Stephen Goranson, you have not begun to address the
actual substance of my article (which is a paper I gave
to an ASOR meeting in Vancouver in May 2004
[www.pnw-aarsbl.org/program.htm]).
1. You say "I have permission to pass along the information
that [Jodi Magness] indeed quite disagrees with several of
Doudna's Qumran archaeology presentations [in the
ASOR paper online at www.bibleinterp.com ]." Since
you do not represent Magness as saying anything
specific, it is impossible to comment.
2. You claim that Sukenik, "a relevant archaeologist",
was not in agreement with the interpretation of de Vaux,
Harding, and Albright concerning their dating of the
scroll deposits to no later than mid-1st century BCE
prior to the first excavation of Qumran in 1951. This
is not true.
"On the evidence of the sherds it can be determined
that the books were put away at a date not later than
the first century B.C.E."
(E.L. Sukenik, _The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew
University_ [Jerusalem, 1955], p. 20)
3. You claim that the Libby radiocarbon date on Cave 1
linen published in 1952 of "33 A.D. plus or minus a lot" is
a "first century indication" and that I "kept it from" my readers.
This is not true. That radiocarbon date, as it was reported
then, was 33 A.D. +/- 200, which is a 400 calendar year
range at one standard deviation (68% confidence), extending
from 166 BCE to 233 CE. (Today's calibration comes out
a little different, but still with a c. 400-year range.) At two
standard deviations (95% confidence) the range of possibility
covers five or six centuries. Both 1st century BCE and
1st century CE are well within these ranges at both one and
two standard deviations. That radiocarbon date is therefore
not a positive indication of 1st century CE to the exclusion
of 1st century BCE, or vice versa. Its margin of error is
simply far too great to cite for such a purpose. I did not cite
the Libby 1952 linen date in my abbreviated discussion
because there was no point to citing it, since it cannot possibly
prove or have weight on the issue I was discussing. See my
radiocarbon discussion in Flint/VanderKam 1998 concerning
the fallacy of focusing on the middle of a 1 standard deviation
radiocarbon range as the most likely (when all dates within
a 1 standard deviation radiocarbon date range should be
considered equally probable).
4. You say "one jar that I think GD misrepresents..."
This is said without any specification. How so?
5. You say,
"One jar [the locus 2 jar] that I think GD misrepresents
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]...' "
De Vaux did not know of a Period I/Period II at the end of
his first 3-week season in 1951, or any resettlement. He knew
only of a single habitation period entirely in the 1st century CE,
at that time. The comment you cite from de Vaux comes from
his Schweich lecture series in 1959 which is after all of the
excavation seasons at Qumran had been concluded. This has
nothing to do with de Vaux's basis for his change to the First
Revolt deposit date in 1952, on the basis of the knowledge
he learned in 1951. The buried "scroll jar" in locus 2 discovered
in 1951 certainly was the basis for his change.
6. You say that "the 'one generation' text production hypothesis
has plainly been applied by GD in an unscientific way..." This is
not in the article under discussion. I have discussed this
elsewhere. The hypothesis as I have presented it (I have never
proposed that all texts were produced in one generation) is
not unscientific.
7. (Some allusions to old Orion discussions from seven-eight
years ago, without relevance to the paper under discussion.)
Stephen, discussion is impossible if you do not stick to
current topics under discussion, or in print.
In conclusion, I do not see any errors shown in my paper
from your comments. The response from those at ASOR in
Vancouver to my paper, I might add, was quite favorable.
And I look forward to a Magness's comments when she has
time.
Greg Doudna
Bellingham, WA
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
