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 sets
of 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
