G. Doudna's text still misrepresents and/or misunderstands Qumran archaeology,
paleography, and radiocarbon, in support of claimed deposit of all Qumran
scrolls in first century BC--a proposal already by these means (and probably as
well by historical sources) disproven.
"Doudna's extensive rebuttal of J. Magness' ceramic dating of the Qumran
pottery, and her stratigraphical analysis of the Qumran settlement (see now
[Magness' 2002 book]) reflects a rudimentary knowledge of the archaeological
literature and should be read with caution." That in K. Atkinson's first JBL
review of Doudna's Pesher Nahum book. The second, longer Atkinson review adds
other strong dating cautions, as do the other reviews: T. Lim JSOT 27 (2003)
164-5, and J. Campbell, Reviews in Religion and Theology 11 (April 2004) 266-7.
That book presents a 40 BC [BC/AD here because they are visually more distinct]
deposit date (and Hyrcanus II [sic] as Teacher of Righteousness (though his
1999 online-offered abstract noted a pNah "anti-Hyrcanus II {sic] _tendenz_."
So duly note that the current proposal is for deposit in 1st BC, not
necessarily the "permanent" text allusion cut-off of 63 {Qumran Chronicle]--
there is *no* consensus on the latest qumran text allusion!--nor GD's proposals
c55, 40, 40-37, 4 BC... as long as it's the end of Period Ib (he misunderstands
Bar-Nathan giving a 15 BC end when she explicitly stated agreement with the
later Magness date) does not violate the GD invented rule of staying in 1st BC.
So there's an "elastic" aspect to GD's redating self-contradictory proposals.
"Elastic" and "circular" being words of interest, as GD charges the FMCross
paleography of those words, completely ignoring the comparanda Cross cites; so
the two words apply more to the GD dating than FMC dating.
Nothing is more circular--as Radiocarbon editor Prof. Jull tried on orion to
explain to GD--than using an a priori hypothesis of the scrolls' dating "in
order to disregard radiocarbon date ranges"--to use my words, elided by GD in
his
latest disregard for and misrepresentation of my critique, though his online
article refers to that DSS
After 50 article, that attempts to arrive at a floruit by assuming a floruit
("many items of the same age"?).
GD wrote on previous discussions, so his previous discussions are
germaine. In the online cited 50 Years article indeed was presented a one
shotgun blast image and a "bell curve" (p. 368) for dismissing data scatter.
Unfortunately,
this same wrong usage of "bell curve" marred (p. 459) an otherwise quite
helpful
chapter, "Chronological index of the texts from the Judaean desert" by Brian
Wilson in DJD XXXIX. In other words, GD's "single generation production"
hypothesis--and a compliant generation it is, ending in 63 Bc or 4 BC as
needed--is presented in two ways. One with words allowing earlier texts ansd so
on. But the number presentation really assumes one instant of writing surface
production, writing and deposit--otherwise the single blast bell doesn't work,
and of course it does not work. Unless, dear reader...Do you think 800 to 900
Qumran mss have the same date? Just see in GD's 50 Year article, besides
helpful number reporting, the excellent Figure 3 (p. 462), a graph of 21 date
ranges, at 1 & 2 sigma. Basic math or probablilty shows proposed erasing of all
Qumran Herodian dates is nonsense.
Of course Qumran Essenes were sectarians. See Eyal Regev in the current Numen
for a comparison of Qumran sectarians and Shakers. Shakers (and Shaker books)
did not end suddenly. Nor, for that matter did Essenes: as Epiphanius suggests
they did not die c 70 (Josephus has earlier than 70 Roman war tales of Stoic-
like Essenes), but went east of the Dead Sea and Jordan, with books.
Plus, Doudna misunderstands zealots at Qumran. First, the zealots (maybe few)
were there briefly in 68--didn't redecorate--quite unlike the essene relocation
of the dining room which KA already gave as essene continuity! There is no
comparison of Ia/II with brief zealot doomed holdout. If interested in
archaeology: try a dig.
On the 1968 IEJ Jannaeus coin (called by Hill 'imitation") article (yes I
misstyped Avigad {Aryeh Hirschfeld? GD meant Yizhar?]--though Avigad's
paleography article is interesting also on pre Herod "Herodian"), besides
missing Meshorer's date correction, GD skips much of what both Naveh and FMC
wrote. E.g., GD elided (caution on his elisions and paraphrases, as on orion
misparaphrasing agreement with Magness who 3 times tried to explain her scroll
jar datings, despite being on sabbatical at the time), elided Naveh; "As we
would expect..." Why expect? In other words, Naveh called it "vulgar
semiformal"
but there is question whether FMC would do so, and whether Cross allowed pre-
Herod
precursors. In other words, much ado about perhaps nothing, though the writing
of
all three (including Cross' final sentence, quoted but perhaps misunderstood by
GD) are not always clear. Too much to type now (N-aleph; inverted V-aleph etc.)
GD no doubt a quicker typist.
GD' JHS article on the "yahad" ostracon (cited online) gets a date formula
argument wrong, I say, even if I may slightly disagree with Yardeni here. GD
argued against the "year 2" ostracon mention as Essene-related --without month
or day found on datings. He claimed
an ostracon published by Yardeni (IEJ 40 1990 130f) gives a parallel in
Aramaic; but it does not. It gives day and month for each item of delivered
dates. The opening has a year designation. Day and month are needed here only
for each item below. So? It remains that year 2 here probably means (as greg
briefly agree years ago) year 2 of
an Essene initiation process at Qumran. (More details later if interested.)
There were not decades between Ib and II--but if there were, GD's implied
statistics of phantom Herodians is even harder to believe. GD proposed 3 types
of "Herodian" hands simultaneous before 63 or 40, never mind typology
development--will the Mas Shir Shanbb late dating claim involve typology
progression? BTW Mas texts stabilized...by whom [cf. talmon Masada vi p. 149.]?
BTW in pNah crucifixion never done since...by a Jew (Alexander), not a gentile
Lion. More relevant notes at hand and at home, but details enough for noe.
Greg Doudna wrongly used the word "ignorant" in a sentence with the name Jodi
Magness; he should apologize. Doudna wrongly claimed Cross stretched
paleography dates back to 70 without relevant pegs; correction at least
appropriate. Doudna has spread more misinformation than any other about how
properly to apply C14 for history of Qumran; when he realizes that, public
written apology appropriate. de Vaux apologised in 1952 for a misdating he
fixed. Please, Copenhagen Dr. Doudna, learn from de Vaux.
Stephen Goranson
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
