The three lines at the end of my paper, in the section summarizing the
discussion following the paper when I gave it in Vancouver, have been
cause for some misunderstanding. These lines read ("A" stands for me):
--------
Presider: Thanks for this very interesting paper which puts this all in a
different light. Too bad Jodi Magness could not be here to comment.
She was here just a few weeks ago speaking about Qumran archaeology.
A: I too wish she could be here. She would probably disagree with a
lot of this paper.
Comment from a senior archaeologist: I wouldn't assume she would
necessarily disagree with as much as you think.
--------
The mention of Jodi Magness's name here was not initiated by me, but by
the presider. I responded--since the subject of Magness's reaction to my
paper had been raised--with what I thought was fair disclosure to people
in the room that there was a good chance Jodi Magness would have
some differences in interpretation. The comment from the archaeologist
that followed was not--and should not be so construed--a representation
of Jodi Magness's views, or a claim to be such. It was simply a caution to
me not to prejudge Jodi Magness's reaction to the paper before she
had seen it (the one I had just delivered in Vancouver).
The ASOR people in the room seemed to find my presentation
interesting--at least it seemed so to me from the questions and reactions
and my reading of the audience--and in the lively discussion that followed
no one raised an objection to my argument on grounds of archaeological
interpretation. When the presider closed on the note that it was too bad that
Jodi Magness was not present so that she could respond, and I demurred
that Magness no doubt would have some objections (I have seen Magness
in action after an Aryeh Hirschfeld presentation), one of those present said,
encouragingly, that I should not prejudge Magness's response--the sense
was: she is a good archaeologist, she is open to argument, I should not presume
she would be negative before she had a chance to consider it. That was the
sense. That is what that was about.
But since the wording can be read as a report of someone who knows
Magness making an informed prediction of a favorable view of the paper,
or conveying knowledge that Magness already holds such a favorable view--that
was not the sense intended, but since it might be misunderstood or misread that
way--I am seeking to have the line removed, and hope this will be done as soon
as the webmaster for Bible and Interpretation returns from vacation. I would
never wish to see Jodi Magness misrepresented or misunderstood, and I regret
the ambiguity in the wording (not intended on my part) that leaves open such
a misunderstanding in reading.
On the distinct issue of Magness's peremptory dismissal of the paper without
signal of willingness to discuss it at a future time, if meant seriously, it is an
ignorant comment and an uncollegial reaction. We are are talking about
serious questions concerning the manner in which knowledge has been constructed
with respect to the texts and the site, within the accepted parameters of Qumran's
habitation. If Magness wishes to retain her preeminence in Qumran archaeology,
she will discuss these issues in the future, in detail and point by point, or else she
will be out of the game. It is that simple.
Greg Doudna
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
