For the record, the claim of Stephen Goranson on 29 Sept 2006 that
I highlighted the Hyrcanus II/TR theory on a Barbara Thiering
list is a fabrication.
I protest that this kind of "drive-by shooting" tactic of scholarly
argument (undocumented representations of other scholars' work)
is tolerated on this list.
Those on this list who are also on ANE may have noticed that
the ANE moderators stopped further comment from Goranson
on the scrolls altogether on that list in the past week or two.
(I have not been on ANE for some time and was not involved
in that.)
I repeat, in case there is any misunderstanding, that the fact
that the Hyrcanus II/TR proposal had not previously been made
played no role in why I proposed it. I proposed it because, rightly or
wrongly, that is where my reading of the relevant texts led me on
their own merits. And for the record, I do not claim certainty that
the Hyrcanus II/TR proposal is ultimately correct; only that it
seems the most viable hypothesis on present information. In any case
the motivation of a scholar for proposing a particular idea has
no actual bearing on whether the proposal is correct or not,
and therefore should not be the focus of discussion. The focus
should be the substance of the argument itself.
Greg Doudna
GD says he was unmoved by being the first to suggest Hyrcanus II
as Teacher. Perhaps I recall a letter announcing this to a Barbara
Thiering list, highlighting that very point, mistakenly?
_________________________________________________________________
Try the new Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
