Re: [Megillot] some recent publications

[. .]

Dear Steve, It would sure help if you put your Hebrew letters in a readable Hebrew font.  Or am I missing something?  This is אשר in Hebrew.  You have )$r. Andrew Fincke ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, September 24, 2006 10:27 am Subject: [Megillot] some recent publications > Here are a few notes spurred by recent reading, in hope--despite > scatteredcounsels of despair and proposals to obliterate Essenes-- > that they may suggest > possibilities of learning some megillot-related history. An > unscientificselection: surely not all of the many interesting new > publications; merely some > that I thought to mention. > > In the Puech Festschrift, From 4Q448 to Resurrection... (STDJ 61, > 2006) Annette > Steudel makes a smart, interesting,yet unpersuasive to me > suggestion: What if > 4Q448 were the "lost beginning of MMT"? E.g.: "4Q448 and 4QMMT are > the only > texts from Qumran which attest to both phenomena: the interchange > of & and S > along with the regular graphical representation of sin, as well as > the use of > -$ along with )$R as relative particle."(251) In brief, she > presents good > reasons to compare the two texts, and tries to see if they (and > 4Q523) fit as > both addressed to either Jonathan or Alexander Jannaeus. > Increasingly apparent > (see below), Jonathan (and anyone earlier than him, e.g. Menelaus) > is too early > to fit the time of the intra-Jewish sectarianism as described in > Qumran mss. So, > in my view, most plausible: 4QMMT was addressed to Jannaeus, early > in his role > as high priest; 4Q448, written later, sometime after he declared > himself king, > and probably not sent to Jannaeus but condemning him. > > For the growing recognition that 4Q448 condemns King Jonathan > (Jannaeus) we turn > to an example from John Collins in the Ulrich Festschrift (SuppVT > 101, 2006): > "The slightly awkward disjunction of the king and his people is > outweighed by > the normal usage of (WR (L" (228n), citing Lemaire in Laperrousaz > 1997. (In the > Puech FS 2006 Lemaire has more to say on Psalm 154: it's > worthwhile to compare > that, in col. A of 448, with the anti-King columns B and C.) Other > side notes > before moving to Collins' main subject: he writes of the > "stereotypical and > allusive language of the Pesharim," which, I add, contrasts with > RussellGmirkin's recent online assertion of "demonstrably exact > and accurate" pesharim > language, referring to use of M$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 > historicalallusions, 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 > EasternSociety (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 > _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot