Re: [Megillot] Qumran history, again

[RUSSELLGMIRKIN]

Stephen,

Doudna has never claimed that C14 data excludes ms dates in the manner that you claim, nor has he even claimed that the C14 data cannot be interpreted in other fashions.  You are flatly wrong in asserting that this is what he claims.  He raises the possibility that the scrolls were copied in a single generation as one possible interpretation of the C14 data.  He lays out his case in a reasonable manner, and clearly lays out the scientific evidence by which the reader can evaluate his proposal and draw his own conclusion. I personally don't subscribe to Doudna's one-generation hypothesis, but Doudna is clearly very competent in the area of C14 dating.  In short, it is your comments here that are misleading, and irresponsibly so.

Russell Gmirkin

I am saying that some works of Golb, Hirschfeld, Doudna, and "Hutchesson"
mislead about Qumran. Doudna made one of the most basic dating errors
possible, and extensively wrote as if science backed his exclusion of ms date
ranges before and after the time he a priori time wanted. Some otherwise quite
well-informed people today imagine C14 excludes texts, say, before 100 BCE or
after 5 BCE.