To Stephen Goranson: While you continue to ponder my previous question, and while we are on the topic, I have questions concerning your post on g-megillot of Aug. 7.
QUESTION ONE. You wrote: "disregarding C14 date ranges from any plural number of manuscripts is unscientific" And, "I join Dr. Jull's criticism of disregarding certain 'outliers'" My question: One of the frustrating things is that while you repeatedly accuse me of bad method, I literally do not know what you mean in any specific application. Would you name a specific radiocarbon date and give my interpretation of that radiocarbon date, and then your interpretation of that radiocarbon date in some sense that shows a difference from mine? (I mean on anything from the Flint/VanderKam article, or otherwise reasonably current from me, not 63 BCE [see question two].) For example, the 2nd-3rd century CE radiocarbon date for 4QS(d). Could you explain how you interpret this radiocarbon date differently than I do? Or 4QTQahat? Or 4QpPs(a)? Could you give a simple, declarative statement in one sentence stating your interpretation of any of these radiocarbon dates, contrasted to a similar to-the-point quote from me concerning any of these, in a way that shows a difference? I assure you this is a sincere question. QUESTION TWO. In your article, and again in your Aug. 7, 2005 g-megillot post, as you have dozens of times in the past several years, you rip into me for having proposed, in 1999 in print, an end-date for the Qumran texts at 63 BCE (a date for the end of Qumran Ib which had been argued by Lapperousez). Now it is a matter of record, with which I am sure you are aware, that I publicly repudiated the 63 BCE date also in 1999, the same year I published it. (I did so on Oct. 11, 1999 on Orion.) I have published strengthened arguments since then in keeping with the most current information concerning the archaeologists' disputed end of de Vaux's Period Ib. I have never revived the 63 BCE date after abandoning it in 1999. No 63 BCE date is mentioned in my radiocarbon article in Flint/VanderKam 1998. How many more times and years do you intend to flog this dead horse--going on six years now after I published it and abandoned it the same year? Have you ever made a mistake and corrected it six years ago? In 2001 I identified Appendix B in _4Q Pesher Nahum_ as replacing the 1999 earlier discussion (p. 698 where I state this explicitly). Appendix B is 71 pages. Have you seen Appendix B of 2001? Would it not be more productive to the Qumran field to address and argue against ideas which are current? QUESTION THREE. You stated with reference to my "single generation hypothesis" (i.e. my 1998 proposal that the largest number of Qumran manuscripts were produced in a generation sometime in the 1st century BCE, with a "tail" of texts going back in one direction a century or two earlier) ... you stated on g-megillot on Aug. 7 in reference to this: "... generation having many meanings, including if I recall correctly two text generations in a single day!" Now Stephen, this is a clear misreading, or a blatant attempt to confuse and misrepresent, whichever it is, if I ever saw one. You are referring to my discussion of scribal copying generations on page 44 of _4Q Pesher Nahum_ (2001). This has nothing to do with my radiocarbon discussion of 1998, or the length of the "single generation" in the "single generation hypothesis" there. To show the extent of your misleading, and I frankly suspect malicious, misrepresentation here, I give the relevant quote from my discussion of two scribal copying generations in one day on page 44 of _4Q Pesher Nahum_. <START QUOTE> "There can be no assumption--as frequently appears in print in discussions in the Qumran field--that existence of a scribal copynig history in a Qumran text presupposes decades of time must have transpired between the text's composition and the date of the copy. Statemetns of this nature presumably are based on the assumption that copies were made to replace scrolls worn out through use, and that it takes time (years? decades?) to wear out a scroll through use. Therefore two scribal copying generations would mean the time it would take two successive scrolls to become worn out. But replacement of worn out scrolls is not the only mechanism or circumstance by which ancient copies could come to be made. Copies could be made soon after, or even immediately after, original production of a text in order to send other recipients, and corrections entered into a copy at that point. Alternatively, scribal generations could be authors' successive drafts, written on cheap papyrus and corrected in preparation toward a first fair copy, such that prior scribal copy generations would represent only hours or days, not decades, of history of a text. Of course replacements of worn out scrolls over longer periods of time are also possible. Yet premature conclusions should be avoided in the absence of knowledge." <END QUOTE> Stephen, will you explain your explanation point after your allusion to "two text generations in a single day!" in your g-megillot post of Aug. 7? The explanation point implies something outlandish. Would you explain what you see outlandish in what I have written above? Are you able to acknowledge that you have wrongly applied what I say about "scribal copying generation" (above) to the "single generation" interpretation proposal as a possible explanation of some of the Qumran text radiocarbon dates in 1998 Flint/VanderKam article? Did you do this by mistake or intentionally? I apologize that I cannot find words sufficiently precise to foreclose your finding a way to butcher meaning this way. Do you do this on purpose? QUESTION FOUR. You write: "Doudna wrote: 'Datable internal historical names and allusions in the Qumran texts flourish up to c. 63 BCE but then stop. The end of internal references after 63 BCE is total and permanent, without exception.' One can question whether references can be said to 'flourish' in Qumran-mentioned time period; such securely-datable markers are precious few. And what is the most widely-accepted instance in 88 BCE, Doudna has rejected. The use of 'permanent' here is remarkably non-scientific, foreclosing new insights." If you substitute for "63 BCE" "the end of Qumran's 'Period Ib'" the statement remains valid and conveys an important point. Namely: the allusions in Qumran texts flourish up to the end of what de Vaux called Qumran's "Period Ib", and then stop permanently and completely after that. The word "permanent" is descriptive of present knowledge, not a foreclosing of future information that may come to light. And "permanent" means after texts do stop, whatever that date is. It applies to the flat-line zero which starts at some point, and describes the absence of anything turning up after that point, throughout the entire 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century CE ... i.e. permanently. Will you accept my sense of "permanent" here, as being what I meant? As for your questioning of the flourishing, have you seen my detailed discussion in Appendix B of _4Q Pesher Nahum_, and my tables there, where I show 10 clear cases of proper names from the 1st century BCE, as against 1-3 in 2nd BCE and 0 in 1st CE; and another 5 proper name allusions which are all compatible with 1st BCE but unproven? And to that may be added a general scholarly consensus that virtually all of the Qumran pesharim are 1st century BCE compositions (and none later)--with the only dispute there being whether they all are 1st BCE or maybe one or two are 2nd BCE. And then there are the mishmarot texts, 1st BCE, and some of us agree the CD copies (since CD postdates the appearance of the 1st century BCE TR). Then if you accept the argument that the 1QHymns texts and their spinoffs either represent an idealized TR's voice, or assume his prior existence as a figure, and the TR is 1st BCE, you have the 1QH texts and spinoffs 1st BCE. Then there is Yadin's work on the Temple Scroll arguing for John Hyrcanus I legal allusions in that text meaning the TS is likely 1st BCE. One could conjecture, less certainly, much of the rest of the legal texts related to TS as in the general time frame of TS, making probably dozens more 1st BCE texts. How many texts do you require to qualify for being called a "flourishing"? And then, after these flourishing allusions in 1st BCE, it falls at some point, at about the end of de Vaux's Qumran Ib, somewhere late 1st BCE, to complete flat line zero thereafter (on current, conventional information). Can you name any text which you (you) think is later than 1st BCE, in either authorship or scribal copy production? (And how confident do you feel of this?) Will you set forth some Qumran text allusion you personally see as 1st century CE, or else discontinue your complaints concerning my use of "permanent" in description of the widely recognized drop from many allusions in 1st BCE to zero in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. CE? Again this gets back to your criticism in theory without citing an example in practice. What text do you think is 1st CE in composition or scribal copy, exactly, and why? (i.e. that would show the dropoff to zero is not "permanent".) (And as a final detail, on 88 BCE in 4QpNahum I refer you to my book, _4Q Pesher Nahum_, where I argue that "Demetrius" of 3-4 line 2 is Demetrius III and an allusion to 88 BCE.) QUESTION FIVE. You frequently object to my suggestion that the radiocarbon data that exists can be interpreted in terms of what I proposed as the "single generation hypothesis" (a bubble in the 1st century BCE with a tail running back in one direction), as opposed to the conventional c. 300-year "wavy-line" distribution of the Qumran texts (dates of scribal copy production). Subquestion 5A: Do you understand what an "hypothesis" is? Subquestion 5B: When you criticize me for suggesting the radiocarbon data could be interpreted in terms of the hypothesis I proposed, you state that I have already made assumptions, etc. etc. Can you explain how you would prefer to see an hypothesis tested, other than to run "is it falsified", "is there another possible interpretation", and "is it excluded" kinds of questions as I have done? Subquestion 5C: Do you interpret the radiocarbon data in terms of a starting assumption of a c. 300-year "wavy-line" distribution ending in 68 CE? Subquestion 5D: Do you think the existing radiocarbon data indicates a wavy flat line or a bubble-with-a-tail in-one-direction as the true distribution pattern of the c. 900 Qumran text copy dates of production? Or do you think the existing Qumran text radiocarbon data is insufficient at present to answer this question (this is my position)? If you answer "the existing radiocarbon data can neither confirm nor exclude either of these two models", how is that different from what I say? Subquestion 5D: How would you suggest I reword my hypothesis in 1998 such that it could be tested against existing and future data in a way that you would consider scientific? Subquestion 5E: Do you think the true date of scribal production of 4QpPs(a) was substantially different from the true date of scribal production of 1QpHab? (Asking for your subjective gut feeling here.) Subquestion 5F: Do you (not Jull, but you) regard a Qumran text radiocarbon date out at the extreme end of all of the text dates, such as 3rd BCE for 4QTQahat or 2nd-3rd CE for 4QS(d), to be of equal likelihood to be accurate as a radiocarbon date in the 1st century BCE in agreement with a large number of other radiocarbon dates? QUESTION SIX. In your Amazon.com review of Israel Knohl's book, _The Messiah Before Jesus_, your most central disagreement with his thesis is you disagree with his dating the Teacher of Righteousness too late in the 1st BCE, or identifying the TR as a messiah. Are you aware that not only does Knohl not date the TR late in the 1st BCE or identify the TR as a messiah, but his book isn't even about the TR? That is, your most central disagreement to Knohl is something that has nothing to do with his book, in your review of his book. QUESTION SEVEN. Would you agree (after the conclusion of the present exchange) to state your own views under your own name without representing me, and I the same with you, in order to spare everyone more of this in the future? Looking forward to your straight answers-- Greg Doudna _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
