[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion-list evidently not 63 BCE
Russell, if we agree in not accepting the "one-generation" text production
proposal, that's welcomed.
Yet I claimed that Doudna's paleography essay "wrongly characterized the
archaeological publication on Gezer," which indeed is the case. See, for
example, the excavation final report volumes, or, for another example,
Dever's article in Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, or,
note all three IEJ contributions on this. My point is that there are a
variety of views on those inscriptions, and that Doudna did not properly
inform his readers about the state of the literature. I myself have no set
opinion on their date. Perhaps Cross will be shown to be mistaken in this
case; but Doudna did not demonstrate that.
In any case, the 63 BCE proposal is, by multiple kinds of evidence,
excluded.
best wishes,
Stephen Goranson
For private reply, e-mail to goranson@duke.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.