C14, was Re: [Megillot] Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene
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
[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
