To Stephen Goranson: I was admiring your article on your website
concerning Judah the Essene and Absalom--in my opinion one of your better
pieces of work--when I came to, alas, my own name to which was attributed
something that, if I said it, would be extremely stupid (of me).
You argue against an idea that all c. 900 Qumran texts were produced
in a single moment like a "shotgun blast"--which I fully agree with
you is absurd, and join you wholeheartedly in informing your readers
that such an idea is to be condemned and consigned to outer
darkness--and you have me saying this!
You write:
"Doudna offers an analogy of a single 'shotgun blast' around
a true date. That analogy does not suit the 900 or so Qumran
manuscripts; though it could relatively better apply to
tests of one manuscript."
Your second sentence implies that I applied the analogy in the
first sentence (of the "shotgun blast" of radiocarbon dates) to
all of the Qumran texts, "the 900 or so Qumran manuscripts".
The only problem, Stephen, is I can't seem to find where I said
this. I would like to offer a retraction and get this
corrected. Could you tell me where I said this?
I know I suggested that the image of the "shotgun blast"
could be applied, as an analogy, to interpreting radiocarbon dates
of an hypothesized *subset* of the c. 900 Qumran texts which *were*
from a single generation. (That is, radiocarbon dates on a subset
of the Qumran manuscripts from the same generation would produce
radiocarbon dates which might be likened to a shotgun
blast around the "bullseye" of the true generation date.)
It seemed, and seems, like a reasonable analogy to me.
Obviously there is a big difference between saying ALL of the
Qumran texts were produced in a generation and proposing that
a SUBSET of the Qumran texts were produced in a generation.
The one is a non-starter and ridiculous. The other is
a reasonable starting-point for discussion.
(I know you are an honorable scholar and would not
intentionally represent a scholar as saying the one,
if you knew that he/she said and intended the other.)
But at the footnote that you give at this point in your
paper, I see I was saying the second (the "shotgun blast" analogy
applied to the subset).
Is it possible you are referring to some other statement of me
and have gotten the wrong footnote cited??
And you write (continuing your attribution to me):
"It is misleading to presume regarding circa 900 Qumran manuscripts
(surfaces prepared when written on) plus their subsequent deposits
in 11 caves as a single event ..."
I agree that it is misleading and ridiculous that anyone could
suggest all circa 900 Qumran manuscripts were prepared and written
as a single event! The problem is, I can't find where *I* ever
said this. And I don't know anyone *else* who has ever said this.
Would you tell me where I said this so I can get it corrected?
Thank you.
Greg Doudna
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
