Re: [Megillot] Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits

[RGmyrken]

��� I found Doudna's article well-researched and quite convincing in its main point, namely, that a Period II Scrolls deposit has not been satisfactorily demonstrated by Qumran archaeologists.� Doudna has thoroughly researched the primary archaeological evidence.� Based on his analysis, it seems quite possible that the scrolls entered the caves some time in Period Ib.� IMO Doudna's article is an example of history of scholarship at its best, tracing in the literature how the dominant model of when the scrolls entered the caves became so entrenched, despite (on review) the lack of compelling evidence.
��� Please note (in the interest of accuracy) that Doudna does not claim in this article to have demonstrated a Period Ib scrolls deposit, but only that (a) a Period II scrolls deposit is not proven under current archaeological evidence, and (b) a Period Ib deposit is not excluded.�
��� Since the archaeological evidence is consistent with either a Period Ib or Period II scrolls deposit, why speak of a Period II deposit as if it were an established fact?� Given that there is no historical allusion in any of the scrolls to events after the Hasmonean period, it seems doubtful that any of the the scrolls were authored in the Herodian period, which makes a Period Ib deposit worthy of serious consideration.

Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin

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