> [snip] Calling on early Qumran deposit is not only a deus ex > machina but one undefined: Ian Young does not investigate whether the Doudna/ > Ian Hutchesson dating has made any credible claim, has any merit, can really > toss out paleography, archaeology, C14, says that's outside the bounds of the > article. Not so, since that deposit time does not work. > > Ian slights the fact that a 73/4 end date does not date the mss--how much > older are they? Paleography suggests 1st BC dates, hence a difference of > tradition, not chronology.
After some ten iteration loops since the 90s I tend to doubt the common learning aptitude: The Hutchessson 'dead end' is as dead as a dead man actually can be, for it, like other scenarios that end up with 63 BC, is unable to explain e.g. the decisive role of horsearchers in 1QM and the later insertion of col. 1.5-9, a hymn that refers to a contemporary decisive battle of the 'Kittim' with outstanding importance for the specific Judaism behind the scrolls. Indeed, basic knowledge of the military history of both Parthia and Armenia is to be presupposed, a least a reading of W.W. Tarn_Hellenistic Military & Naval Developments, Chicago 1984 and N.C. Debevoise_A Political History of Parthia_New York 1968. -Dierk _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
