A key point in assessment of my Hyrcanus II/TR proposal
is the prior question of whether the TR is or was a high
priest, in which case he would be some figure known in
history, or whether he was not a high priest, in which case
he might or might not be known in history. I have been
asked offlist to comment on this.
As context, the notion that the TR is 2nd century BCE has been
the majority view in DSS scholarship, with 1st BCE being a minority
view. Similarly, among those who hold to 2nd BCE, the notion
that the TR is an ex-high priest is the majority view, with
the TR being a non-ex-high priest being the minority view.
My Hyrcanus II/TR proposal is the first time a proposal has been
made to combine these separate views--that the TR
is 1st BCE and is an ex-high priest. These two arguments
have never been combined before.
On the matter of TR as (ex-) high priest, this must be broken down
into clarifying subquestions:
1) Is there positive reason to suppose the TR was regarded internally
to the authors of the Qumran texts in high-priestly terms?
2) Is there positive reason to suppose the TR was formerly
an actual high priest ruling in Jerusalem?
3) Is there positive reason to exclude the TR from having been
an ex-high priest ruling in Jerusalem?
(If the answers to #2 and #3 are "no", that would still not exclude
the TR from having been a high priest. It would mean instead that
he may or may not have been.)
In my study of pNah I addressed these questions by reviewing
some former studies on these matters. My conclusions to the
above questions are Yes, Yes, and No.
On question #1:
The TR is a priest (1QpHab 2:8; 4QpPsA 1-10 iii 15). Many incidental
elements in the portrayal of the T suggest he is a high priestly figure,
such as his teachign (in the term MWRH) and his lawgiving
(4QpPsA 1-10 iii 8-9). Compare this description of Diodorus of
Sicily 40.6:
"authority over the people [of the Jews] is regularly invested
in whichever priest is regarded as superior by his colleagues
in wisdom and virtue. They call this man the high priest, and
believe that he acts as a messenger to them of God's
commandments. It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies
and other gatherings announces what is ordained, and the
Jews are so docile in such matters that straightway they fall
to the ground and do reverence to the high priest when he
expounds the commandments to them..."
I say one could hardly better paraphrase the figure of the TR of
the Qumran texts (compare CD 20.32-33; pHab 2.2-10; 4Q376 2.1-3).
Compare also 2 Chron 15.3, KHN MWRH, "priestly teacher". Buchanan
1969 (RQ 6: 553-558) argued that CD 20.27-34, in which the TR
leads people in confessing sin, healing, and atonement from God,
indicates that the T functions as a high priest (in the world of this
text and to these authors).
(Incidentally, and interestingly, although Diodorus's description above
would apply to any high priest, my understanding is that Diodorus is
probably reflecting Hyrcanus II specifically as the likely prototype or
contemporary high priest prompting this generalized description.)
On question #2.
That the TR was not simply understood and regarded in high-priestly
terms internal to the authors of the pesharim/CD but actually was
one externally in Jerusalem has been developed in a number of
studies, principally in German not translated into English. This
includes Hartmut Stegemann, several publications but e.g.
1992 ("The Qumran Essenes" article in Trebolle Barrera and
Vegas Montaner eds, _Madrid Qumran Congress" volume, Leiden,
vol. I, p. 149) and 1998 (_The Library of Qumran_, eng. trans.,
Eerdmans and Brill, pp. 147-148). Summarizing earlier dissertations of
Jeremias and Schulz and studies of himself, Stegemann), Stegemann
argued that the T's titles, his leading function among his followers
in the texts, and the nature of the authority which he claims
and which is attributed to him make him a high priest. Stegemann
refers especially to a German dissertation by Schulz (which unfortunately
I never have been able to obtain or see and know only from Stegemann's
description) which apparently was significant in this argument.
The implied author of 1QH(a) who understands mysteries, who is the Maskil
who knows God (1QH(a) 20.11-13), etc. has long been identified as the
voice of the T. The implied author of 1QH, writing in the first person,
speaks of conflict, of having been forced into exile (1QH 12.6-23). In
other texts there is an attempt by a WP to kill the teacher (pHab 11.4-8;
4QpPsA 1-10 iv 8-10), suggesting a political rival, and there is the
hardly-disputable portrayal of the TR in _present_ legitimate
high-priestly terms. These echoes and allusions are well-understood if the
T was an ex-high priest who had been ousted.
Here is Stegemann making this argument (the 1998 reference above),
which I think is worth quoting here even though a bit lengthy.
"The most important pieces of evidence for the thesis that
the Teacher of Righteousness was a functioning high priest
in Jerusalem are his titles. His customary designation as "The
Teacher of Righteousness," in Hebrew [MWRH HTsDQ] literally
means, "The [Only] One Who Teaches Right [according to the
Torah]." This is a traditional title of the high priest, which
designates him as the highest doctrinal authority in Israel. The
same holds for the deisgnation of this figure as [MWRH HYXYD]
("The Unique Teacher") and [DWR$ HTWRH] ("The [Highest-Ranking]
Interpreter of the Torah"). Just as the high priest Simon in Sirach
(Sir. 50.1), so also does he [the Teacher of Righteousness] bear
the title [HKHN] ("The Priest [Par Excellence]"), which places him
at the pinnacle of the Temple worship in Jerusalem. Over and above
this, a number of passages in the Qumran texts show that the
Teacher of Righteousness did not somehow lay claim to the
rank of high priest without ever havnig been invested with this
office, but that he had been an actual holder of the office..."
Although it is no good argument to cite a list of secondary scholarship
who agree with or respond favorably to a thesis, nevertheless I can do that:
J. Murphy-O'Connor, 1986 (in Kraft and Nickelsburg eds volume _Early
Judaism_,
p. 135):
"H. Stegemann (1977) made an extremely important contribution by showing
that the Teacher must have been a high priest"
James VanderKam, 1998 (_Calendars in the DSS_, Routledge), 116.
(holds that the TR may have been a former high priest, exact quote
unavailable.)
James Charlesworth, 2002 (_Pesharim and Qumran History), 31.
(holds that the TR may have been a former high priest)
Timothy Lim, 2002 (_Pesharim_), 78.
"It is possible that the Teacher of Righteousness was not only a priest,
but held the office of high priest."
A study by F.M. Schweitzer developed the thesis of "a link between
1QH and the Teacher's earlier career as high priest" (in Kapera, ed.,
_Part II: The Teacher of Rightousness. Literary Studies_, 1991,
54-91 at 68).
Schweitzer noted that even Louis Ginzberg, author
of the early study of the Damascus Document of 1922, urged that
the Teacher of CD 1:11, in Ginzberg's words, ought "probably
to be identified with the contemporary high priest".
And so on.
My added comments: what seems without serious objection from
scholars placing the TR in the 2nd BCE (that the TR was an ex-high
priest) somehow has been and is objected to by all those placing the
TR in the 1st BCE, with the exception of me. Yet the more I looked
at the TR/high priest arguments discussed by the above luminaries
(all of whom were in the 2nd BCE), the more I saw it as they were
right on that point and it was basically just the most obvious reading:
the TR was a current legitimate high priest in the eyes of the "sect",
ousted from having been an actual high priest. That explains
(a) why he is currently regarded as high priest by the "sectarians",
and (b) why he is a major figure which looks, sounds, and acts,
and is named like a high priest. Looks like a duck,
walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...
Here there is an even further underlying issue: for some reason
those in the 1st BCE (though strangely this has never been a
problem for those in the 2nd BCE) may be affected by the
traditional notion of the "Qumran sect" as being an entity unto
itself, in a world of its own, which may have made only the most
minor or zero blip impact on external history--and that this is
somehow an argument against the ex-high priest idea. But
one has only to be reminded again of Jutta Jokiranta's excellent
essay "Sectarianism of the Qumran 'Sect': Sociological Notes", RQ 20
(2001), 223-239: "[T]he use of the term 'sect'--if insisted--of a
group behind the Scrolls should be free of presuppositions such
as that this group had a very marginal position, or that it was the
most extreme example of groups in a schismatic relationship
with the temple, or that it protested against the Temple
establishment" (Jokiranta).
And yet the TR is portrayed in exile and opposed to a regime
in Jerusalem. Therefore people have thought: "sect outside
mainstream Judaism". But that is not the only way to interpret
this. Another way: "a rival faction of ruling elite
ousted from power (and their loyalists)". i.e. one side of a
civil war which lost, or something of that nature.
When I considered that the TR was a high priest and was
1st BCE, this basically to me in principle made the ID question
much simpler: it was basically looking for two high priests,
not one, in the known high priest list, in relative sequence,
in which A is ousted by B, but ousted A still has partisans
who think A is legitimate.
Then based on other argument that texts such as pHab,
pNah, pPsA, and pHosB reflected a point of view of partisans
of the TR who foresaw a Gentile (Roman) conquest of
the "wicked" regime in Jerusalem, the task became even
simpler.
In fact there are only a few known high priests in the 1st BCE:
JHyrcanus I, Judas Aristobulus I, Alexander Jannaeus,
Hyrcanus II, Aristobulus II, Hyrcanus II, Jonathan. (Then
1 or 2 Herod-appointed non-Hasmoneans after that.)
Where does one see an ousted former high priest with
partisans, whose rival in Jerusalem (the illegimate one
in their view) is anticipated or actually is smashed by
Roman conquest?
That is the underlying logic of the Hyrcanus II/TR thesis
for me. Whether it is ultimately right or not is hard to say,
but this is the argument that seems to tie together
for me from a number of lines (and a couple of others not
mentioned here as well) converging on this conclusion.
The identification is elegant; it has explanatory power,
and it recaptures the scrolls from their ghettoized
irrelevance of a sect writing solipsistically to itself
as the world around passes on by ... to becoming
the literature of a faction of ruling elite (who at
the time of pNah/Hab/CD, etc. were out of power) and
their partisans.
From my point of view, the reason Hyrcanus II has
never been considered, let alone positively proposed or
urged before, despite some rather obvious items pointing
in his direction, has been because of a small handful of
rather big-ticket pseudo-objections none of which have
validity when held up to close scrutiny.
Greg Doudna
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself - download free Windows Live Messenger themes!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/themes/vibe/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
