Shalom Stephen and David (Same mail as to ANE, excuse me for cross posting) I try to address your further notes in the margins:
SG (http://www.duke.edu/~goranson): >>How do you (or would you) know that a cave deposit was not changed in the type of mss or their ages by intentional withdrawals? If I recall correctly,Stegemann says Cave 3 is the one where medieval discoveries were made, as mentioned in the letter of Timotheus I (a letter that may have also influenced Morton Smith, to imagine a response to inquiry about verse questions). Stegemann's claim may well go beyond the evidence, but you could take that scenario as a hypothetical example. And do we really know which caves were more or less undisturbed? That is one reason the Yardeni/H. Eshel dispute on internally-dated documents from 4Q, or not from 4Q, matters here. Also note opistographs (at least in theory: possibly one side Qumranian; one not). >> DSBE: This is addressed in the long form of the article. Briefly: I checked if there was a consistency whether those caves Stegemann argues to have been looted in antiquity or modernity are all rather old or all rather young, which is not the case. I doubt robbers / intruders / Sectarians would check the paleographical dating. Bedouins would take anything. Ancient Jews would take anything looking useful, so most probably the best preserved, but there is no consistency among the looted caves. Ancient non-Jews would not understand what they are seeing and treat everything the same (as Bedouins) - destroy, leave, take, whatever. >> SG: Genizah proposals can matter here. E.g., if Cave X were a genizah (or even partly so), and Cave Y was (or held) an emergency deposit, then the dating of the penning of the mss does not equally date the deposit time. Genizah text coud be older at the time of deposit than in-use mss. (In any case, penning time precedes deposit time, by a largely-unknown interval.) DSBE: Sure. But there are only two old caves, 1 and 4. 1 as Genizah is highly improbable in my mind. Maximum a one time Geniza, but then again, why should the best preserved mss be in the Geniza (i.e. depository for *useless* scrolls) and the badly preserved (supposedly still useful scrolls) in the other caves in a much less careful way? >> SG: Replacement sheets matter for dating. E.g. 11QTemple's first sheet, Yadin concluded, was a replacement, by a different scribe, and presumably later. So 11QT has two dates. (Schoyen may own some of the 11QT replacement sheet fragments.) The Shrine of the Book has not yet provided what I have requested: locations (the column or fragment numbers) of the samples used for C14 dating. I hope that they will, and that all future Qumran C14 publications include this info. Repairs suggest long usage. DSBE: You are right. I did not regard this point. However, how many repaired scrolls do we have? For the young caves it does not matter since repair would be posterior. I doubt it matters for the old caves. Even if you add 6 scrolls from 68 to cave 1 it stays an old cave. >> SG: Is it hard to tell if scrolls were rolled up wrong in the cave remains that are very fragmentary? So do your categories appy mostly to 1, 4, 11 here? How many mss really extant still as scrolls and how many mis-rolled per cave? The mess in some caves may not neatly divide into misrolled versus cut-by-enemy, I suggest. What about, e.g., browsing by looters? Animal redistribution? And fragments lumped together but out of order. DSBE: Uuuuh. A lot of questions. The rolling up has been checked by Stegemann according to fragment size and form. Smaller fragments of the same form are on the outside. >>SG: Nonetheless, you're asking some interesting questions. Good luck. DSBE: Thx a lot for all your remarks, Stephen!! >>David Stacey (DaSt) Daniel, As a field archaeologist I am in no position to discuss your statistical analyses nor the palaeographic dating of the scrolls. However I do seriously question Magness' interpretation of the archaeological evidence for a destruction by fire c. 9/8 - 4 B.C.E. Whether or not that makes any difference to yr thesis is for you to decide. Magness quotes de Vaux's description of the context of a hoard of coins, the latest of which is dated to 9/8 B.C.E. He said they were buried beneath the level of Period II and above that of Period Ib. Magness then goes on to make the puzzling statement that "de Vaux's description of the context makes it clear that the hoard could equally be associated with Period Ib, and common sense suggests this is the case. Hoards are often buried at times of trouble...." though she does not explain how hoards can be buried above, rather than below, a floor surface. >> DaSt: In an article submitted for publication next year (which probably precludes me from quoting from it) I carefully re-examine the archaeology of the Qumran water system and show that the 'main' aqueduct immediately post-dates the earthquake of 31 B.C.E.; thus it did not fall into disrepair as a result of it. The ash deposits were indeed associated with the earthquake not with an attack. The silt deposits are not an indication "that the abandonment lasted for at least one winter season" but rather they are the spoil from digging various of the new cisterns/pools that could now be filled from the greatly improved water system. The "badly damaged pools in L48-50" were not abandoned at this time as they had yet to be built.Before the construction of the 'main' aqueduct the available stored water ( in L100, L117 & L118) could only have supported a seasonal population of visiting artisans (potters, harvesters and transporters of harvest products, salt and asphalt gatherers, herdsmen etc) so the likelihood of there being a library pre 31 B.C.E. is remote. DSBE: If you are right, my interpretation has to be adjusted. My findings still stand and have to be interpreted and put into the picture also by this overall view of Qumran (or Hirschfeld's or Golb's or Humbert's or...). If there was no fire around 9/8-4 BCE, there is less of a problem for the mss in the settlement. If the fire was around 31 BCE, we still have to explain how it comes that we have found scrolls older than that (All brought in later?) and why we have "old caves" and "young caves". In this case scenarios beginning with L become less likely. Still, if the Qumranites hid a hoard around 9/8 BCE, they had a reason, felt threatened and might have treated there library the same way - hidden it. So scenarios with E stay the same and so do the various G scenarios if I am not mistaken. Well, I have to pore thoroughly through your article with an expert on archaeology to assess your interesting argument. >> DaSt: The caves were dug not for habitation but, primarily, for the clay which was utilised in the Qumran pottery industry and for the manufacture of mud-bricks (used in the construction of upper stories). The cave, (or 'underground quarry') could of course be used for other purposes once clay was no longer being extracted. DSBE: I am not sure that caves, such as cave 4, very nicely done, like a hobbit hole, were simple clay quarries. >> DaSt: Like you I believe that the scrolls were probably deposited at different times and for different reasons but that many were genizah. DSBE: If we disconnect the caves from the site, we have to address the points raised by Dimant. Why should the caves be similar in inclusion and exclusion politics? Why do we have a similar ratio of Sectarian and non-Sectarian texts in all caves? Etc.... Most difficult if we assume different deposits by different groups. But I am most grateful to your comments, David Have a good week 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
