[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion AMS dating
stephen goranson wrote:
> Dear orion list,
> T. Simms sent to the list this private note responding
> to his private post which requested a response. Though I'm not ashamed
>
> at my response, I do think netiquite advises against posting private
> notes without permission. As to the data, we read it differently; list
>
> members are free to make up their own minds. I've said I'm no AMS
> expert; I just made observations that, I think, even a non-expert can
> make, of a view I still hold, on contraindications to a 63 BCE deposit
>
> date for the 11 caves. Others may have a better understanding of
> statistics than I. As I used to say, "42.7 percent of all statistics
> are made up on the spot." ...<g>
> Stephen Goranson
> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:04:00 AST Tom Simms <tsimms@quartz.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:39:57 +0000, goranson@acpub.duke.edu writes:
> > >
> > >To be brief, if you think you need more tests to tell anything of
> > >consequence, why did you declare a pre-60 BCE date of deposit had
> been
> > >determined? Sincerely, Stephen Goranson
> >
> > To be even briefer, I didn't need to. The facts speak for
> themselves, if you'd
> > let them.
>
Photographs of the Habakkuk Commentary and the Isaiah scroll were
once used
by Bill Albright to show me characteristics between Herodian and
Hasmonean
scripts. It seems to me, and I am just an amateur, that a pre-60BCE
date of deposit
would preclude Herodian styles.
Jack Kilmon
jpman@accesscomm.net