[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion-list evidently not 63 BCE
Dear Stephen Goranson,
I agree that Doudna's bibliographical citation on Gezer was less than
complete (as was that of Cross in his original article, though I find Cross's
omissions deliberately misleading). My own reading on the Gezer boundary
stones is less than exhaustive, but I think adequate; however, I appreciate
your mention of additional sources on same.
I do tend to believe that the Qumran corpus included texts older than the
last generation of the occupation of the site. However, I do not agree that
the 63 BCE proposal is yet to be excluded.
Sincerely,
Russell Gmirkin
> 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.
For private reply, e-mail to RGmyrken@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.