11 BC-70 AD). "This, [Magen & Peleg] say, was no monastery." Yes, it was. "One reason Qumran was supposedly a monastery was because of its relative distance from other towns in the vicinity: it is about a day=92s march from Jerusalem, about halfway between Jericho and Ein Gedi (where Pliny the Elder placed the Essenes). Why would anybody want to build a settlement in such a remote place? Surely, it was to get as far away as possible from the rush of day-to-day life." Minor point - Pliny did not place the Essenes at Ein Gedi. Major point - The Essenes were exiled to Qumran in 140 BC. Extract - Thus, "in the first phase of Qumran," [Dr. Magen] says, "it was a Hasmonean fortress built to protect the eastern frontier of the kingdom." No, it was not a Hasmonean fortress. Qumran was a fortress with the rise of Essene zealots in the second phase of occupation. Extract - "These cisterns," [Dr. Magen] says, "were used for something else entirely [than ritual baths]." Wrong; the cisterns were all ritual baths. "Why were there so many [clay dishes in the pantry] to begin with =96 far more than would have been needed to feed everybody in Qumran, even according to the most generous population estimates?" Visiting pilgrims in big numbers. "This was the essence of Qumran, in [their] opinion: a fortress which, after the Roman occupation in 63 BCE and the disbanding of the Hasmonean army, was turned by the out-of-work soldiers into a pottery factory." Yes; the monks did make pottery but Qumran was never a "pottery factory". ------- I invite any usenetters to ask me specific questions. David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA Other posts:
• Jesus did not heal lepers; he just declared them ritually clean and
welcomed them to lunch
• Bone to pick with the editorial review of Sandra Collins, Univ. of Pittsburgh • =?windows-1252?Q?ELIJAH_AND_ELISHA_IN_LUKE_4=3A_25=9627?= • Milwaukee museum produces dead sea scrolls exhibit • Uncovering Secrets of the Sphinx- American archaeologist Mark Lehner • My criticism of Yaron Ben-Ami's analysis of the work of Magen and Peleg (Qumran archaeologists) • Florentino Garcia Martinez on "Qumran Century changes and outlook after 50 years of studies" • "THE NORTH PORT DEVIL UFO ABDUCTION INVESTIGATION" • BOYCOTT METEOROLOGIST! • Archaeologists have begun the search for an ancient civilization in southern Spain • The Lonnqvists argue for a connection between the Therapeuts and Qumran |