GREG Doudna
Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:45:06 -0700
Russell, I have been reading your scenario carefully and fail to follow you on two points: a) you cite the Onias III/Menalaus/Simon conflicts of I/II Macc. and say "this suggests" the Pharisees started in this context,first generation post-Simon II. However nothing in rabbinical tradition alludes
to that dating directly. I am guessing your argument is that because a high priest (Simon II) is named, and then the other figures are not high priests, that that is when the Pharisees departed from the temple high priest as their leader? But then you seem to have the Pharisees favoring "Simon the temple captain" (and Menalaus?), who do control the temple? I don't follow your logic here. And even more importantly, b) you seem to imply that Menalaeus and Simon the temple captain were Pharisee leaders, the first Pharisee leaders when splitting from the Sadducees. But why then are Menalaeus and Simon the temple captain never mentioned favorably by the rabbis--when they are claiming names from this very time frame? Do you have a good explanation for this silence? As you know, I argue in agreement with Michael Wise's 1st century BCE setting for the major figures of the pesharim, though differing with Wise on the identifications of the figures. In my article in the 2005 Lemche Festschrift I give four possible setsof identifications for TR, WP, Liar, and Lion of Wrath. In all four sets the TR
is Hyrcanus II, and in all four sets the figure "Manasseh" of pNah is the same as the Liar of pHab/pPs/CD. 1) TR = Hyrcanus II. WP = Aristobulus II. Liar = Aristobulus II. LW = Pompey. 2) TR = Hyrcanus II. WP = Antigonus Mattathias. Liar = Antigonus Mattathias. LW = Mark Antony 3) TR = Hyrcanus II. WP = Antigonus Mattathias. Liar = Herod. LW = Mark Antony 4) TR = Hyrcanus II. WP = Antigonus Mattathias. Liar = Herod. LW = Octavian Although in my 2001 4Q Pesher Nahum I argued for #1, in my later Lemche Festschrift article I gave arguments that could be raised in favor of #2, #3, and #4. The connection between the "Liar" and the SST/Pharisees would be especially well explained in #3 or #4 with Herod being pivotal in the Pharisees. Hyrcanus II makes an excellent TR for the following basic reasons: (a) extensive argument that the TR was an ex-high priest (b) TR as an ex-high priest in exile, with partisans (c) TR as opposed to WP/Liar figures in power. (d) TR as somehow related to those who composed some of the Qumran texts, collected them all, and deposited them at the site of Qumran which, it follows, they must have controlled. Hyrcanus II fits all of these characteristics admirably, particularly "d", control of the site of Qumran, in the wake of argument placing Qumran as an extension of the high priest's estate at Jericho. Even Shani Berrin, defender of the traditional views on pNah in most cases, has Hyrcanus II as opposed by Pharisees toward the end of his life. As for the pesharim and related texts and key figures therein being 1st BCE rather than 2nd BCE, there are these key points: a) As Wise argued in his JBL article, you have most of the text copies, and most of the "sectarian" text compositions being 1st BCE. All the action is 1st BCE. 2nd BCE gets alluded to a few times in passing--"Antiochus" in pNah and of course Antiochus in Daniel, but Daniel is one of the *past* prophets' texts by the time of the Qumran sectarian texts. b) why are pesharim which were essentially real-time prophesy or oracles which quickly became obsolete by circumstances, preserved in *single copies* a century later, with apparently no other pre-history or post-history to these texts? Granted, scenarios could be devised to account for later copies of 2nd BCE compositions, but it just is more economical to place the text compositions in 1st BCE too. c) The sobriquet-bearing figures in the pesharim as contemporary to those texts' authors, i.e. the implied present of the text is the actual present of the authors of those texts, is just basic. On this the majority of today's Qumran scholarship is, sorry, just out to lunch, for not seeing this. Some of the earlier scholars, Carmignac and van der Ploeg and a few others, got this right. d) In Pesher Nahum the figure of Manasseh is said to have a kingly reign, MLKWTW, "his reign", which alludes to kingship, which suggests 1st BCE when kings were reestablished, and is an argument against pNah, and by extension the other pesharim, being 2nd BCE before there were kings. e) In CD the "Liar" appears associated with themes of anti-niece marriage. This was one of Eisenman's early arguments for an anti-Herod theme in the scrolls. Although his 1st CE datings of scroll allusions are unconvincing (because there were not even any copies of Qumran texts in the caves copied as late as 1st CE, is why there are no 1st CE allusions at all) ... his point on the anti-niece polemic in CD could fit well with an anti-Herod the Great polemic in agreement with scenarios #3 or #4 in my list above. The biggest change in thinking, even above the others just named, is to get the old idea out of a TR who lived long ago and started a 100-200 year old sect by the time the pesharim are written at the late end of the Qumran texts. Instead, the picture should be inverted: the TR is contemporary with the late-end generation of composition and scribal copying of the Qumran texts. The so-called "Qumran sect" is not 100-200 years old by the time of the pesharim composition and deposits in the caves, but probably approximately one generation old at that stage. The Qumran "sect" is other words for a personality cult, the partisans and loyalists to the esteemed but deposed and exiled revered high priest, Hyrcanus II, the legitimate zadokite successor (unlike the illegitimate Aristobulus II and Antigonus Mattathias) to Alexander Jannaeus. There is a non-issue objection to Hrycanus II as TR that should be addressed: that his personality comes across as indecisive, therefore not the towering, etc. figure of the TR of the texts. I think most reading this can see this is a pseudo as opposed to a real objection, because this is all a function of storytellings. The portrayal of Hyrcanus II in Josephus probably stems largely from partisans of him who wanted to show his history of non-revolt, when he was on trial for his life accused of sedition by Herod. Another fruitful study could be to compare Hyrcanus II's portrayal of passiviity and the "Essene" doctrine of fatalism. But most fundamental of all, the TR is not about a real person, even though it is applied to a real person: it is about an image of an ideal high priest legislator. This is just basic emic and etic stuff. A second objection is that the Essene descriptions of literary sources do not extol Hyrcanus II. But those descriptions do not extol any founder-figure more recent than Moses. Therefore this objection is actually an objection to all identifications of TR by definition, rather than any particular one--assuming the Essenes/ Qumran texts affinity or identity is correct. I can however suggest why this is a non-issue. The TR has no afterlife as a literary figure after the Qumran texts. There are no gospels, no storytelling about his life using past-tense verbs, and so on. Why this is could be a subject for speculation. (The term "TR" shows up centuries later as a title but those uses show no sign of alluding to the Qumran texts' particular individual TR.) The point here is that this lack of an afterlife of the Qumran texts' TR-figure may correlate with the Qumran texts' TR not appearing in the "Essene" descriptions by name. (The other theoretical possibility of course is that the Essene descriptions are unrelated to supporters of the TR, which would remove this as a question.) I was asked once at an SBL presentation whether I advocated Hyrcanus II as TR as "novelty for novelty's sake". No, I made that argument because I think it is right. It is true that it had never previously been proposed, but I am not to blame for that. Greg Doudna Bellingham, Washington _________________________________________________________________Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and moreĀ then map the best route! http://local.live.com
_______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot