[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
In the end, the hurtful and potentially damaging charge from Stephen
Goranson that I had misrepresented radiocarbon science amounted
to a simple disagreement in interpretation, nothing more than that.
I hope that this is sufficiently clear to orioners that it needs no further
comment. I have sought hard to accurately convey the science,
cite the sources, disclose relevant information, and then make
my arguments. For anyone at Arizona listening, I have not
improperly claimed any endorsements for my interpretation or
analysis of the data, contrary to what may have been said
irresponsibly on this list. And to the list, I watched with amazement
at the posts of the past week (I had nothing to do with the posts
written in my defense). I can fully understand why someone
like Tim Jull, a serious scientist and now editor of _Radiocarbon_,
would feel no desire to post on this list again. That opportunity
appears to be lost.
For those with access to the Flint & Vanderkam article (1998) with
the table of radiocarbon dates, note how a line can be drawn at
about c. 50 BCE that touches all one- and two-sigma date ranges
except 4QTQahat at the early end and 4QpPsA at the late end.
With a c. 20 regional uncertainty, all but one of the existing
radiocarbon dates is compatible with an hypothesis of no text
activity later than an endpoint somewhere between about 70 and
30 BCE. This is not in any way positive evidence for such an
hypothesis. It is simply that, with the exception of 4QpPsA, the
distribution is not inconsistent with such an hypothesis--of a late-
end for the texts sometime between 70 and 30 BCE, with most
text production at the late end, sometime in the mid-1st century BCE.
The linchpin of the prevailing conception that there exist 1st CE
Qumran texts is not really the 4QpPsA radiocarbon date, which
only came into existence in 1995. The linchpin is the palaeographic
dating schematic system of Cross, developed in the 1950's in a
climate when the 68 CE deposit date of de Vaux was simply
assumed as the most basic of facts. I solicit any comments
concerning my article, "Palaeography and the dating of individual
Qumran texts" posted on the Orion web page. (Just click on the
home page address at the bottom of this post to get to it.) That
6-page article is from an appendix of my big pNah book which
should be out next year. I felt the issue was sufficiently important
and timely, no pun intended, to post it now on orion.
Gregory L. Doudna
U. of Copenhagen Dead Sea Scrolls Initiative
Kobmagergade 44-46 tel: (45) 35 32 36
1150 Kobenhavn K fax: (45) 35 32 36
For private reply, e-mail to Greg Doudna <email@example.com>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.