Here are a few notes spurred by recent reading, in hope--despite scattered counsels of despair and proposals to obliterate Essenes--that they may suggest possibilities of learning some megillot-related history. An unscientific selection: surely not all of the many interesting new publications; merely some that I thought to mention.
In the Puech Festschrift, From 4Q448 to Resurrection... (STDJ 61, 2006) Annette Steudel makes a smart, interesting,yet unpersuasive to me suggestion: What if 4Q448 were the "lost beginning of MMT"? E.g.: "4Q448 and 4QMMT are the only texts from Qumran which attest to both phenomena: the interchange of & and S along with the regular graphical representation of sin, as well as the use of -$ along with )$R as relative particle."(251) In brief, she presents good reasons to compare the two texts, and tries to see if they (and 4Q523) fit as both addressed to either Jonathan or Alexander Jannaeus. Increasingly apparent (see below), Jonathan (and anyone earlier than him, e.g. Menelaus) is too early to fit the time of the intra-Jewish sectarianism as described in Qumran mss. So, in my view, most plausible: 4QMMT was addressed to Jannaeus, early in his role as high priest; 4Q448, written later, sometime after he declared himself king, and probably not sent to Jannaeus but condemning him. For the growing recognition that 4Q448 condemns King Jonathan (Jannaeus) we turn to an example from John Collins in the Ulrich Festschrift (SuppVT 101, 2006): "The slightly awkward disjunction of the king and his people is outweighed by the normal usage of (WR (L" (228n), citing Lemaire in Laperrousaz 1997. (In the Puech FS 2006 Lemaire has more to say on Psalm 154: it's worthwhile to compare that, in col. A of 448, with the anti-King columns B and C.) Other side notes before moving to Collins' main subject: he writes of the "stereotypical and allusive language of the Pesharim," which, I add, contrasts with Russell Gmirkin's recent online assertion of "demonstrably exact and accurate" pesharim language, referring to use of M$L and MLK. Gmirkin's characterization reminds of Barbara Theiring's detailed "pesher method," and her too-late scenario on the other time extreme from Gmirkin. One of Collins' observations why Jannaeus is not excluded as Wicked Priest (219): "It may be significant that the priest is never said to be king (MLK). But again, M$L can refer to kingly rule, as it does in 4QpIsa a 3:25 in the context of Isaiah 11." Collins' main subject is given in his title, "The Time of the Teacher: an Old Debate Renewed," in part a response to M.O. Wise's JBL 2003 article that argued for a date later than the first Jonathan. (Wise proposed many historical allusions, but insufficiently soeted out the one relevant to identify WP and TR.) To be brief, switching to the question of dating the Wicked Priest is a better starting place (here I think Gmirkin and I agree), Collins offers pros and cons for the first Jonathan, for Jannaeus, and for Hyrcanus II. He largely eliminates the former as probably too early, among other reasons, but does not settle for one of the other two. Though I agree with most of Collins' observations, I disagree with his needlessly vague conclusion. I suggest the evidence adds up to strong indication of Jannaeus as Wicked Priest and Hyrcanus II as too late and too weak to be Wicked Priest. (Of G. Doudna's 2001 book [that proposed Hyrcanus II as Teacher of Righteousness] Collins notes (213n) that it "...offers distinctive, if not eccentric, identifications of the main figures." Collins apparently wrote before the 2005 JBL Schofield and Vanderkam "Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?" article, which also lessens the reasons to look at candidates as early as the first Jonathan or earlier. Someone asked about literacy lately, so, perhaps see also P.S. Alexander, "Literacy among Jews in Second Temple Palestine: Reflections on the Evidence from Qumran," 2-24 in the T. Muraoka FS, Hamlet on a Hill, OLA 118, 2003. Speaking of literacy, Alam Millard's FS, Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society (2005) includes some interesting stuff, e.g, G. Brooke, "4Q341: An Exercise for Spelling or Spells?" There are many constructive developments in Qumran history research. Hopefully, if hype-publicized Rube Goldberg clay machine proposals and flawed, myth-laden history of scholarship distortions won't distract too long from the wealth of new evidence useful to historians. best, Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene" _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
