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

Re: orion 1st BCE generation

Dear Greg and group,
	Greg Douda, who has passed along much useful information and
analysis, nonetheless again (on 13 Dec) mixed two dates: the year 1 BC (or
the next year, 1 AD) with the as-yet unspecified year in which his
hypothetical, elusive, and anomalously-handed "one generation" ended. This
makes considerable difference, e.g., as to how many C14 date-ranges are
*completely* afterward. The assertion that one might expect one such dating
(of the tests so far) to be after is plausible; but if there are several
more after--as there indeed are for a "mid-1st BCE generation" end--it
becomes not plausible. What is unpersuasive here is the meta-analysis of
the C14 data. And that's even allowing all the other contraindications of
other Qumran data to be bracketed out, temporarily. Tree-ring measurement
comparisons (or an understanding that not all years within one date-range
are equally likely), I suggest, is not the lack at hand.
	Unless the "generation" is dated more explicitly or specifically,
this cannot be considered a proper hypothesis subject to clearly specific
statistical falsifiability; hence, such life as it may seem to some to have
owes more than a little to arbitrary fuzziness.
	Previously, a few on list urged a circa 63 BC ms deposit date. Then
c.55 BC was proposed. Now GD wrote of a "mid-century" generation [with a
center point of 50 BCE? and overlapping Herod's rule now?!]. This follows
GD's proposal that "Peitholaus" may appear in a 4Q text; Peitholaus, active
in war, died, as it happens, during 53-51 BC, according to Loeb War notes.
Mayhaps, this, or an attempt to be more plausibly in accord with the
available C14 data, has moved the proposal ahead in time; I don't know. In
any case, the more the generation is moved ahead, the more sectarian tests
and copies are older than it. These ms, together with those which are later
than it, IMO, show the whole "one generation" hypothesis a chimera.
Furthermore, to require falsifying 2-sigma date ranges to *begin* at least
several decades later than the proposed generation end is special pleading.
	It was helpful to read where this proposal originated: the Cornell
library, as a proposed analogy. If one is disinclined to hear from me--a
non-professional in the radiocarbon world--talk numbers, perhaps one can
consider analogies. Suppose we went to New England or New York to visit a
Shaker library--if they are still there. Assuming we could find one of the
last Shakers (are there any left?) to unlock the door for us, would we
expect to see a library with more 1990s books than, say, 1850s or 1870s
books? Or, to try another analogy, consider composers (Mozart, Sibelius,
Rossini, Beethoven, Clara Schumann, Verdi, Moondog...); shall we assume
they all produced evenly throughout their lifetimes? If one allows Shakers
and composers their own production-distribution, why not let the Qumran and
Essene evidence speak to us without assuming and insisting that Qumranites
and/or Essenes produced more and more, more quickly, then suddenly,
utterly, stopped.
best wishes,
Stephen Goranson