1. With reference to my paper ("Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits" at
www.bibleinterp.com ) Goranson states: "Gregory L. Doudna wrote--without
giving a reference--that Rachel Bar-Nathan gave the end of Period Ib as
c. 15 BCE. That is simply false."
Bar-Nathan:
"the final dating of Period Ib at Qumran, which seems to be HR1
[31-15 BCE] (see Appendix I)"
(_Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. The
Pottery_ [Jerusalem, 2002], p. 100)
See page 5 for Bar-Nathan's dating of HR1 to 31-15 BCE. The
reference is footnoted in my Brown conference paper cited at
the end of the online article.
2. Goranson writes:
"Sukenik early on considered the scrolls the scrolls genuine in
part because they resembled ossuary inscriptions, very many
of these first century CE. Doudna quoted a 1955 Sukenik publication
that is not to the point of his pre-1951 consensus dating claim."
Sukenik noted similarities between the ossuary inscriptions and
the writing of the scrolls and at the outset did suggest the latest of
the scrolls might be shortly before the First Revolt. But after the
excavation of Cave 1 in 1949 Sukenik abandoned this suggestion and
expressed agreement with the archaeologists' conclusion (and the
independent conclusion of Birnbaum's palaeographic datings) that,
as Sukenik put it, "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."
(_The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University_, Jerusalem, 1955, 20).
This statement reflects Sukenik's support of the pre-1951 consensus.
The 1955 copyright date is nothing more than an artifact of delay
in publication of the English translation. It does not represent actual
disagreement on the part of Sukenik, post-1952, with de Vaux's
redating the scroll deposits to First Revolt.
3. Goranson's comment notes my reference in a 1998 article to "one
of the most persistent fallacies in interpretation of radiocarbon dates:
the assumption that 'the middle of the range is the most probable'. Yet
now he appears shocked, shocked that I mention that some of those
in the infancy of radiocarbon dating in the early '50's gravitated to the
linen mid-range midpoint of 33 A.D."
But we are not talking about the public here. We were talking about
de Vaux and archaeologists and the reasons for de Vaux's change of
the dating of the scroll deposits to the First Revolt. Goranson claimed de
Vaux and other archaeologists believed the Libby linen radiocarbon date
of 33 A.D. +/- 200 was an argument supporting moving the deposit date
from 1st BCE to 1st CE, or confirming the correctness of that shift.
I pointed out that because that is an error few if any archaeologists are
likely to make, such a claim on Goranson's part calls for documentation
rather than assertion.
In fact the 1951 Libby linen radiocarbon date was originally cited as
supporting the 1st century BCE deposit date at the time of its publication
(Sellers 1951). After the scrolls deposit date was changed to 1st CE
for other reasons, the Libby line date was understood (correctly) as also
in good agreement with the 1st CE date, and in support of the 1st CE
date as against a medieval dating. But the range is too great in that linen
date to be useful in distinguishing between 1st BCE and 1st CE. One
cannot cite a radiocarbon date (in this case 167 BC-233 AD) as an
argument against a date which is in excellent agreement (i.e. within one
standard deviation) with the radiocarbon date. More useful for analysis
with respect to the question of 1st BCE/1st CE would be the 1994
Cave 4 linen radiocarbon date reported from Tucson (since the precision
is so much better).
4. More on the differences between the biblical texts at Masada and
at Qumran.
Talmon:
"The basic identity of the Masada biblical fragments is underscored
by their concurrence with MT in almost every instance in which an
ancient version attests a variant reading. The overall conformity
with the masoretic tradition also characterizes the fragments of biblical
texts in Hebrew found at other sites in the Judaean Desert, at Nahal Se'elim
(Wadi Seiyal), and Wadi Murabba'at. This identity contrasts sharply with
the abundance of textual variants in biblical scrolls and fragments from
the Qumran caves ... The Masada biblical fragments witness to the existence
of a stabilized proto-masoretic textual tradition ... In contrast, the textual
fluidity, which can be observed in the Qumran scrolls and fragments of
biblical books and Bible related works, which stem from the last centuries
BCE, proves that these manuscripts were not subjected to such a stabilizing
process"
(S. Talmon, in Talmon with Newsom and Yadin,
_Hebrew Fragments from Masada. Masada VI: Yigael Yadin Excavations_
[Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999).
Here is data and phenomena. All Qumran scholars by now know what
Talmon writes above. This is not new or controversial. Ian Young in
his DSD 2002 article goes into this in much further detail, considers
various types of explanation, and asks: how is this to be accounted
for adequately other than chronologically?
But until Ian Young, no one in the Qumran field working with the
biblical texts at Dead Sea sites and the issue of stabilization of
the biblical text even *thought to ask* this question. It was not considered
and then rejected for cause. It simply did not occur as a possibility.
on the map. That is, what prima facie would be the first
thought that would come to mind from looking at this was not
"seen". It illustrates the power the First Revolt construction of the
Qumran text deposits has had in filtering scholarly perception, even
when scholars have looked directly at data and described it accurately.
But that is now changed: with Ian Young's article the question is raised
to awareness, and the same data, the same description, may be looked
at anew and seen differently.
Greg Doudna
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
