<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Khirbet Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls</title>
	<atom:link href="http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/2006/08/15/qumran-and-the-scrolls/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/2006/08/15/qumran-and-the-scrolls/</link>
	<description>My musings on Biblical Studies, Biblical Hebrew, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Popular Culture, Religion, Software, and pretty much anything else that interests me!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:50:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles</title>
		<link>http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/2006/08/15/qumran-and-the-scrolls/comment-page-1/#comment-8505</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:38:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2006/08/15/qumran-and-the-scrolls/#comment-8505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contrary to what you say, I think the last paragraph is quite appropriate.  That there is indeed &quot;diminishing conviction&quot;, is seen in the fact that there have been no vitriolic attacks against Magen the way there were against Golb.  How do you measure what &quot;most&quot; scholars think, or (not that they&#039;re doing it on purpose) claim to think? Wilford seems to have a good sense of what&#039;s going on, and carefully avoids getting into that kind of game.  The fact of the matter is that the smug certitude as to the Essenes, of thirty years ago, has collapsed -- Golb is no longer a &quot;voice in the wilderness&quot;, and his views will not simply be &quot;forgotten when he dies&quot;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Contrary to what you say, I think the last paragraph is quite appropriate.  That there is indeed &#8220;diminishing conviction&#8221;, is seen in the fact that there have been no vitriolic attacks against Magen the way there were against Golb.  How do you measure what &#8220;most&#8221; scholars think, or (not that they&#8217;re doing it on purpose) claim to think? Wilford seems to have a good sense of what&#8217;s going on, and carefully avoids getting into that kind of game.  The fact of the matter is that the smug certitude as to the Essenes, of thirty years ago, has collapsed &#8212; Golb is no longer a &#8220;voice in the wilderness&#8221;, and his views will not simply be &#8220;forgotten when he dies&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weimer</title>
		<link>http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/2006/08/15/qumran-and-the-scrolls/comment-page-1/#comment-7953</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weimer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2006/08/15/qumran-and-the-scrolls/#comment-7953</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey Tyler,

Absolutely the last paragraph is &quot;overstated&quot;, as even Jim Davila notices. It should read &quot;Despite the tide of revisionist thinking, the majority of scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls...&quot; which would be both fair and accurate. Although when faced with this new evidence, I think it may be difficult for some scholars to switch shifts now and abandon the Essene hypothesis. Not to say they&#039;re doing it on purpose (never!) but that it might be too risky to do research into hypothesis B if they spent so much time and still have so much evidence for hypothesis A. I guess time will tell!

best and warmest regards,

Chris Weimer

PS - Did you see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=284.0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;forum conversation&lt;/a&gt;?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Tyler,</p>
<p>Absolutely the last paragraph is &#8220;overstated&#8221;, as even Jim Davila notices. It should read &#8220;Despite the tide of revisionist thinking, the majority of scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls&#8230;&#8221; which would be both fair and accurate. Although when faced with this new evidence, I think it may be difficult for some scholars to switch shifts now and abandon the Essene hypothesis. Not to say they&#8217;re doing it on purpose (never!) but that it might be too risky to do research into hypothesis B if they spent so much time and still have so much evidence for hypothesis A. I guess time will tell!</p>
<p>best and warmest regards,</p>
<p>Chris Weimer</p>
<p><acronym title="Psalm">Ps</acronym> &#8211; Did you see the <a href="http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=284.0" rel="nofollow">forum conversation</a>?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
