Re: Archaeological dating of 15 BCE - 6 CE for the Qumran cave text deposits?
- From: "Carl" <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Feb 2007 11:45:12 -0800
On Jan 28, 4:34 pm, "grapheus" <graph...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Interesting, but not as "revolutionary" as the author is claiming !
From the Radiocarbon dating of the scrolls, it is almost SURE that
they came from a Library, probably the one at Jerusalem, as some
scholars have supposed. The question is WHEN did this move occur ?>From the dating of the lamps, it seems that it has been between 15 BCE
and 6 CE, i.e. a little before, and not at the time of, the First
Revolt.
grapheus
Hi Grapheus,
Barbara Thiering and Greg Doudna have differing views; you be the
judge as to who is right.
I add that in my opinion Dr. Thiering's case is vastly stronger.
Carbondating
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2674
"Doudna's Arguments concerning 4QpPs a and 1QpHab
While making valuable observations about the uncertainties of
carbondating,Doudna's discussion of the two most significant documents
for the Christian connection, 4QpPs a and 1QpHab, rests on unwarranted
assumptions which are contrary to historical evidence or to the
contents of the Scrolls. His main assumption, used not only in this
case but in his treatment ofother documents (4QTQahat and 4QLevi a ar,
Doudna 1998 p. 445) is that if two documents, recorded by different
scribes, are closely related in subject-matter, then their writing
materials must have been manufactured at similar dates. This is an
unsustainable assumption, on general grounds. If two authors both
discuss the same contemporary events, it does not prove that their
writing paper was manufactured at the same time, or even in the same
generation. Further, the evidence for the Essene use of old materials
for religious reasons rules out this assumption altogether.
Doudna, agreeing that the subject-matters and styles of the two key
documents are closely related, and that there was only one copy of
each of the pesharim, says: "There is thus good reason to expect that
4QpPs a and 1QpHab should be contemporaneous both in composition and
in their single scribal copies.If this analysis is correct, the
apparent difference in radiocarbon dates for 1QpHab and 4QPs a may
represent not a real difference in dates, but rather an anomaly in the
radiocarbon measurements' (p. 453). Later hespeaks of "the older
radiocarbon date for 1QpHab, with which the scribal copy 4QpPs a ought
to be contemporaneous". (p. 461).
Choosing between the two dates, he concludes that 1QpHab is the
preferable one. He holds that 4QpPs a may be an "outlier", a
measurement that differs from that of other similar items without
known cause, possibly through error. But his reason for this comes
from a hypothesis that is not reconcileable with the contents : that
all the Qumran Scrolls belong together in a single generation. He says
that "since 4QpPs a has the youngest radiocarbon date for Qumran texts
in either laboratory's group, its results are a priori of less secure
confidence than the dates for the others'. (p. 461).
Few Scrolls scholars would agree that all the Scrolls belong together
in a single generation. The foundation studies of such documents as
the Community Rule and the Damascus Document, and of their relation to
other documents, showed a process of development of the organisation
over time. Further, the documents naming or reflecting the Teacher are
a special group, which must be treated separately, as noted above.
Some of the Scrolls show no knowledge of the Teacher and his
distinctive doctrines and organization. It is the pesharim, together
with the Damascus Document, the Community Rule probably, the Hymns of
Thanksgiving, and other possible inclusions, that are relevant to the
question of the Teacher. Within this group, all of the documents
carbondated so far are capable of placing him in the first Christian
century ,as will be further shown below. Of the pesharim, only two of
the eighteen have so far been carbondated. It is erroneous to compare
4QpPs a with documents to which it is not related, and to say on this
basis that it is an "outlier".
In comparing 1QpHab and 4QpPs a on the question of contamination,
Doudna gives two reasons why the former was not contaminated. Of
these, the first reason- that it was never in the Rockefeller Museum,
where it is known that castor oil was used to make the letters clearer
- is unpersuasive, for if the use of castor oil was a routine
procedure, as stated, it may have been employed elsewhere. The second
reason is more likely, that the tested piece was from a large amount
of blank space, which would not have been subjected to castor oil. But
this point applies also to 4QpPs a, which has wide margins. Doudna,
suggesting that 4QpPs a might have been contaminated, states that it
was not subjected to acetone treatment, which would have removed
castor oil, but he does not give any positive evidence that it was
affected by castor oil. In fact, in his footnote 59 he allows that it
is "intrinsically unlikely" that any given sample was so affected. (He
does not mention that it was one of Tucson's "relatively clean" Type 1
parchment samples.)
It would appear that Doudna's final proposal, that "the first century
CE disappears from Qumran's textual horizon" (p.464) is not justified,
either by his discussion of carbondating, concerning which he has
mainly emphasized its uncertainty, or by carbondating taken in
conjunction with paleography and the contents of the Scrolls."
All the best,
David Christainsen
Boston, Mass USA
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Does this building technique have a name?
- Next by Date: Re: Does this building technique have a name?
- Previous by thread: Does this building technique have a name?
- Next by thread: Re: Archaeological dating of 15 BCE - 6 CE for the Qumran cave text deposits?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
