[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion-list radiocarbon/63
I wish to argue strongly, in agreement with Ian although not always for
the same reasons, that a 63 BCE terminus is the strongest existing
hypothesis concerning the latest deposit date for the Qumran texts,
when all evidence is considered. I am not too concerned about that
4QpPs radiocarbon date because I predict its apparent 1st CE dating
will disappear upon further investigation as have 100 percent of the dates
at the edges of the total distribution which have been rechecked (i.e.
4QTQahat and 4QSd). I will follow the evidence wherever it leads,
provided only that it is indeed real and substantial evidence. I think any
notions that individual radiocarbon dates on Scrolls texts can be relied
upon as stand-alone evidence for major conclusions must be dispensed
with for the moment until the contamination problem is demonstrably
solved. (Corroborated or redundant patterns of data are another matter.)
It may be useful to consider this issue in terms of the history and
sociology
of scholarship. Why did anyone get the idea that there ever were 1st
century
CE Qumran texts in the first place? The original intuition of, e.g.
Harding,
de Vaux, and Wm F Albright, were that the Cave 1 Scrolls were deposited
no later than mid-1st BCE (Albright: a "pre-Herodian date in the last two
centuries B.C. is beyond dispute", BASOR 115, 1949, p. 14). What changed
was de Vaux dug Qumran in 1951. In that first excavation season de Vaux
thought there was only a 1st CE habitation at Qumran (see his report in
RQ 1953). De Vaux announced to the world that the pre-Roman period
deposit date was in error and that the scrolls went as late as a 1st century
CE date of deposit. It was only in de Vaux's second season, in 1952, that
de Vaux discovered Qumran had a 1st BCE habitation as well. But by then
the 68 CE scenario for the scrolls was established. To put it bluntly, the
whole thing was started based on a mistake and a screwup in
archaeological interpretation. The scholarly construction then fed on
itself.
But when looked at closely there was nothing substantial there.
It is as the late Jonas Greenfield said of de Vaux's archaeology (on another
matter): "The problem is we all bought de Vaux hook, line, and sinker."
This is now well recognized concerning de Vaux's idea that sectarians
built the site instead of the Hasmonean fortress/settlement regional
interpretation. One after another the basic pillars of de Vaux's
interpretive
structure are tumbling down, a process which is continuing, whether it is
the cemetery, the dating of the periods; the assumption of continuity of
inhabitants; the interpretation of building remains in terms of monastic
structures; etc. etc. Is de Vaux's dating of the late end of the scroll
deposits to 68 CE simply one more de Vaux blunder that the Qumran
field has bought hook, line, and sinker? I think it is exactly that.
As has now been pointed out many times, there is no Qumran text reflecting
the Herodian period: no name, no battle, no demonstrable allusion to the
War of 66 CE, etc. None of the pseudepigrapha which have allusions to
the Herodian era, e.g. 4 Ezra, are attested at Qumran. On the other hand,
the date of 63 BCE and the figure of Pompey stand out in the Scrolls in the
apparent late-end texts. There are the names in 4QMishC, as brought out by
Ian, which run up to c. 63 BCE and then stop. There is 4Q448 with its pro-
Alexander Jannaeus hymn. There is 4Q245, the list of high priests published
by Flint that goes up to Jonathan and Simon Maccabaeus. There is the
reference to Demetrius III in pNah of c. 88 BCE.
In the literary texts, 1QpHab knows of a Roman threat and anticipates a
Roman conquest, and is best read as composed in the era immediately
prior to 63 BCE. I believe Segal 1951 and later Dupont-Sommer were
correct that the "head of the kings of Yavan" of CD is an allusion to
Pompey,
written in anticipation of the same Roman conquest. And in my own study
of 4QpNah, now complete and submitted for the Danish doctorate, I argue
and I believe establish that the the Lion of Wrath is Pompey (and not
Alexander Jannaeus), a conclusion which has the most far-reaching
implications for an understanding of the historical context of the Qumran
texts. In contrast to the absolute lack of a secure textual allusion to
anything after 63 BCE, there are these massive internal textual signals
within the Qumran texts pointing to the arrival of Pompey and 63 BCE as
the watershed. I call it the water spigot argument. The texts flourish and
breathe ferment and expectations in the era leading up to the arrival of
Pompey, and then, all at once, appear to shut off to zero, suddenly at 63
BCE.
The scrolls deposits then become situated far more naturally at the end of
Qumran's Period Ib, not Period II. (Period II activity at Qumran becomes
something different and irrelevant.) The end of Period Ib becomes perhaps
situated in Josephus in the forced abandonment of the fortresses ordered by
Pompey and the Romans. (Whether or not Qumran was one of those
fortresses the site presumably would have ceased to function effectively in
its regional purpose.) As for palaeographic dating of the Qumran texts,
please see my critique of Cross's methods on the orion web page. Simply
put, there is nothing in Cross's palaeography that establishes post-63 BCE
Qumran text scribal activity.
And so we come now to the radiocarbon dates. Ian and I are perceived as
challenging something well-established or factual, as if the 63 BCE
proposal is somehow odd or unusual. But which date terminus is the odd
one? The 68 CE terminus never was established or shown to be a fact. It is
not that the apparent post-63 BCE AMS dates are confirming what was
already "known". In fact, these AMS dates are giving the possibility of
establishing truly new information, i.e. a real basis to know the existence
of post-63 BCE Qumran textual activity for the first time. But the issue is
one of evidence: has the existing AMS data in fact securely said this?
And I say, no, it has not.
Twice when AMS dates were produced that differed from conventional
assumptions, both at the edges, they were rechecked. In both cases,
two out of two, the rechecking confirmed or established reason to dispute
those "outlier" datings. But pPs, which is in exactly the same relative
position
as those first two, i.e. at one edge of the total distribution, and giving
an AMS
date in a century in which there was no prior evidence of Qumran textual
activity,
was treated differently. It was not double-checked. It is not
"objectivity" that
rejects 4QTQahat and 4QSamd #1 while retaining a belief or provisional
belief
in 4QpPsA. Consider that it is the scholarly construction which has shaped
the responses toward these data points in different ways, and is thereby
skewing perception. How can we disentangle ourselves from inherited,
flawed constructions, and come to see clearly?
Gmirkin is correct that my single-generation 1st BCE hypothesis (which is
not shared by Ian) is in principle distinguishable from the 63 BCE terminus
(which is shared by Ian and me). I agree that if the AMS date on 4QpPs--
which is neither known to be true nor known to be false but is instead in
a third category: uncertain--is corroborated and verified that kills the 63
BCE hypothesis. But because I see the 63 BCE terminus as having very
strong prima facie grounds, I will defend its right to exist until there is
secure
evidence contradicting it. I agree also that the four other AMS dates whose
2-sigma ranges narrowly but entirely postdate 63 BCE cannot reasonably
be explained as all sample contaminations. I have already cited from the
authors of the Seattle-Belfast calibration curve the cautions that there is
a
c. +/- 20 uncertainty concerning regional variation. This is not simply
hypothetical but is supported from studies. It is not for me to prove a
regional
offset in the Middle East. It is for anyone who is sure there is not one in
the
Middle East to prove that. Nevertheless, tomorrow or the next day (in light
of
Tim Jull listening in and perhaps willing to comment) I will post an
argument
from existing Scrolls radiocarbon data which I believe suggests the
existence
of a regional offset in the Middle East in the direction predicted and
necessitated by the 63 BCE terminus hypothesis (yet the argument is
independent of that hypothesis).
Some orioners may have noticed the discussion on 63 BCE has appeared
on other lists. I intend to stay here on orion, and hope that others may
correct any misunderstandings or misrepresentations as they may occur
on other lists from time to time. Thank you.
Greg Doudna
Copenhagen
For private reply, e-mail to Greg Doudna <gd@teol.ku.dk>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.