[Megillot] FW: Doudna on Jonathan: 4Q448

[Ken Penner]

The following message from Greg Doudna is forwarded to the list at his request: ------------------START----------------   I do not read a "shin" for the first letter of 4Q448 line B1, giving "Song".   Recently it has been reported on g-megillot by Stephen Goranson that I supported reading a "shin" for the first letter of 4Q448 line B1, giving "Song", in agreement with the reading in Eisenman-Wise 1992. Goranson gets this from old Orion posts, which is accurate.   However it is misleading, because I do not hold to that in my current published work, as explained in my 2001 volume on Pesher Nahum, pages 735-736, which Goranson failed to note. This mining of old emails rather than addressing current publications in print is one of the principal reasons, I believe, why discussion on Dead Sea Scroll topics on lists is so abysmal. Much time could be saved if arguments were addressed toward positions which other persons actually hold and have published.   After I wrote the Orion posts, I went to Jerusalem and the Rockefeller Museum, in January 2001, specifically to examine 4Q448, and did so. Niels Peter Lemche assisted in making this trip possible. What I found convinced me that the editors' reading (Eshel, Eshel, and Yardeni) of "ayin", is without question correct, and not the shin.   Furthermore, I might add that in my view the arguments of Main 1998 and Lemaire 2000 (I have not seen Ken Penner's article), that 4Q448 is anti-Jonathan, cannot be correct. Main argues that 4Q448 must be read as negative toward Jonathan. Lemaire argues that the negative reading is more likely but that a positive reading remains possible. These scholars propose that the prayer is an appeal to God to rise up against king Jonathan. Zech. 13:7 is cited as a parallel for the syntax.   Puech resolved this issue decisively, in my opinion, in "Jonathan le pre^tre impie et les debuts de la communaute de Qumra^n. 4QJonathan (4Q523) et 4QPsAp (4Q448)", _Revue de Qumran_ 17 (1996): 241-270.   Briefly, the argument in a nutshell that the reference to king Jonathan in 4Q448 is without ambiguity favorable, in agreement with the already convincing argument of Eshel, Eshel, and Yardeni (1992), is this. Following the start of the prayer with  (WR QD$ (L YNTN HMLK  [sic on the spelling of the name--this is my reading, rather than YWNTN] the compelling argument is the parallelism of ...(L .... W(L of lines B2 and B8: "Rise up O God _concerning_ Jonathan the king and all the congregation of your people Israel ... _and concerning_ your kingdom--may your name be blessed!"   Since the second phrase can only be positive, it strains credulity that the first phrase, in parallel with the second and introduced by the identical preposition, would not also be positive. There is no hint otherwise in the context of the prayer suggesting king Jonathan is viewed negatively.   Qal forms of root (WR in the Psalms refer to God awakening on behalf of the righteous (Ps. 44.24; 59.5). Eshel, Eshel, and Yardeni (1992: 214-15 nn. 59-66) cited parallels from blessings and benedictions in which objects of request for God's favor are introduced in series with (L. Compare the syntax of Dan. 12:1, H(MD (L-BNY (MK. Michael is "the one standing on behalf of your people" (not standing up _against_ God's people). Most significantly, there is no hint in 4Q448 of a followup curse or wish for destruction on Jonathan as might be expected if the sense was anti-Jonathan, and as appear in the parallels cited by Main--the crux of Main's argument--of (Main's term) "prayers including both benediction and malediction" (Main 1998: 131-33). On purely textual grounds "king Jonathan" of 4Q448 is certainly regarded favorably.   These comments are extracted from my discussion in _Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition_--a discussion which is indebted on this point to Eshel, Eshel, and Yardeni's excellent original article, and Puech's 1996 article. Main and Lemaire made their cases interestingly (well-argued opposing positions are always a delight to read), but in my opinion their arguments fail for the reasons stated.   Greg Doudna   ----------END--------------------