On the latter point, I agree with you but find it difficult, nevertheless,
to write AD. I have chosen therefore to write BC and AC.
keep well
db
At 12:27 PM 5/14/2001 +0300, you wrote:
>1) The description below is not accurate. Cross in DJD III offers a 50 year
>span and demurred about 68 precisely because he did *not* claim 7 year
>precision. Cross did not compare only to Herodian ossuaries. Cross did
>refer to dated writing, Etc. Whether Cross is right on the dating or not,
>his writing should not be misrepresented. Puech, by the way, also prefers a
>first century AD/CE date. (By the way on BC/AD and BCE/CE, preferences for
>each for other reasons aside (I go back and forth), I find BC/AD the
>visually and orally more distinct pair, so easier to distinguish, and less
>prone to typos.)
>
>Greg Doudna wrote:
> > [snip] At issue is the date of 3Q15. Most
> >take as fact that it is 1st century CE based on Cross's
> >palaeographic dating of 25-75 CE (published in DJD III). But
> >Cross dated 3Q15 by comparing it to Herodian ossuaries, without
> >any comparisons to pre-Herodian ossuaries. Finding matches in some
> >letters with the same letter forms on Herodian ossuaries, he thought
> >a 1st century CE dating was confirmed. But without any comparison
> >to 1st BCE ossuaries' letter forms, to know that the same forms
> >were not occurring earlier, the conclusion is not justified. In any
> >case there ought to be something intuitively amiss when Cross
> >said that a date after 68 CE could not be excluded on palaeographic
> >grounds, but that the true date could in no way be outside the outer
> >limits of 25 CE and 75 CE. How can post-68 CE be possible but
> >post-75 CE be the outer limit beyond possibility? That's a claim of
> >7-year precision! That is just way too much claim of precision to
> >be believable on the basis of studying letters stamped in metal
> >from 2000 years ago, and not a single dated text in the entire
> >1st century CE in the kind of script used in the Copper Scroll.
>{snip]
>
>2. I will probably check the newspaper article at the library sometime, but
>my guess is that it's simply mistaken (as many DSS newspaper articles have
>been). One cannot just assume that the info came from de Vaux. William Reed
>(recently deceased) and Henri de Contenson led the cave explorations. The
>article is already wrong on laws being in that (yet unread, even by Kuhn
>backwards) scroll, much less statues. Furthermore, very independent minded
>writers including Allegro and Laperrousaz have written extensive on the
>copper scroll; they and others were not shy to cross any real or imagined
>party line.
>
>(Thanks to db for the comment on reading "Judah.")
>best,
>
>Stephen Goranson
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>For private reply, e-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For private reply, e-mail to Daniel Boyarin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
