Shalom Stephen (This message got stuck for its size for two days. I resent it. It is already on ANE). I appreciate your comments and questions. Others wrote off list, thx a lot to them, too.
>It may be worth noting that, if accepted, your proposal would not only differ from the 68 CE deposit view, but even more strongly the 68 CE scrolls all from Jerusalem proposal. Sure. >P. 3 on deposits with regard to age--this would be a factor if a genizah, yes? I don't think I fully understand. Please be more explicit. >Another cave option is overflow off-site library storage for less often used texts. Yes, but I would treat that as a library "stacks." > And p.4, you don't consider all the permutations of your categories (GL, LE, GE). True. However, GL is somewhat unlikely, don't you think? LE and GE are possible scenarios, but they should be called LLE, LGE, GGE. First letter: period I, second letter: period II, third letter: end of period II. It would be illogical with regard to the topography of the site to assume that cave 4 was unknown to the people occupying it during period II (except if we want to speculate about a possibility that there were no "Sectarians" during period II in the settlement until shortly before 68). I would therefore consider them subgroups of the cases LL, LG and GG. > Paleography dating by different scholars may be a bigger issue than you allow. It certainly is an issue, and if a serious paleographer would go through the whole collection and date everything, I would be more confident with regard to the conclusions. Caves 2,3,5,6,11 were almost exclusively dated by Milik, Baillet and the Dutch team. Cave 1 by Barthelemy and cave 4 by many different Qumran scholars. To refute the thesis with the argument of idiosyncratic dating, we would have to assume that Milik, Baillet and the Dutch team all tended to date late while Barthelemy as well as the cave 4 teams tended to date early. That does not seem very probable to me. Moreover, if you look on Baillet's datings in cave 4, they tend to agree with the average early date of cave 4. Did he "convert" from a "late dater" to an "early dater" after his first series of publications? As you can see, I did a check of the statistical analyses without the paleohebrew and the cryptic material, the dates of which are less sure. Would one of the paleography experts like to comment on this point? > While 4 BCE is possible as you use it, was 4 CE the end of that possible range? According to Jodi Magness 68, 4 BCE is the beginning of the range for possible reoccupation. > Did the whole settlement burn? Maybe someone more proficient in archeology could comment on that query? >P. 4 Reference or examples for "rolled up wrongly" Stegemann 62 >and how does that sit with p. 5 "mutilated by attackers"? If you cut a scroll, you don't need to unroll it. >What about the possibility that some scrolls were taken away--and selectively-- say before the zealots arrived, as Essenes went to Transjordan (where attested later); or as medieval finds (cf. the Timotheus I letter) might affect the deposits? Good point. I tried to address this in the long version. I had to cut something to abbreviate. In one sentence: There does not seem to be a consistent selection factor with regard to age concerning those caves termed by Stegemann as looted and those that were preserved until our age. >"Bedside table"...which caves were inhabited or inhabitable? After a wonderful expedition to the caves with Hanan and the Nordic Qumran Network, I completely understood Hanan's (and Y. Patrich's, see below) former comments. Marl caves could be inhabited, limestone not, at least not for a longer period. > Documentation in n11 is inadequate; perhaps directly ask experts: such as Andrea Berlin, Jodi Magness, Rachel Bar-Natan (the latter's book is interpreted unreliably in my view in the ref., and there was only 1 (or one portion of one scroll/cylinder) jar, strictly defined, in Jericho. Are they part of the list? Would they like to comment? Would Greg Doudna like to comment? > Maybe discuss the Cave 4 mss you consider late additions. Definite later (not necessarily late!!) additions (acc to my theory): scrolls with minimum age in CE range. Possible later additions: scrolls with maximum age in CE range. > Maybe sort out the Yardeni/H. Eshel difference on some internally 4Q or not Q mss. Good point. I am afraid this kind of inquiry has to wait for a second article. It would take many pages (and time). Others may already have delved into this problem and could (and should) answer this question quicker than if I start with this issue now. > Perhaps consider which mss were repaired, e.g., had a replacement first sheet. Why? > Perhaps mention C14. I do in the long version. As far as I understand it does not give definite CE dates for any cave 1 manuscript. > Perhaps check scribal practices distributions. I would love to do that, but Emanuel Tov is more proficient in this discipline. > Perhaps consider cave distances from the Khirbeh (and what was found on which paths), and natural vs, man-made or -modified caves. See above, habitable caves = marl caves = hand made. Rest are natural. There is no consistency with regard to distance. Cave 3 and 11 are farer away than cave 1. > Cf. J. Patrich's survey and Broshi/Eshel findings. I do. Yossi Patrich confirmed this issue when I spoke to him on the phone. > Interesting paper. Thx A LOT for your comments. Not the least also the copyediting for a Germanophone. >>> Somebody else made the following remark offlist: If you permit me to say, I think that you assign too much to too little (the difference of some 50-80 years, if your numbers are correct). All the datings of the Qumran manuscripts have this margin in any case. As this touches one of the basic assumptions of my statistical analysis, I would like to clarify this point. The range issue would be true if we compared only a small number of scrolls. However, margins work with a mean. If a scroll has been dated, lets say to the range 1-50 CE, there are roughly 2% chances that it comes from any of the years in this range. If we have two scrolls dated to this range, the chance that both are from 1 CE is roughly 2%*2%=0.0004, i.e. 0.4 per mil. The chance that both are from the first decade (1-10 CE) are 20%*20%=4%. However, for the "small" caves we speak about at least 10, usually more than 20 scrolls. The chance that all of these scrolls would come from the oldest possible decade is very small - given that the the paleographical dating range is correct! All the best and thx to everyone who commented or read so far! Daniel. Daniel Stoekl Ben Ezra, Ph.D. Mandel Scholar Scholion - Interdisciplinary Research Center in Jewish Studies Rabin Building 1112 Hebrew University, Mount Scopus 91905 Jerusalem ISRAEL +972-2-58.80081 website: http://www.geocities.com/shunrata _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
