Gregory Doudna
B.A., Linguistics, University of Oregon (1991); M.A., Near Eastern Studies, Cornell (1992); Dr. Theology, University of Copenhagen (2002)
Supervisors: M.A., Near Eastern Studies, Cornell--Martin Bernal. Dr. Theol., U. of Copenhagen--Thomas L. Thompson.
Supervisors: M.A., Near Eastern Studies, Cornell--Martin Bernal. Dr. Theol., U. of Copenhagen--Thomas L. Thompson.
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Gregory Doudna
This essay appeared in Qumran Revisited: A Reassessment of the Archaeology of the Site and its Texts, by David Stacey and Gregory Doudna with a contribution from Gideon Avni, available from BAR Publishing, Oxford, at https://www.barpublishing.com/qumran-revisited-a-reassessment-of-the-archaeology-of-the-site-and-its-texts.html. The publisher requests this statement to appear: This version is free to view and download for personal use only. It cannot be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
It is argued that two striking large-scale data findings, unknown in the 1940s and 1950s but today well-developed and well-established, provide the argument and the evidence that the scroll deposits in Qumran's caves ended late first century BCE, earlier than commonly assumed.
These two data finds, each independently established and now widely accepted, "like flashing beacons" signal that the Qumran scholarly mainstream has erred on the fundamental issue of the date of the era of scroll deposit activity in the Qumran caves. The overlooked conclusion indicated from these two large-scale data signals is that there do not exist any first century CE literary texts among the Qumran cave finds, either in dates of composition or dates of scribal copying--among the hundreds of scrolls found in the caves of Qumran. Once this is realized, the scrolls of Qumran's caves may take their rightful place in scholarly understanding as the remains of a lost textual world ending in the late first century BCE in their entirety.
This article is the Accepted Version of the article available in its published form from Brill at https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004316508/B9789004316508_018.xml .
This is the Accepted Manuscript of a chapter at pp. 119-137 in Biblical Narratives, Archaeology, and Historicity: Essays in Honour of Thomas L. Thompson, ed. by E. Pfoh and L. Niesiolowski-Spanò (2020), available in print from Bloomsbury/T & T Clark at https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/biblical-narratives-archaeology-and-historicity-9780567686565/.
This is the Accepted manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge in Biblical Interpretation Beyond Historicity. Changing Perspectives 7 (2016), available at: https://www.routledge.com/Biblical-Interpretation-Beyond-Historicity-Changing-Perspectives-7-1st/Hjelm-Thompson/p/book/9781138889521
This is a book chapter published by Brill in Brooke and Høgenhaven, eds., The Mermaid and the Partridge (2011), available online: https://brill.com/view/title/19611.
(* E. Tov, "The Sciences and the Reconstruction of the Ancient Scrolls: Possibilities and Impossibilities", pp. 1-24 at 6 in A. Lange et al, eds, The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context, Vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 2011.)
This is the Accepted version of the article which I have formatted in style and page numbering to look like the published version. According to the Brill website, the book in which this article appeared is no longer in print (Flint & VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, Vol I, 1998).
My contribution, "The Sect of the Qumran Texts and its Leading Role in the Temple in Jerusalem During Much of the First Century BCE: Toward a New Framework for Understanding" (pp. 75-124), is posted separately above. Combined bibliography for all three contributions is at the end of the book.
This book is available from BAR Publishing, Oxford, at https://www.barpublishing.com/qumran-revisited-a-reassessment-of-the-archaeology-of-the-site-and-its-texts.html.
The download is excerpts from Chapter One.
These excerpts are quoted as fair use for purposes of discussion. The book is available from Bloomsbury, UK, at https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/4q-pesher-nahum-9781841271569/.
Although this little-known early monograph from me made mistakes--notably a major blunder in following a date of Laperrousaz for the end of Qumran's archaeological Period Ib that was too early, corrected in subsequent publications--at the same time this monograph pioneered several significant points of analysis of Qumran's archaeology which in subsequent years were adopted and mainstreamed by archaeologists who work with Qumran, not always credited. The download consists of excerpts which highlight the strengths of this 1999 monograph.
Excerpts of sections from this study of 1999, as titled in the original publication, in the attached download, include:
The archaeology of Qumran
Qumran's first period
No period Ib fire
Differences between Periods Ib and II
Period III
Animal bone deposits
Anatomy of a scholarly construction
Founded upon an archaeological error
Was any pottery produced at Qumran at all in Period II?
Lamps
Radiocarbon
Palaeography
An argument from Golb
Conclusion
The original Special Issue, rare, can be obtained from the publisher, Zdzislaw Kapera, Enigma Press, Cracow, at http://enigmapress.pl/chronicle.php, or alternatively Archaeopress, Cracow, at https://www.archeobooks.com/collections/the-qumran-chronicle.
This appeared in the January 2014 (vol. 2 no. 1) online issue of "The Ancient Near East Today" of the ASOR (American Schools of Oriental Research). It is my description and comment on the archaeological analysis of Qumran of the late David Stacey, in the book of the same title coauthored by Stacey and myself.
Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies (JOCABS) 12/1 (2022): 1-12
In the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, there is a mysterious, anonymous disciple that Jesus loved (Jn 13:21-26; 19:25-27; 20:1-10; 21:1-24). Traditionally, this disciple has been thought to have been John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles. But the Gospel itself does not directly name this disciple and there have been many theories concerning this figure’s identity. In this paper I argue on grounds both internal and external for an identification of this figure which has received hardly any consideration: the Apostle Andrew.
The argument and references of this paper are from a 1991 term paper I wrote during my first semester as a graduate student in the Near Eastern Studies department at Cornell, such that this is a shortened but faithful representation of the argument of that 1991 Cornell paper.
The paper can be seen in full at the link above.
This essay appeared in Qumran Revisited: A Reassessment of the Archaeology of the Site and its Texts, by David Stacey and Gregory Doudna with a contribution from Gideon Avni, available from BAR Publishing, Oxford, at https://www.barpublishing.com/qumran-revisited-a-reassessment-of-the-archaeology-of-the-site-and-its-texts.html. The publisher requests this statement to appear: This version is free to view and download for personal use only. It cannot be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
It is argued that two striking large-scale data findings, unknown in the 1940s and 1950s but today well-developed and well-established, provide the argument and the evidence that the scroll deposits in Qumran's caves ended late first century BCE, earlier than commonly assumed.
These two data finds, each independently established and now widely accepted, "like flashing beacons" signal that the Qumran scholarly mainstream has erred on the fundamental issue of the date of the era of scroll deposit activity in the Qumran caves. The overlooked conclusion indicated from these two large-scale data signals is that there do not exist any first century CE literary texts among the Qumran cave finds, either in dates of composition or dates of scribal copying--among the hundreds of scrolls found in the caves of Qumran. Once this is realized, the scrolls of Qumran's caves may take their rightful place in scholarly understanding as the remains of a lost textual world ending in the late first century BCE in their entirety.
This article is the Accepted Version of the article available in its published form from Brill at https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004316508/B9789004316508_018.xml .
This is the Accepted Manuscript of a chapter at pp. 119-137 in Biblical Narratives, Archaeology, and Historicity: Essays in Honour of Thomas L. Thompson, ed. by E. Pfoh and L. Niesiolowski-Spanò (2020), available in print from Bloomsbury/T & T Clark at https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/biblical-narratives-archaeology-and-historicity-9780567686565/.
This is the Accepted manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge in Biblical Interpretation Beyond Historicity. Changing Perspectives 7 (2016), available at: https://www.routledge.com/Biblical-Interpretation-Beyond-Historicity-Changing-Perspectives-7-1st/Hjelm-Thompson/p/book/9781138889521
This is a book chapter published by Brill in Brooke and Høgenhaven, eds., The Mermaid and the Partridge (2011), available online: https://brill.com/view/title/19611.
(* E. Tov, "The Sciences and the Reconstruction of the Ancient Scrolls: Possibilities and Impossibilities", pp. 1-24 at 6 in A. Lange et al, eds, The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context, Vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 2011.)
This is the Accepted version of the article which I have formatted in style and page numbering to look like the published version. According to the Brill website, the book in which this article appeared is no longer in print (Flint & VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, Vol I, 1998).
My contribution, "The Sect of the Qumran Texts and its Leading Role in the Temple in Jerusalem During Much of the First Century BCE: Toward a New Framework for Understanding" (pp. 75-124), is posted separately above. Combined bibliography for all three contributions is at the end of the book.
This book is available from BAR Publishing, Oxford, at https://www.barpublishing.com/qumran-revisited-a-reassessment-of-the-archaeology-of-the-site-and-its-texts.html.
The download is excerpts from Chapter One.
These excerpts are quoted as fair use for purposes of discussion. The book is available from Bloomsbury, UK, at https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/4q-pesher-nahum-9781841271569/.
Although this little-known early monograph from me made mistakes--notably a major blunder in following a date of Laperrousaz for the end of Qumran's archaeological Period Ib that was too early, corrected in subsequent publications--at the same time this monograph pioneered several significant points of analysis of Qumran's archaeology which in subsequent years were adopted and mainstreamed by archaeologists who work with Qumran, not always credited. The download consists of excerpts which highlight the strengths of this 1999 monograph.
Excerpts of sections from this study of 1999, as titled in the original publication, in the attached download, include:
The archaeology of Qumran
Qumran's first period
No period Ib fire
Differences between Periods Ib and II
Period III
Animal bone deposits
Anatomy of a scholarly construction
Founded upon an archaeological error
Was any pottery produced at Qumran at all in Period II?
Lamps
Radiocarbon
Palaeography
An argument from Golb
Conclusion
The original Special Issue, rare, can be obtained from the publisher, Zdzislaw Kapera, Enigma Press, Cracow, at http://enigmapress.pl/chronicle.php, or alternatively Archaeopress, Cracow, at https://www.archeobooks.com/collections/the-qumran-chronicle.
This appeared in the January 2014 (vol. 2 no. 1) online issue of "The Ancient Near East Today" of the ASOR (American Schools of Oriental Research). It is my description and comment on the archaeological analysis of Qumran of the late David Stacey, in the book of the same title coauthored by Stacey and myself.
Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies (JOCABS) 12/1 (2022): 1-12
In the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, there is a mysterious, anonymous disciple that Jesus loved (Jn 13:21-26; 19:25-27; 20:1-10; 21:1-24). Traditionally, this disciple has been thought to have been John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles. But the Gospel itself does not directly name this disciple and there have been many theories concerning this figure’s identity. In this paper I argue on grounds both internal and external for an identification of this figure which has received hardly any consideration: the Apostle Andrew.
The argument and references of this paper are from a 1991 term paper I wrote during my first semester as a graduate student in the Near Eastern Studies department at Cornell, such that this is a shortened but faithful representation of the argument of that 1991 Cornell paper.
The paper can be seen in full at the link above.