Dear Russell Gmirkin, Maybe we should agree to disagee on a few things, for now.
1. When you quoted me you totally omitted the sentence in which I gave my view that it was mistaken of G. Doudna to analogize Qumran's circa 900 manuscripts, and their usage, and their deposit with "ONE EVENT," with a single generation, with a single battle, and with a single vulcano erruption. See, e.g. Doudna's page 463 for the "single event" idea. But, Russell, circa 900 manuscripts simply are not a single event! Plus, we disagree on what Dr. Jull, current editor of Radiocarbon [journal], corrected G.D. about on orion list. I say he warned against disregarding "outliers" except if all are from runs of one sample (e.g. one piece of skin), with one anomaly. Not disregarding "outliers" because of an outside hypothesis (like the single generation hypothesis). (Google: Jull, Doudna for the orion thread.) I say the unscientific mix of standard C14 science with that hypothesis had misled numerous readers. I could give numerous examples. But each can decide for him or herself. 2. We have discussed Essene account source criticism many times, on more than one archived list. Each apparently prefers his own account and thinks the other duly refuted. Instead of repetition, for now (I have some new stuff in the works), perhaps we can invite any interested readers to google "Gmirkin Goranson"--both fairly uncommon names--and the ancient writer(s) of their choice. happy new year, Stephen Goranson P.S. Y. Hirschfeld p. 161 n. 222 claims J. Zangenberg (2000) "systematically refuted" the claims of Zias (2000). But Zangenberg had not yet read Zias (2000) when he wrote his (2000); rather he responded to an earlier oral presentation. _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
