Since you asked, Ken, I will respond. The article is to a large extent out of touch with, or misrepresents, Qumran archaeology. Of course, I can agree with sentences here or there; e.g.: "She [Prof. Jodi Magness] would probably disagree with a lot of this paper." Then a "senior archaeologist" is quoted as opining that such may not be the case "as much as you think." Prof. Magness is in the field doing real archaeology, and, though she hasn't time to rehash these matters, I have permission to pass along the information that she indeed quite disagrees with several of Doudna's Qumran archaeology presentations.
Ot is discouraging to respond in this case, as information passed along to Dr. Doudna before, with full references (which the online paper lacks), has often been ignored. For example, E. L. Sukenik--surely a relevant archaeologist--early on considered the Qumran mss genuine because the writing resembled that on ossuaries--most of which date later than Doudna's changing (though he previously published in Qumran Chronicle that the 63 BCE text reference cut-off was "permanent") deposit date(s). And Harding in PEQ 1952--yet again uncited--gave the linen cloth C14 date--33 A.D. plus or minus a lot. Surely Doudna is aware of that but kept it from his readers--this first century CE indication. One jar that I think GD misinterprets was not "_the basis_" of de Vaux's datings after the first 3-week season. E.g. merely read his book (Archaeology and the DSS p24) "...the community which came to re-settle Khirbet Qumran [in Period II] was the same as that which had left it. The general plan remained, in effect, the same, and the principle elements were put to use once more for the purposes for which they had originally been intended...." Now, one could, if one wished, try to argue against de Vaux's reasoning, but it is flat out wrong to ignore his arguments when attempting to refute him. Besides omission of facts, the special pleading in this and other GD Qumran publications have been repeatedly noted by respondents and reviewers. For example the "one generation" text production hypothesis has plainly been applied by GD in an unscientific, distorting way to the C14 data. Sadly, such is the mirror image of the special pleading of e.g. Barbara Thiering's scenario: both use special pleading to deny data (BT, e.g. on old parchment long unused).(Though Doudna may have borrowed BT's mistaken assertion that the Lion in pNah must be gentile.) (Also, again, future C14 articles really should publish the column or fragment location of the samples, to prevent replacement cover sheet confusion [e.g. 11QT, 4QD].) Doudna's writing sometimes moves from one exclusion strategy to another; e.g. declaring (on orion) all inkwells after c60 CE, then, after correction, all before 63 BCE. Sadly, Essene denial is again an overreaction to fantasy scenarios e.g. of Thiering who has Jesus not only pro forma crucified at Qumran but born there too. The it's too hard to know about Essenes claim so bracket them out while using Josephus (& Pliny [his 15 BCE source M. Agrippa] et al.) for all else (including the nonplausible teacher as hyrcanus II) is mere special pleading. Another example of bold, yet unfortunate statement, in Doudna's online J. of Hebrew Studies v.5 (2004) article on the "'yahad'" ostracon. That a letter on Alexander Jannaeus bronze coins requires a big revision of the Cross paeography. (That paleography is of course fair game for criticism.) Anyone who has worked wuth these coins knows how poorly some were made, and copied and reused. OK to cite j. Naveh's IEJ 18 (1968) "Dated Coins of Alexander Jannaeus." But not OK to make sweeping statements that no one challenged any of this without merely consulting Yaacov Meshorer's standard book (page ref. on request, not at hand) which indeed removes one of Avigad's iwo dates. And was the year 25 in Hebrew special anyway? Enough for now. I'll try to pass along information with more examples and bibliography if that seems useful. Stephen Goranson Perkins Library Duke U. Durham NC Quoting Ken Penner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Would anyone like to respond to Greg Doudna's article "Redating the Dead Sea > Scroll Deposits" in Bible and Interpretation? > http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Doudna_Scroll_Deposits_1.htm > > Ken Penner > McMaster/Hebrew _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
