In sci.archaeology message news:1166456956.143254.204810
@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by "Carl" <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :
> prd wrote:
>> In sci.archaeology message
>> news:1166045179.193701.132430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx by "Carl"
>> <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :
>> >> For the Hasmonean-against the Hasmonean, which is true, hmm,
>> >> uncertainty. Some argue that the scrolls were deposited by several
>> >> groups, the jeruselem connection is notable. This does not make it
>> >> that the region was manifested strictly for Essene activities, and
>> >> Essene connection is to be considered tentative and potentially
>> >> something to be diced out with more archaeology as to who dominated
>> >> Qumran and when.
>> > I don't think so at all when the radiocarbon datings of those scrolls
>> > involving
>> > the Teacher of Righteousness are factored in to 1st century AD.
>> The first century AD is 100 years, it includes the lead up to the first
>> revolt, the revolt, the lead up to the second revolt.
> We've got textual evidence from DSS that TOR appeared 26 AD.
> If interested, tell me and I will give you URL reference to complete
>> > If you are unaware of the evidence, you or anyone else may check the
>> > Thiering
>> > Forum (URL already given) and use the Search Facility.
>> > Suffice it to say, the high Essenes left Qumran 6 AD with Simon the
>> > Essene, leaving
>> > the low Essene zealot
>> That is substatiated by what evidence?
> Good question; I'm glad you asked it. It is not my place now to teach
> Thiering pesher. For now, suffice it to say, the evidence is in
> Thiering 1992
> Jesus and the Riddle of the DSS. See amazon.com for Editorial Reviews.
> If you are STILL interested in this specific point, respond to tell me
> so and
> ask further questions. I would then invest the effort to nail down the
>> > I don't believe a word of it. You overreact.
>> My reaction is directly proportional to how long
>> I have been on the UseNet observing other peoples
>> reactions (i.e. over 17 years).
> I don't think so. Look deeper than your own prejudices.
Prejudice in science is driven by facts and factoids,
not pay as you read, cheesy, religiously motivated