Justin, you have it exactly right. That is exactly what I meant. Goranson has been mangling other scholars' views, not just mine, for years. I tried to explain the very point you have made to Goranson in the past several times, but it never did any good. It was like talking to a tree. Maybe he will listen to you.
ANE, June 19, 2004 https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2004-June/013993.html Orion, Jan 29, 2002 http://www.mail-archive.com/orion@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il/msg00791.html Greg Doudna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Dombrowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <g-megillot@McMaster.ca> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [Megillot] Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene > I wonder if there's misunderstanding over Greg Doudna's shotgun analogy. > Greg: reading only Stephen's transcription of the footnote, you're not > saying 'just as hundreds of pellets are expunged from a gun in a single > shotgun blast, so were many texts produced within a very short timespan at > Qumran'--which is how I read Stephen's interpretation of your analogy > (please correct me if I'm wrong Stephen). Rather, it sounds like you're > just likening the shape probability density function of a C14 dating as a > function of 't' to the pellet density function as a function of 'r' when a > shotgun blast hits a target. That is, just as there's greatest liklihood > the date of a document was written at the center of the Gaussian curve > (which doesn't mean it was written then, but merely that it is most > probable > it was written then), so also is the greatest concentration of pellets at > the center of the shots dispersion pattern [or P(t)~D(r)]. Is this > correct? > > --Justin Dombrowski > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Doudna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <g-megillot@mcmaster.ca> > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 2:47 PM > Subject: [Megillot] Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene > > > > > > > > To Stephen Goranson: > > > > I must confess puzzlement at your answer. > > YOU have me in your article saying that I likened the > > production of all c. 900 Qumran manuscripts > > to a shotgun blast. I asked where I said THAT. > > I confess I am unable to find in your response > > an answer to my question. > > > > I see your quote of my analogy of the shotgun blast. > > But I see nothing in the quote you provide about applying that > > to all c. 900 Qumran texts (!). How is the quote you give from > > me an application by me of that analogy to ALL c. 900 Qumran texts? > > > > May I repeat my request that you tell me where I said such a > > ridiculous statement (so that I can get it corrected)? > > > > Alternatively, if you are unable to show where I said > > this ludicrous thing that you have me saying, may I ask your > > intentions concerning rewording your article as it pertains > > to representing my good name on this point? > > > > No need for a lengthy discussion--a brief straight answer > > will suffice. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Greg Doudna > > > > > > > >> Here is the complete text of Greg Doudna's footnote 92 [with my stars > >> and > >> brackets added]: > >> "92. 'Management scatter' denotes a statistical spread around *a* > >> [single] 'true > >> date.' A useful analogy is *the* [single] blast from a shotgun at a > >> target and > >> the spread of the individual shotgun pellets." > >> > >> I say that is mistaken; disregarding C14 date ranges from any plural > >> number of > >> manuscripts is unscientific. Plus the text above the footnote does not > >> specify > >> any subset--which, even had it done so, would be another a priori, > >> hypothetical, > >> wrong definition and presumption, an outside hypothesis, serving to > >> disregard data. > >> There is a tension or absurdity moving from one (say skin) sample and > >> muliple > >> mss. Single event, single blast, single erruption, single battle, > >> single > >> generation (generation having many meanings, including if I recall > >> correctly two > >> text generations in a single day!)--I did not introduce or imagine > >> these. > >> I > >> started making notes to respond, but it got rather long. I naddition to > >> the > >> three texts in my paper--in the second case I join Dr. Jull's criticism > >> of > >> disregarding certain "outliers" and in the third I note a "permanent" > >> date end > >> is not so-- I now disagree with a fourth text, the GD megillot post > >> today. I > >> disagree on the facts and on how to frame the question. Since we've > >> disagreed on > >> interpreting Qumran C14 for years, I question whether a long thread is > >> useful. I > >> have a right to disagree with these texts I cited and quoted. The > >> problem > >> is not > >> my text. The problem was Doudna getting some of the science wrong. The > >> absurdity > >> is in the position, not my wording, as I have known for years. > >> Reconsider. > >> > >> Megillot readers could take, for example Doudna's fine Figure 3 on page > >> 462. Ask > >> any respected C14 scholar of professor of statistics if a deposit date > >> of > >> 63 BCE > >> is plausible. Doudna wrote that it was, after dismissing 5 of 19 date > >> ranges, > >> 2-sigma, totally after 63 BCE. > >> > >> On happier notes: Thanks for admiring some parts of "Jannaeus, His > >> Brother > >> Absalom, and Judah the Essene." And recall that I wrote that some pages > >> of the > >> Doudna DSS After Fifty Years v.1 article provide "much helpful > >> information." I > >> wrote that Doudna changed his dating proposal after the Qumran > >> Chronicle > >> article. I ended the section by noting that Doudna's pursuit of > >> additional data > >> was "constructive." > >> > >> best, > >> Stephen Goranson > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Quoting Greg Doudna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> > > >> > To Stephen Goranson: I was admiring your article on your website > >> > concerning Judah the Essene and Absalom--in my opinion one of your > >> > better > >> > pieces of work--when I came to, alas, my own name to which was > >> > attributed > >> > something that, if I said it, would be extremely stupid (of me). > >> > You argue against an idea that all c. 900 Qumran texts were produced > >> > in a single moment like a "shotgun blast"--which I fully agree with > >> > you is absurd, and join you wholeheartedly in informing your readers > >> > that such an idea is to be condemned and consigned to outer > >> > darkness--and you have me saying this! > >> > > >> > You write: > >> > > >> > "Doudna offers an analogy of a single 'shotgun blast' around > >> > a true date. That analogy does not suit the 900 or so Qumran > >> > manuscripts; though it could relatively better apply to > >> > tests of one manuscript." > >> > > >> > Your second sentence implies that I applied the analogy in the > >> > first sentence (of the "shotgun blast" of radiocarbon dates) to > >> > all of the Qumran texts, "the 900 or so Qumran manuscripts". > >> > > >> > The only problem, Stephen, is I can't seem to find where I said > >> > this. I would like to offer a retraction and get this > >> > corrected. Could you tell me where I said this? > >> > > >> > I know I suggested that the image of the "shotgun blast" > >> > could be applied, as an analogy, to interpreting radiocarbon dates > >> > of an hypothesized *subset* of the c. 900 Qumran texts which *were* > >> > from a single generation. (That is, radiocarbon dates on a subset > >> > of the Qumran manuscripts from the same generation would produce > >> > radiocarbon dates which might be likened to a shotgun > >> > blast around the "bullseye" of the true generation date.) > >> > It seemed, and seems, like a reasonable analogy to me. > >> > > >> > Obviously there is a big difference between saying ALL of the > >> > Qumran texts were produced in a generation and proposing that > >> > a SUBSET of the Qumran texts were produced in a generation. > >> > The one is a non-starter and ridiculous. The other is > >> > a reasonable starting-point for discussion. > >> > > >> > (I know you are an honorable scholar and would not > >> > intentionally represent a scholar as saying the one, > >> > if you knew that he/she said and intended the other.) > >> > > >> > But at the footnote that you give at this point in your > >> > paper, I see I was saying the second (the "shotgun blast" analogy > >> > applied to the subset). > >> > > >> > Is it possible you are referring to some other statement of me > >> > and have gotten the wrong footnote cited?? > >> > > >> > And you write (continuing your attribution to me): > >> > > >> > "It is misleading to presume regarding circa 900 Qumran > >> > manuscripts > >> > (surfaces prepared when written on) plus their subsequent > >> > deposits > >> > in 11 caves as a single event ..." > >> > > >> > I agree that it is misleading and ridiculous that anyone could > >> > suggest all circa 900 Qumran manuscripts were prepared and written > >> > as a single event! The problem is, I can't find where *I* ever > >> > said this. And I don't know anyone *else* who has ever said this. > >> > Would you tell me where I said this so I can get it corrected? > >> > Thank you. > >> > > >> > Greg Doudna _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
