[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--

	Greg Doudna
	Copenhagen