Just to try to be helpful, Justin (in case you do not have access to the 1998 article by me that Goranson wishes you to read), below is both the full footnote and the paragraph to which the footnote is attached.
According to Goranson, in this paragraph and footnote, which appear below, I analogized all c. 900 Qumran texts to a "shotgun blast". Goranson has not exactly said he does not accept my latest protest that I neither said nor meant that--that's because after one non-answer, he simply hasn't answered at all my second attempt to get a straight answer. So here is the text from my article that Goranson cites from me. In this text that appears below I think I was referring to about a dozen-and-a-half radiocarbon dates, and applying the "shotgun blast" analogy to how the distribution of radiocarbon dates would look that WERE contemporary within the same generation. The shotgun blast analogy for the radicoarbon dates applies only to however large or small number of texts being radiocarbon dated actually ARE contemporary in their true dates. Can everyone follow me here? (Even here, I had in mind an unknown "many"--the "larger pool"--from among that dozen-and-a-half, not 100 percent of the dozen-and-a-half radiocarbon dates, though I concede that point could possibly be ambiguous in my wording.) Goranson thinks, and more to the point, has been saying and continues to say in all seriousness through various scholarly media, something quite different: that in these quoted words below that I am likening ALL c. 900 Qumran texts (!) to a single shotgun blast (which of course would be ridiculous for anyone to say). (Since it is so ridiculous, did Goranson seriously think I meant that?? Seriously?) In this manner the actual content and argument of my article can almost not be heard or discussed, because of this sustained repetition of this straw man. Stephen, you have promised in the past to attempt to represent others accurately. Perhaps to some extent you cannot help it, but there is a history of getting other scholars wrong, and you damage people when you do this. This is just basic. I must say, what you are doing is unacceptable. Do you intend to correct your representation of me on this point? Greg Doudna -------- (G. Doudna in Flint/VanderKam 1998, DSS after 50 Yrs, p. 461) <full text of top-level paragraph follows> "Since 4QpPsA has the youngest radiocarbon date for Qumran texts in either battery, its results are _a priori_ of less secure confidence than the dates for the others. In addition to this general observation there is a specific reason for questioning the radiocarbon date of 4QpPsA, i.e. the older radiocarbon date for 1QpHab, with which the scribal copy 4QpPsA ought to be contemporaneous. If 4QpPsA is an outlier, the remaining dates in both batteries become in principle explicable as 'measurement scatter'[fn] of a larger pool of radiocarbon dates that converge in the first century BCE, and which are contemporaneous with the date of the Cave 4 linen." <full text of footnote follows, noted after words "measurement scatter" above> "'Measurement scatter' denotes a statistical spread around a 'true date'. A useful analogy is the blast from a shotgun at a target and the spread of the individual shotgun pellets." ------- _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
