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

RE: orion-list Golb on 63 BCE

> Doudna wrote, quoting Golb:
> (4) As to why there are no secure post-63 BCE allusions in any of the
> Qumran texts, Golb said that was an argument from silence, that we
> know of only a fraction of the total number of texts hidden in the caves
> in antiquity.  Furthermore, the vast majority of texts have no references
> of any kind and are undated in this sense.  He did indicate the lack of 
> post-63 BCE references was puzzling and he had no good explanation 
> for it, but that most likely it was simple accident that only pre-63 BCE 
> references survive.  In his view, such an argument from silence was not 
> enough to overthrow the sound reasons which converge upon the First 
> Revolt Jerusalem texts-and-wealth hiding scenario.
> Greg Doudna
> Copenhagen   
	[Niels Peter Lemche]  It is only an argument from silence if you in
advance assume that 70 CE is the date. However , to   maintain this without
evidence is a postulatre and not a hypothesis. So the basis of the argument
is that I postulate that 70 CE is the date and any argument against this is
from silence. It has little with scholarship to do but represents a false
argument. Doudna's insistence that there are no references covering event
post 63 BCE says that there are no manuscripts that belongs to the period
after 63 BCE is the only corrrect observation here--assuming that it is
correct that there are no references to events post-dating 63 BCE. It is as
a matter of fact quite simple.

For private reply, e-mail to Niels Peter Lemche <npl@teol.ku.dk>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il 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.