[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion An Archeleus-era historical allusion?
Thanks, Greg Doudna, for an interesting post with several useful
observations and questions. I had already been looking for this issue of
JJS, which has disappeared from its assigned place at Duke library (!), so
I cannot comment on Magen Broshi's article yet. But, in case any of these
are useful for a constructive list discussion, here are a few comments.
As you know, there are relatively few explicit personal names in
Qumran mss. This affects whether distribution patterns are statistically
significant. And some of these are not precisely datable by historical
allusions; for example, the names in 4Q477, which has been called "Rebukes
of the Overseer"--though that title itself was subsequently rebuked. And
some of these names (e.g., 4QpNah and some calendars) were necessarily
written and also yet again subsequently copied (if not autographs) some
time after the events--but how long after? And the text known as the
"Yahad" ostracon, with its names, is dated as early Herodian by Ada Yardeni
and late Herodian by Cross and Eshel; the archaeological context indicates
a date before circa 70 CE; Cross and Eshel, I think mistakenly, prefer a
date of 68 CE; but a date earlier than Herodian appears excluded.
Has Broshi or anyone checked the available prosopographies to see
approximately how common the name Ptolas was, and, more precisely, where
else, if anywhere, and when, it appears?
Greg, would you or anyone else care to comment on whether on the
article in the current Qumran Chronicle on C14 dating of date palm wood
from Qumran--is their analysis significant, accurate, and new?
On names, Esti Eshel's article (in orion bibl. I think) on names in
Qumran mss might be worth consulting (on the chance that Broshi didn't
already cite it).
Naturally, the relevance of Jodi Magness' excellent contributions
to revising Qumran archaeological periods comes to mind.
More Qumran mss are from first century BC than any other century,
which is interesting, though not necessarily surprising, given that the
archaeology suggests more residence there in that century than any other.
Especially if the caves represent in some sense some Kh. Qumran Essene
genizahs as well as libraries.
Of course we on list have discussed the following issue at length
on orion already; it's in the archives; no need to repeat it all. I have
now had the opportunity to read your article in Flint/VanderKam volme 1,
which, as usual, offers a great deal of technical information and reflects
substantial research. But, for list newcomers, with respect: the theory
which you would love to see falsified has, of course, already been
falsified. Lack of a precise date of the first Herodian hand surely does
not dismiss the sequential bulk of work, not only of Cross, but of Yardeni
and others. The statistics on AMS dating simply do not confirm your
description of "single-generation" production. And of course some mss date
later; these could be called anomalies only due to intruding
presuppositions, though of course future tests (presumably including some
which will benefit from your technical imput) will increase the statistical
assurance of the overall results. Furthermore, evolution of texts including
S and D argue against "one-generation" history.
Again, thanks to Greg Doudna for the interesting message.
fax 919 660 3530