Stephen Goranson has written on ioudaios in response to my last orion post: (SG, 1/29/02, ioudaios [in full]) This morning I find that Greg Doudna, after "quoting" me in truncated, misleading, innacurate manner, has attributed to me (on orion this time) definitions and views I have never espoused and, in some cases (e.g., "data inerrancy"), never even ever heard of! I ask that such GD misrepresentation stop. sincerely, Stephen Goranson (GD) Goranson titled this something like 'Doudna and misrepresentation'. Goranson is blowing smoke. I am not aware that the quotation from Goranson, although truncated, was inaccurate. I was responding to Goranson's misrepresentation of me on numerous lists for some 4-5 years now (I am sticking to orion). The term 'data inerrancy' was my paraphrase of what I thought Goranson meant. I do not wish to attribute views to Goranson inaccurately and can only plead that I am at a loss to know what it is, exactly, that he does mean to say. What has happened is that, on another list which I am not subscribed to, Goranson makes unprovoked, sweeping, ill-defined misrepresentations of someone else's work (mine). I attempted to respond (on Orion), and asked a few relevant questions of my own pertaining to the topic. Goranson has not responded to any of the substantive issues of my response. Nor has he acknowledged or apologized for any of his misrepresentations of me which I pointed out, and which started the exchange. Further misrepresentations by Goranson in addition to ones already noted, in the same post of Goranson on ioudaios of 1/23 which I quoted last time: Goranson referred to "several non-probably overlapping hypotheses, some of which have already been disproven, e.g. the single 'shotgun' blast interpretation of C14 date ranges, and dismissing 'outliers' ..." Attempt at deconstruction: (1) First, when Goranson says 'have already been disproven', this appears to mean "which I [Goranson] have denounced repeatedly before, as I am now". I am aware of no published article 'disproving' any relevant point of my Doudna 1998 radiocarbon analysis, and for Goranson to imply to the wide scholarly readership of ioudaios that such has occurred is simply a slur. (2) The shotgun blast. I used the shotgun blast image once in Doudna 1998, as a pedagogical device with reference to the truism that multiple radiocarbon datings of a single item or items of identical actual date should yield a spread of dates around the true actual date--similar to the way a shotgun blast at a target will scatter around the bullseye. I am at a loss to understand what Goranson finds objectionable in *my* use of the term, much less in what sense this has been 'disproven'. (3) Goranson elsewhere in that post characterized my 'single generation hypothesis' of Doudna 1998 as proposing that all of the Qumran text copies are from the 1st century BCE. That is not correct. I proposed that most of the text copies are, but not all (I was quite clear on that). If Goranson means it is 'disproven' that a large number of Qumran text copies are from the same approximate generation, I have one response to that: that is nonsense. I don't claim my proposal is proven, but I know that it is not disproven. (On the issue of the alleged 175-year history of Serekh manuscripts and development, see my discussion in _4Q Pesher Nahum. A Critical Edition_ on that point.) (4) Goranson also cited Dr. Tim Jull, editor of _Radiocarbon_ journal, as allegedly agreeing with Goranson that dismissing of outliers is unscientific. It is a rhetorical tactic to piggyback the names of the famous on to one's own ideas. Readers of ioudaios are given no bibliographic citation, no actual statement of Jull, no explanation for how whatever Jull said relates to Doudna 1998, etc. In fact Jull has never to my knowledge published any comment concerning Doudna 1998, but Goranson does not disclose this to ioudaios readers (who might assume in the absence of disclosure that Goranson refers to some publication of Jull). Goranson does not disclose to the ioudaios readership that others on orion have disputed Goranson's exegesis of Jull. In fact Jull told me once that Jull did not agree with Goranson's exegesis of Jull. I am not about to respond to Jull as filtered through Goranson's paraphrase. Out of fairness to Jull, Jull speaks much better for himself and I will respond to anything Jull might say concerning Doudna 1998, if and when Jull does say something concerning Doudna 1998. I appeal to Goranson again to stop the misrepresentation. I would be happy to agree, if Goranson will, that neither he nor I represents the other in any way. If Goranson is unwilling to agree to this, I request Goranson to address the substantive issues I raised in my last post, e.g. disclose what he feels is the correct method, with specifics, for determining true date information for Qumran texts on the basis of the existing radiocarbon data. I think if Goranson is unwilling to comply with either of these requests readers of Orion and ioudaios will draw the appropriate conclusions. Greg Doudna For private reply, e-mail to "Greg Doudna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
