[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion 1st BCE generation hypothesis

Here are quick, selected responses to Greg Doudna's "one generation" Qumran
ms production hypothesis. Having declined to define this generation by year
of start and a year at end, would Greg at least define "generation"? In
other words, how long is a "generation" in your usage of that term. Your
various presentations of this hypothesis appear to vary between "one
generation" and "one century"--i.e., first century BC, which is a pretty
big variation, it seems to me. How many generations in a century? They are
different?
	Actually, by "stiplating" no one assured "moment" that all
"Herodian" hands came into existence, I did realize what I was saying.
Lacking internally dated texts, paleography doesn't deal in time units as
small as "moments"--that's not news, and not "THE" only important part of
the equation. But we do have reason to allow sufficient time for change in
the observed trajectories observed between whatever absolute time pegs are
available. You work with statistics and probability. How likely would you
assess the chance that those "c. 200-400 manscripts" can have developed
within your "one generation," or, more precisely, the immediate proposed
end part of it?
	Ada Yardeni, whose reading of the "yahad" ostracon (or gift of deed
paralleling 1QS, 4QS, and Josephus on Essene initiation ostracon, if you
prefer to bracket the word "yahad" in favour of her unattested version and
anomalous nun reading)--Yardeni did not at all date it 68AD. That's the
Cross/Eshel suggestion. Yardeni dated it early Herodian.
	NT assumes full canon? Is that certain? Just one example: Matt 5:17
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and prophets..." Sounds like
the TaN of TaNaK to me.
	To your credit, you brought up Broshi's recent publication. So far,
this  seems to be after your proposed time.
	Possibly relevant: "4Qdocumentary" texts, whose current provenance
is not settled and other Qumran ostraca. Your huge proposed archaeological
gap at Qumran is *not* how well-informed archaeologists describe Qumran.
That Essenes lived there at Marcus Agrippa's time is evident. That many of
the texts are Essene is evident. I'll not flesh those out here.
	In fact not all libraries do end with a bang of acquisition of
latest texts. Especially ones abandoned for centuries (unlike Cornell,
still in operation--and Cornell and Eisenman objections did not come from
me). My library, for instance: haven't bought much lately, can't afford it;
then there are affects of what I sold and gave away. Thankfully, I don't
have massive problems here yet with rodents, thieves, bat dung, or fires,
or Roman Armies causing me to flee!!
	In other words, distribution of text dates may indeed be
significant--they just don't signify what you propose. Did Essenes decline
at some point? Did they shift their centers over the decades? I've been to
plenty of libraries that are not up to date. Here we are dealing with
library--and maybe some genizah-- remnants, *not* one open for business. In
other words, your analogy with Cornell is not a reliable or necessarily apt
analogy.
	You apparently think the C14 AMS dates point to "one generation"
(with a few earlier). *They do not*. I have the numbers here, but not the
time to type them in--but you have them, anyway, and more info than I have.
4Q266 Damascus Document...first century AD; 4QpPs(a)...first century CE;
1QHymns......, but you know the numbers. That's why I merely refered to the
archives. Enough data is already there to show, with very high probability,
that some texts were after your "generation." This would be even more clear
if you defined your generation more clearly. But, as you say, you "know of
no basis to do so."
	You said you would love to see your proposal falsified. So, enjoy,
already!
best regards,
Stephen Goranson
goranson@duke.edu
fax 919 660 3530