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

re: orion purview

Fra: Stephen Goranson[SMTP:goranson@duke.edu]
Sendt:  8, april 1998 20.23
Til:  orion@mscc.huji.ac.il
Cc:  goranson@duke.edu
Emne:  orion purview

I agree with Russell Gmirkin that it is "within the legitimate purview of
scholarship" to examine whether an inscription is authentic. What I
questioned is public claims of fraud which, so far, to my knowledge, have
not been publicly explained, nor defended, much less established.
S. Goranson

Since Fred Cryer has done no such thing (i.e. made any such public
charge) and since the Tel Dan inscription has not the least bit of
relevance to the topic matter of this list, why did SG raise this
ad hominem attack on Fred (in a previous post) in the middle of 
Fred's discussion of etymology of the word "Essene"?  

Cryer had nothing to do with rumors which have become
public concerning his book, and I am sure all scholars on this 
list respect the right of a person to work on and finish a book for 

If I have misunderstood SG and if his inquiry concerning the
prepublication contents of Fred's book, however irrelevant to
the Scrolls and however demanding the tone seemed to be, 
was a sincere inquiry for information on the Tel Dan 
inscription forgery issue, he can be directed to the article by
Garbini in _Accademia Dei Lincei_ 1994.  It is an Italian publication
and the article is in Italian.  Garbini argued that the inscription
is forged on grounds principally involving comparisons
with the Mesha and Zikkur inscriptions (which Garbini proposed
were used as a source by a modern forger).  I am not a source for
further information on this, and it is not my issue.  I hope this 
answers SG's question.  Fred is gone to the U.S. for two weeks 
so unable to answer himself.  

Greg Doudna