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

Re: orion-list evidently not 63 BCE

Dear Stephen Goranson,

    I agree that Doudna's bibliographical citation on Gezer was less than 
complete (as was that of Cross in his original article, though I find Cross's 
omissions deliberately misleading).  My own reading on the Gezer boundary 
stones is less than exhaustive, but I think adequate; however, I appreciate 
your mention of additional sources on same.  
    I do tend to believe that the Qumran corpus included texts older than the 
last generation of the occupation of the site.  However, I do not agree that 
the 63 BCE proposal is yet to be excluded.  

    Russell Gmirkin

>   Russell, if we agree in not accepting the "one-generation" text production
>  proposal, that's welcomed. 
>   Yet I claimed that Doudna's paleography essay "wrongly characterized the
>  archaeological publication on Gezer," which indeed is the case. See, for
>  example, the excavation final report volumes, or, for another example,
>  Dever's article in Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, or,
>  note all three IEJ contributions on this. My point is that there are a
>  variety of views on those inscriptions, and that Doudna did not properly
>  inform his readers about the state of the literature. I myself have no set
>  opinion on their date. Perhaps Cross will be shown to be mistaken in this
>  case; but Doudna did not demonstrate that.
>   In any case, the 63 BCE proposal is, by multiple kinds of evidence,
>  excluded.
For private reply, e-mail to RGmyrken@aol.com
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.