[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion-list text criticism; palaeography
To Rochelle Altman: having read your rebuttal (Sept 17) to Tom
Simms (Sept 16), I fail to see any correlation between your
criticisms of Simms and what he wrote. What a pre-5th
century BCE date of fixing for the Pentateuch has to do with
anything Tom Simms said is difficult to fathom. Simms cited
a comment concerning the fluidity of the Masoretic text in the
1st-2nd centuries CE which is hardly an illegitimate position.
Please read Emanuel Tov, _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible_, 1992 on this. The fluidity of the text, in the sense that
Simms meant, is well-known among the 2nd-1st BCE Qumran
biblical texts and familiar to all Qumran scholars on this list,
many of whom I know would be happy to help if you need
advising as to further bibliography on this point.
> Please, pretty please, you simply cannot make such statements without
> reading the primary sources, you simply can't. For instance, there is
> a ton of internal evidence that the Pentateuch was fixed before the
> exile... this requires knowledge of Hebrew, linguistics, and a study
> of Hebrew and Early Christian music.
>
>
Concerning your two posts to me of Sept 12 and Sept 14, surely
you must know, if you are a native speaker of English (are you?)
that the idiom "coining a term" has nothing to do with claiming
origination or invention of an idea. You clubbed me for an
incidental and accurate use of this idiom in the course of a
discussion I was having with someone else. If you are not a native
speaker of English I can understand that this might be an honest
mistake. But in that case I am surprised that in your second post,
once it was brought to your attention, you did not simply say
"excuse me". Instead, you brought out your sledgehammer again
and brought it down on my head with twice as much force.
This second time you attacked me on the charge that, even
if I had not actually claimed originality, I should have acknowledged
prior history of scholarship in Latin and Greek palaeography in my
6-page critique of Cross's palaeographic dating methods for Qumran
texts on the orion web page, and that my failure to do so was (I am
paraphrasing) gross incompetence, etc. etc. I am sure you are
aware that criticizing an article or a book for what it failed to include
is one of the oldest ploys in the reviewing and academic evaluation
business. (I have seen students maliciously evaluated by
professors using this handy, all-purpose genre of criticism.) To put
it succinctly, I don't think the absence of discussion or reference
to 19th or early 20th century history of scholarship in Latin and
Greek palaeography will be reasonably perceived as a significant
omission by most readers in terms of the scope and objectives
of that 6-page paper.
Nevertheless, that aside, what you wrote concerning "archaeological"
palaeographic dating in the 1800's and first half of the 1900's in
Greek and Latin scripts, and its becoming discredited by the 1940's-
1950's, indeed is very interesting and of great potential significance
to this discussion. I will track down the references you suggested--
and thanks. But do you have any bibliographic references relating
to this issue more recent than 1913? (Give me something useful
from more recent and I will give you a glowing footnote in my
publication.) As for the issue of the Qumran text deposits, I
disagree with most of your analysis but let us take that up at
another time. I hope you're surviving the earthquake OK, and
best wishes,
Greg Doudna
Copenhagen
For private reply, e-mail to Greg Doudna <gd@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.