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 11 caves as a single event ..." > > I agree that it is misleading and ridiculous that anyone could > suggest all circa 900 Qumran manuscripts were prepared and written > as a single event! The problem is, I can't find where *I* ever > said this. And I don't know anyone *else* who has ever said this. > Would you tell me where I said this so I can get it corrected? > Thank you. > > Greg Doudna > _______________________________________________ > g-Megillot mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot > _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
