Some points in review, before I check out ... 1. As Ian Young summarizes, the absence of historical references or allusions after 1st BCE is a powerful argument, which under other circumstances would be overturned only by serious counter-evidence. The biblical text stabilization argument is independently in agreement with the early deposits idea, reinforcing the case. The only issue, as Young puts it, is whether archaeology or palaeography or radiocarbon are able to overturn the obvious. 2. Burden of proof. This was discussed by Stephen Carlson on his weblog "Hypotyposeis" (http://www.hyptyposeis.org/weblog/ ) on June 8. Carlson correctly focused on what I regard as the key paragraph in my entire article. But Carlson questions whether my argument is correct in placing the burden of proof where I do. I answer: a burden of proof is created whenever a claim is made that something is a fact. If First Revolt deposits were being called a possibility or a suggestion or a maybe, then there would not be a high burden of proof. But that is not what the major Qmran reference works and Qumran scholars are telling the world and each other: they refer to 1st CE Qumran scroll deposits as a fact. It is this claim to status as "fact" which, by definition, creates a burden of proof. There are only two legitimate ways to go: either drop the claim that something is a fact, or accept the burden of proof and meet it. One cannot assert something is a fact, then object to being asked to prove it. 3. The key question with which my paper ends is: if 1st CE deposits are a fact, how, exactly, is this known? The raising of this impertinent question--the question of evidence--as has been seen, can result in curious reactions, ranging from blank looks, outrage, replies that the question does not merit a serious response, etc. 4. Note that one of the critics of this asking the question of evidence for Period II scroll deposits, Stephen Goranson, holds that the inhabitants at the end of Qumran Period II were probably different than the inhabitants at the end of Qumran Period Ib, and that these inhabitants at the end of Qumran Period II were unrelated to the scrolls (ANE, June 12: "Essenes likely left Qumran before the zealots arrived in 68 CE, as Josephus may suggest".) But if archaeological realia permit discontinuity within Period II, how does the same realia forbid it at the Ib/II transition? 5. On the radiocarbon date for 4QpPsA, note that no one--not Goranson, not anyone else--has said they actually regard that radiocarbon date as proving 1st century CE text activity. Who is there who will say this? *No one*, to my knowledge, has said this. Goranson certainly has not. But if no one is willing to say this (that the radiocarbon date for 4QpPsA proves 1st century CE Qumran text activity), what then is the actual disagreement with what I write in the current paper, here? "it is simply wrong to claim that the radiocarbon date for 4QpPsA proves true dates of Qumran cave texts as late as the 1st century CE." What, exactly, is Goranson's, or anyone's, disagreement with this?--since Goranson has never claimed this either. 6. Added comment on the 4QpPsA radiocarbon date. At the degree of precision at issue--a matter of several decades between Period Ib and Period II--the existing radiocarbon data is simply ambiguous, and can easily be understood as compatible with either the Period II deposit idea or the Period Ib-only deposit idea (or other ideas not currently proposed, such as a Period III deposit idea). There is insufficient appreciation for the "rough" nature of individual radiocarbon dates in corresponding to true dates. With the Qumran texts there have also been questions raised concerning the possiblity that the date lists could be "salted" with a small number of contaminated 4Q text dates giving slightly too-modern dates. Goranson has in the past directly allowed that 4QpPsA could be contaminated. When Goranson expresses disagreement with my radiocarbon treatment in the present paper, it is not clear whether he is disagreeing with a straw man or with any specific sentence I actually write in the present paper. But even if there was no contamination concern that remains to be excluded in the case of 4QpPsA--even a known uncontaminated result such as that of 4QpPsA, in itself, falls far short of proof of 1st century CE text activity. There were 19 Qumran texts dated in the Zurich and Tucson series. In any 19 Qumran texts dated, probability alone predicts that one of those dates, at *flawless* lab accuracy in measurement, is going to be entirely outside the two-sigma calibrated result. (And little-known secret: radiocarbon labs do not, in more cases than not, have the degree of accuracy they claim, in practice--although the good labs, it is true, come close to their claims.) Again, *****see the table in my paper on the Bar-Kochbha text radiocarbon datings***** --study it, and think about it--for the most direct and strking illustration that the correspondence between radiocarbon datings and true dates is more "loose" than commonly supposed. (Incidentally, all of those five Bar-Kochbha texts were dated "blind" by the labs--the labs were unaware of those texts' true dates until after measurements were completed.) This is not a criticism of the radiocarbon method--I am a believer in the method. The point is not that the method does not work. The point is that for the method to work it must be understood properly and enough of a database obtained to justify real, as opposed to pseudo-, certainty and conclusions. "When a measurement process can be repeated, the distribution of the results is usually described by the Gaussian, or normal, probability function. Assuming this holds for radiocarbon results when the error is estimated, the one sigma error term (+/- 1s) means there is a 68.3% chance that the true result will lie within +/- 1s of the experimental result, a 95.4% chance within +/- 2s and 99.7% within +/- 3s. The alternative view is that there is nearly a one in three chance that the true result does _not_ lie within +/- 1s of the experimental one. Even at +/- 2s, there is still a one in twenty chance that the true result lies outside this range. Despite this, there are many instances where radiocarbon results have been used without their associated errors, as if they were absolutely known with no uncertainty!" (Sheridan Bowman, _Radiocarbon Dating_ [British Museum, 1990], p. 38) "Little reliance should be placed on an individual 14C 'date' to provide an estimate of age for a given object, structure, feature, or stratigraphic unit. A critical judgment of the ability of 14C data to infer actual age can best be made with a suite of determinations ..." (R.E. Taylor et al, _Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective_ [Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1987), p. 104. Bottom line: if the Qumran texts extended as late as 1st century CE, one would get some radiocarbon dates compatible with 1st century CE (as has happened). But if the Qumran texts extended only as late as 1st BCE, one would also get some radiocarbon dates compatible with 1st century CE (as has happened). The problem is not that the radiocarbon dating method cannot resolve the 1st BCE/1st CE deposits issue, but that it has not done so *yet*. 7. On Goranson's claim that my paper at Brown U. in 2002 "persuaded no one to my [Goranson's] knowledge". If Goranson is referring to the paper's central argument that Period II scroll deposits are unrpoven (as opposed to proven), I do not think that claim is accurate. As in polls, the way the question is asked can affect the outcome. No other presenter at that conference--prior to the possible exception of Magness, now--has communicated to me any rebuttal concerning, or stated actual disagreement, with my paper's central thesis that Period II deposits are not proven.* The recent notice of Magness a few days ago on this list was the first I have heard directly from one of the archaeologists at that conference that this thesis--that Period II deposits are unproven--might be disagreed with (if Magness's disagreements with the present paper include its central thesis). (* Note that comments such as "I'm not persuaded .. I still think there were Period II scroll jars" are not what I am talking about--of course there have been that kind of comment. Read my wording.) With this, unless there is cause, I will bow out from making further comments for now. The comment earlier of Russ Gmirkin was exactly to the point, and the final paragraph, especially, of Ian Young's earlier post is also exactly to the point. Greg Doudna
_______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
