[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: orion 1st BCE generation
Thanks to R. Gmirkin for thoughtful comments.
On the diversity of scribal hands, language
forms, genres, etc., this to me seems
compatible with, and even suggestive of,
contemporaneity. Think library collections,
both ancient and modern.
However I know of no "weak form" of the
1st BCE generation hypothesis. The only
form I have is the strong form stated in the
Flint/Vanderkam article. The bulk of the
texts clustering at the late-end, with some
stretching back earlier, and the late end
for all texts sometime in the 1st BCE.
It is of keen interest to me whether any
argument can be set forth on grounds internal
to the texts for seeing Herod the Great in the
texts. Herod does not appear by name, but
perhaps an argument could establish his
presence indirectly? Herod the Great was THE
superstate--how could the scrolls not know of
Herod if texts were being authored subsequent
to Herod? I do not see any such text-internal
argument establishing Herod's presence myself,
but perhaps others might. If Herod is _not_
present in this huge quantity of Scrolls in
some way, somewhere, this to me is very
suggestive of the date of the late-end.
Remember, it only takes a single text indisputably
established in the 1st CE and the 1st BCE
generation hypothesis is dead in the water,
just like that.
On a separate matter, F. Cryer might not be
back to the office for a while. A comment was
made by one contributor to this list that Cryer's
reading of the Ostracon had been "rejected by
Greg Doudna . . . and evidently not
thought worth comment by Cross and Eshel."
Cross and Eshel's articles were submitted before
Cryer's appeared. In any case the issue of the
correctness of Cryer's reading of the Ostracon
had absolutely nothing to do with the 17 Dec
post of Cryer being responded to. (The point,
as I read Cryer's post, being not the
good faith of an archaeologist's report but the
distinct issue of human fallability and error in
a good faith report.) I am sure the poster was
well-intentioned, but nevertheless it could come
across as if ad hominem was being substituted
for responding to issues.
I for one respect every serious attempt at
engaging a difficult ostracon, and we are all
better off for the work that went into the
respective contributions of Cross/Eshel,
Yardeni, and Cryer on this text, even if not
more than one of the three divergent Line 8
readings can be correct. My name was cited
as if my preference for Yardeni's reading was
relevant to something (I don't know what).
Fred and I have spirited disagreements
concerning readings all the time; its all
in a day's work.
Holiday greetings to all. May there be
peace on earth in our lifetimes--