Interestingly enough, I understand what Stephan writes.
So it must be either a grammatical or a textual problem.
tot ziens,
Dierk
--------
TEXNH TAKTIKH www.kun.nl
Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen (NL)
*
"Selig ist, der nicht Anstoss nimmt an mir!"
(Mt 11.6)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Goranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits
> Dear list readers,
>
> If I may respond on the subject in the heading; I suggest that "response
to
> Goranson" is an unfortunate ad hominem change of the subject line. Of
course I
> address the list including Greg Doudna and Dierk van den Berg, though I
> confess I do not understand the latter's text.
>
> Doudna's response to me misses the main points. As I wrote, this is not
the
> first time. Previous discussions--for instance, explicitly on the locus 2
jar!-
> -are indeed relevant. As are previous inkwell discussions, and previous
> pointings out that Doudna (and e.g. in this case N. Golb and Y.
Hirschfeld)
> require different levels of evidence for Qumran and Jerusalem text
production.
> It is fair for people (including de Vaux) to change their minds, but to
> quickly disown an elaborate years-long series of self-contradictory
attempts,
> by hook or crook, to redate the scrolls to exclude any in first century
(an
> arbitrary cutoff?) is to exclude from our perview a subject that
Copenhagen
> Dr. Doudna himself raised in his online text: psychology. (Or we might say
> epistemology or methodology.)
>
> Indeed part of the history of scholarship concerns what they, de Vaux et
al.,
> thought. That is why, for instance, the 33 AD + or - C14 linen date
certainly
> matters: to them surely a first century indication (however we might see
it
> now). And there were many such evidence indications. The article confuses
one
> jar as the "basis" of a dating with the decades of evidence as the dating
> basis. It is to de Vaux's credit that he reevaluated. And de Vaux's dates
have
> been effectively revised; that revision makes the Period II continuity
even
> more ineluctable. Yet even still now, Doudna did not respond to de Vaux on
the
> continuity of usage in Period II, rather wrongly dismissing this weighty
> matter as merely irrelevant. The audience is misled by omitting evidence.
> Changing a mind is one thing. But to seek to forget years of self-
> contradictory determination to redate mss and misrepresent so as to
exclude
> any in first century is to miss something. Repeating, by itself, without
> disowning the past, of course, is something I do myself. ("Essenes," via
one
> of the many Greek spellings, came from the Hebrew root 'asah, as is
> increasingly realised--do spread the word :) )
>
> Here is another example of heedlessness to evidence which does not fit a
> preconceived conviction. Doudna asserted that no one had challenged
Avigad's
> work on Alexander Jannaeus bronze coin dating. I offered to provide the
> reference to a basic work that Doudna should have consulted before making
such
> a bold sweeping declaration, a work which precisely dismissed one of
Avigad's
> two dates. But no interest was manifested. Ya'akov Meshorer, Ancient
Jewish
> Coinage, v.1 p.80.
>
> I can understand why Dr. Doudna wishes to prevent me (he has attempted to
> silence me before) from noting past discussions and publications. I could
> provide other data and bibliography (on misrepresenting Essenes, on
dating,
> and so on), but what's the point if there is no interest in unwelcome
> information? Many respondents and reviewers---not just me--have been
> disregarded.
>
> The "one generation" hypothesis is quite unscientific as applied by Doudna
to
> the C14 data, omitting evidence, misleading. I understand that Doudna
wishes
> me to disregard previous discussions (even while presenting an article on
> previous discussions!). Not only I pointed out Doudna's unscientific
dismissal
> of C14 evidence, but so did, for example--despite repeated denials and
> obliviousness--the Radiocarbon expert Dr. Jull.
>
> Not to end on a negative note, I have read over the years some
observations by
> Geg Doudna that I found worthwhile. And, in my opinion, we all have
> opportunity to research Qumran history further than has been so far
realised.
>
> Stephen Goranson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
