In response to the complaint by Greg Doudna about a sentence I
wrote, I will try to clarify what I see as our different views on Qumran
paleographic dating and 63 BCE. I wrote: "G. Doudna has proposed that the
dates given by A. Yardeni are too late (up to 130-some years)."
While I don't claim the sentence is perfect, it is a legitimate and
fair sentence: I meant what I wrote, and I will clarify and expand upon
what I meant here. First of all, I am referring primarily to Qumran
manuscripts. Not all Qumran manuscripts, but those which Yardeni (and
others) date later than 63 BCE, the latest date of Qumran manuscripts
according to Greg Doudna, as repeatedly stated here and elsewhere as a
proposal (e.g. in Qumran Chronicle). The issue of documentary and related
texts vs. others is a red herring (neither of us has seen the textbook
mentioned in the sentence before the quoted one), as documentary texts are
present at Qumran (see Hanan Eshel's article in the current JJS), and, in
any case, paleographic hands are a separate issue from genre. So, in this
sense, rejecting Yardeni's Roman/Herodian Qumran dates would also address
the non-Qumran mss dated by the same methods. (Plus, Qumran Greek post-63
paleographic dates.) I cited the Yardeni book as I just learned it is now
in print and includes Roman period "Herodian" hands discussion, evidently.
I certainly did not intend to say, nor did I, that Greg had read and
negatively reviewed that specific book; I regret if he somehow got that
idea; I merely suggest he might review it, because it bears on proposed
Roman/Herodian dates.
On the "up to 130-some years." There are 132 years between 63 BCE
and 70 CE. So the dates G. Doudna proposes for Qumran mss are up to 130 or
so years earlier than date ranges given by Yardeni (and Cross and Puech et
al.) *plus* however many years before 63 BCE G. Doudna would place some of
them, on the assumption that G.D. does not propose *all* the mss dated
post-63 actually date to exactly the year 63 BCE. G.D. has written that
most (not all) Qumran manuscripts were written in one generation (a view I
dispute), which he defined on orion as about 50 years. So some of these
texts might by implication be, on his view, up to 180 years earlier than
the paleographic estimates of A. Yardeni and others.
Now paleographic date ranges are not precise (certainly not claimed
to be 7 year precision as Cross DJD III pages 217-221 was misrepresnted on
orion by G.D. this month). But the difference in dates Doudna proposed is
big. His difference with Yardeni's dates is big. It is not unfair to say so.
I consider the 63 BCE poposal to require denial of evidence
(paleographic, C14, archaeological, etc.) and to require acceptance of
mistaken proposals. One being the "shotgun" (Greg's word) view of dating;
the problem being that the re;evant pattern that is analogous here is *not*
from *one* shotgun blast, but numerous ones. Second being the proposal (by
Ian H.) that one mishmarot text serves as a "newspaper"-like dater, as if
Qumran were like Pompeii with a clear 63 BCE destruction layer (though,
e.g., Hyrcanus lived for decades later and there are precious few plainly
datable internal text references--the IMO perhaps clearest one being the 88
BCE crucifixions, which Greg interprets differently).
So, Greg Doudna, if you got the idea that I misrepresented your
view, I am sorry that may have happened. I assure you, I wish precisely to
present your view on 63 BCE deposit proposal, our topic of dispute, because
I think that view, seen plainly, is a mistaken proposal. No doubt we agree
on much else. Overall, in my view, the Qumran discoveries offer us both,
and everyone, great opportunity to understand some important history
better. Though I defend the sentence quoted here, I recognize that
exchanges between us have gotten heated at times. Some of my other
sentences don't hold up so well. I have been sometimes impatient, harsh,
and occasionally more critical than... strictly necessary :-). But I have
no wish at all to misrepresent your views. I agree that documentation
matters. I work in Duke library and as an editor (some writers invite my
comments). If I can help, for example, with bibliography, let me know. I
hope we can get back to more constructive threads on orion.
best,
Stephen Goranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson <[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.
