Ian Young has presented and discussed an article (DSD 9 [2002] 364-
90) on Masada texts, but it misdates both Masada and Qumran texts.
It is not the case that all see the MT situation at Masada as Young has it.
E.g. E. Ulrich, "Two Perspectives on Two Pentiteuchal Manuscripts from Masada.'
in Emanuel {Tov FS, 2003] 453f gives good arguments for explanations other than
the one offered by Young. Plus, it is no small matter that IY excluded Mas Gen,
recognized as Gen, not Jubilees (cf. J. VanderKam, the leading Jubilees
expert), called Gen by Talmon in Masada VI. Talmon in Masada VI provides
weighty reasons that the Mas mss came from a variety of places. By IY's
limiting canon and MT sample, e.g.,
the Samaritan text is excluded from view. Also R. Reich's archaeology articles
(e.g. ZDPV)
argue for different backgrounds in different areas of Masada in the war. Ian
tells us about MT texts "in use." Does he, do we, know which were in use? when?
Can he tell us which Qumran texts were in use and when? To ignore the evidence
for variety of all Mas texts greatly weakens the article, and reminds me of
Meier's JBL
article on "halakha" at Qumran which in catch-22 fashion brackets out the
question of other evidence for the clear Qumran criticism of Pharisees. (For
more excellent evidence that Qumranites indeed criticized Pharisees, as seekers
of smooth things, see VanderKam in the Tov Festschrift.
Speaking of Pharisees, it is quite unnecessary to demonstrate that Pharisees
controlled Judaism in late second temple in order to be associated with a
particular text tradition, one that largely survived.
The quote from Josephus contra Apion does nothing to help IY's case, as
Josephus
claimed that for "long ages" no text change was made--plainly false, unless one
follows IY's assurance of 24 books (inc. Daniel) in the temple in 164/3--
implied MT-related (not clear?)--quite speculative, not at all stringent for
dating (IY
put Qumran as a midpoint somehow between 164 temple and masada MT). Plus, the
quote from Josephus, if limited to the time of writing, was 90s AD--too late to
indicate widespread stabilization pre 70.
AD Crown affirms? Recall his Jer. 50 yr. conf. abstract "If we ignore the
Essene
identification...[sic!]" Recall others, some wishing big redating: farewell to
Essenes in the cemetery! and Essenes cannot be located but they aren't here.
Golb on Essenes as an "obscure sect," then trying to make them obscure. Doudna:
Essenes are too hard to know (even while he offers the [easy to know?!]
Hyrcanus II as Teacher of
Righteousness). Didn't different tradents have different texts all through the
second temple period? What would Qumran texts be doing with criticism of the
temple administration? Calling on early Qumran deposit is not only a deus ex
machina but one undefined: Ian Young does not investigate whether the Doudna/
Ian Hutchesson dating has made any credible claim, has any merit, can really
toss out paleography, archaeology, C14, says that's outside the bounds of the
article. Not so, since that deposit time does not work.
Ian slights the fact that a 73/4 end date does not date the mss--how much
older are they? Paleography suggests 1st BC dates, hence a difference of
tradition, not chronology.
Stephen Goranson
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
