Philip, could you identify which of these three below is your
actual issue? (I am not clear.)
1. we cannot know any sobriquet-bearing figures existed (hence
all discussion proceeding from that starting point is a priori fruitless).
1a. The TR and Liar presumably existed (because in CD) but the
WP cannot be known to have existed (hence all discussion of
WP, but not TR and Liar, is a priori fruitless).
2. The sobriquet-bearing figures may have existed externally but it is
impossible at this distance to know their ancient identities (hence
all discussion of identities is a prior fruitless).
3. The sobriquet-bearing figures may have existed externally, but
whether or not the identities can be known is beside the point:
the question of identity is uninteresting.
As a second question, a few days ago Chavez, the president of
Venezuela, spoke in the United Nations of the devil having been
there the day before. We can all stipulate that Chavez's
failure to use a proper name had nothing to do with concealing
his meaning or keeping his meaning cryptic. Now suppose a copy
of Chavez's remarks survived hundreds of years later, discovered by
future historians studying early-21st century Latin America culture
and history, but no other context survived directly naming the referent
of the Chavez speech "devil". How would you answer the following questions?
1. An external referent of Chavez's "devil" cannot be known or
presumed to have existed (therefore any further inquiry into the
matter is a priori fruitless.)
2. A "devil" external referent may have existed, but there is no
possibiility of identifying who Chavez meant no matter how much
study of surviving related context is undertaken (hence all inquiry
is a prior pointless, sight unseen).
3. An external referent may have existed and could even be identifiable,
but the question of Chavez's devil's identity is uninteresting
for a study of early 21st century Latin America history.
And a third question for you Philip:
Your work published on the TR (and WP) as possibly constructed
from 1QH as a literary construct without an ancient referent, etc.
assumed that these were figures understood to be dim past, in
agreement with about 95% of other scrolls scholars.
1. Do you still hold to that view?
2. Why?
(If you cited any evidence or argument for this premise
in your past publications I missed it; could you refresh in a line
or two what argument, if any, you urge today for supposing
the authors of these texts intended or understood these
sobriquet-bearing figures to be distant past with respect to the
present setting of those texts?)
3. Would your skepticism toward the existence of external referents,
or ability to know identities of such, be affected if you acknowledged
that the texts themselves consistently portray these figures as
contemporary to the authors' generation, and that there is not
the slightest reason internal to any of these texts for supposing those
figures to be distant past?
Thanks very much,
Greg Doudna
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Search—say hello!
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
