63 BCE
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Stephen,
In a letter to Greg Doudna clarifying your earlier statements
You write:
> I consider the 63 BCE poposal to require denial of evidence
>(paleographic, C14, archaeological, etc.) and to require acceptance of
>mistaken proposals.
It should be apparent that this "evidence" you mention is not in itself evidence but
clearly interpretations of evidence.
Palaeography:
As you are now aware, there are strong objections to the palaeographic assumptions
which have been in vogue in DSS studies for the last forty years (which you may not
support, but for which you haven't shown a suitable background knowledge to reject).
As the issue has been talked about on another list (QUMRAN), you may have seen a
well-respected scholar who uses current palaeographic ideas in his work say that he
needed to consider the questions regarding palaeography raised by Greg and myself.
You for some reason simply reject the problems.
C-14:
You are aware of the problems with current C-14 datings, yet you turn a blind eye
and give an over-simplified impression of C-14. Why do you not acknowledge the
problems inherent in C-14 dating of texts which have been subjected to various
contaminants, while the efficacy of the pretreatment of the texts has been shown not
to have been adequate to deal with some of these contaminants?
Archaeology:
The archaeology is totally non-commital as to the dating of the scrolls: at best you
can date some of the artifacts in the caves to period II, but, as Greg has pointed
out to you on Orion, at least one cylindrical jar was found sunken into a 1b floor
indicating that such jars were in use in period 1b. Much of the ceramics of Qumran
was in use in both periods according to de Vaux, as well as Paul W. Lapp
("Palestinian Ceramic Chronology"). Most of the ceramic finds were cylindrical jars.
Your recourse to Jodi Magness regarding the cylindrical jar was an admission that
you are not in a position to make an informed comment on the issue.
[As to the jars, Greg has also stated that he has doubts as to whether they were in
fact used for scrolls. The first person known to have found scrolls (Mohammed
edh-Dhib) said that he found numerous jars but that only one of them contained a
scroll, whereas the others were empty or held other things, so from the start the
jars were at least not specifically for scrolls. Can you cite any Qumran texts which
were specifically found in jars?]
You should consider at the same time that the archaeology of Qumran in no way
supports the notion that the site housed a religious community, nor does it support
the notion that the scrolls were produced at the site. (I would expect an inkwell or
two probable at a commercial production site.) In fact as there is space at the site
for few people, one has to invent other solutions in order to have a sectarian
community at Qumran. Patrich wanted to have them all living on the upper story, but
Broshi and Eshel didn't like this because they thought that would imply only about
twenty people, so they opted for the hope that the caves not inspected by Patrich
conveniently housed our elusive sectarian community. Anything goes to house the
population. Tents? Patrich found no signs, but perhaps he only looked in the flat
area near Qumran.
I can only take your repeated statements about 63 BCE requiring
>denial of evidence (paleographic, C14, archaeological, etc.)
as being made without due consideration of that evidence.
Your rhetoric involving "denial" is loaded and inappropriate for scholarly
statements. And you do not support your claims about "mistaken proposals", but
merely specify a few of them.
>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
This statement of the proposal, though inaccurate, is not criticised. How is the
proposal that MishC incorporating information about contemporary events mistaken?
How is my use of historical events in MishC like your Pompeii image? I have argued
that this is the latest of the DSS and that the mention of Aemilius Scaurus (twice)
should make a good indicator that the text was not written after the fall of the
temple as the comparative importance of a double mention of that name wouldn't make
sense in the dire circumstances of Pompey's temple siege. (Naturally, that was
plainly Pompey's affair -- he was actively present and in charge -- and insinuating
Scaurus into that procedure is not sustainable historically.)
It would be nice to have some justification for these negative musings of yours. As
they are, they are only bald statements.
>(though,
>e.g., Hyrcanus lived for decades later
Alexandra Salome did not. Nor is there any report of Aemilius Scaurus in Palestine
after 64 BCE. Salome is mentioned early in the six year period, Scaurus is mentioned
late. This is quite consistent.
>and there are precious few plainly
>datable internal text references--the IMO perhaps clearest one being the 88
>BCE crucifixions, which Greg interprets differently).
[While many people believe the idea that the mention of crucifixions in pNah must
refer to an act of A. Jannaeus, Greg is surely right about the use of the lion
imagery referring to foreign intervention (see his dissertation) and therefore that
the lion cannot be AJ. At the same time there is at least one scroll, according to
the editors of 4Q448, which is strongly in favour of AJ. These data should make it
clear that mention of crucixifions and a wrathful young lion point in directions
other that AJ. And while there is no known surviving reference to priests in
Jerusalem amasing wealth during the Hasmonean period we have a known case with
Menelaus and his brother Lysimachus, but that it during the Hellenistic crisis.]
You also say:
>(Plus, Qumran Greek post-63 paleographic dates.)
All the cave 4 Greek texts I know of are dated palaeographically late in the second
century BCE or the first century BCE; see Parsons DJD IX, pp. 7-13 -- quite
consistent with 63 BCE. (I don't know the situation with cave 7, which is not
involved in the 63 BCE hypothesis.) If you have new information, I'd be happy to
hear of it.
I don't see why, if you were simply writing a letter to clarify the statements about
palaeography you made with regard to Greg's position in the context of Ada Yardeni,
you needed to launch into another attack on the 63 BCE hypothesis, especially an
attack which is apparently so unsupported.
Ian
For private reply, e-mail to "Ian Hutchesson" <[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.
