1. Goranson: "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 early such
evidence indicators ... The audience is misled by omitting
evidence ... heedlessness to evidence ..."
Goranson's original comment was that I had purposely
kept from readers a first century CE indication. Now
Goranson's comment seems to concede that even if that
is not the case, de Vaux et al. must have thought it to be.
This also is not likely to be correct.
The linen C14 date was cited as strong evidence that
Zeitlin's medieval dating of the scrolls was incorrect,
and it is cited as *consistent with* the First Revolt deposit
date. But I am not aware of any early voices citing the
C14 linen date as a *reason* to change from 1st BCE to
1st CE, or proof retroactively that the change was correct,
or proof of 1st CE as opposed to 1st BCE. If any did,
they would have been in error (given the +/- 200 year
margin of error at only one standard deviation, let alone
the additional centuries possibilities going out to two
standard deviations). An item which, as Sellers reported
in 1951 ("Radiocarbon Dating of Cloth from the 'Ain Feshkha
Cave", BASOR 123 [1951]: 24-26 at 25), dates "at some
time in the period between Antiochus Epiphanes to Origen"
is not, repeat, IS NOT, an indicator against 1st BCE. (In fact,
in the article just cited Sellers argues that the linen radiocarbon
date is consistent with the 1st century BCE deposit date then
believed by all archaeologists at the time this linen date was
reported.) Goranson's comment says "surely" they thought
as Goranson today thought (but no evidence is cited). I would
not assume any archaeologists in the 1950's made this kind of
error in reasoning in the absence of published evidence that
they did.
2. Continuity between Period Ib and Period II. It is correct that
this became to de Vaux, and remains today, a key argument
in favor of First Revolt deposits. But the scroll deposits--whose
actual circumstances are poorly understood and concerning which
there is no firm consensus--need not necessarily be in 1:1 relationship
with continuity of the inhabitants. This requires thinking "outside the
box", so to speak. Why assume that inhabitants of Qumran, by
definition, are going to be putting large quantities of scrolls in caves,
simply because they are there at Qumran? If they quit composing new
texts in Period II (as everyone accepts), and quit copying texts in
Period II which were composed by anyone else in the time of
Period II (as everyone accepts), why is it unthinkable that they might
also have quit putting texts in caves in Period II? Think about it.
3. And the continuity is not so certain as some assume. Although
Magness follows de Vaux in holding to Ib/II continuity, that is
by no means obvious to all archaeologists. For example, Bar-Adon,
Humbert, Y. Magen, and Hirschfeld--all very serious names
to consider, if reputation counts for anything--all of these are
reported in print as holding to non-continuity between 1st BCE
and 1st CE habitations at Qumran. So there are two issues:
does Ib/II continuity of people at Qumran prove Period II scroll
deposits (serious question), and second, was there, in fact, Ib/II
continuity of people (also a serious question, at least if Bar-Adon,
Humbert, Magen, and Hirschfeld are to be listened to).
4. On the Alexander Jannaeus coin date, I do not have access
at this moment to the Meshorer source cited, and will have to
withhold comment until I can check it. If the coin remains an
Alexander Jannaeus coin and only the date is uncertain or
reread--which is what I suspect without knowing--then that is
of no consequence concerning the point Naveh made (discussed
by me in section 13 of _Journal of the Hebrew Scriptures_, Vol. 5,
No. 5). But, I must see the reference before actual comment.
5. Speaking of evaluation of evidence, see again Ian Young, "The
Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada:
a Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?" in _Dead Sea
Discoveries" 9 (2002): 364-390. Young compiles tables of data
showing the Masada biblical texts, all of which are MT-type, are
very different than the MT-type Qumran biblical texts. These major,
systemic differences were always there but were unnoticed within
the Qumran field until Tov (I think) first called attention to this
point--not the difference between MT at Masada and variety
at Qumran, but between MT at Masada and MT at Qumran--in
the late 1990's. These differences went unnoticed in the Qumran
field until then because of the power of the First Revolt deposit
construction in shaping perception. Young expands on Tov's
observation with tables and data. Going beyond Tov, Young
goes on to draw a fairly obvious chronological implication from
the observation. Young concludes,
"At the very least, the first century BCE proposals
challenge scholars working with the 68 CE chronology
to explain anomalous data. This article has emphasized
one such anomaly. If the Qumran and Masada scrolls
represent two deposits of the Biblical texts in circulation
during the second half of the first century CE, why are
they of such utterly different natures? The solution to this
problem, we have suggested, holds the key to understanding
the history of the Biblical text in the Second Temple period."
Greg Doudna
Bellingham, Washington
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
