I cited four writers who read *(or once read)* shin, and I cited the *dated* orion post *precisely* merely in response to R. Gmirkin raising Doudna's old paper reading shin. I myself regard the shin reading as a dead letter. I would not have addressed the shin reading had not Gmirkin challenged me about it, explicitly citing *Doudna*. Yet Doudna complains of me and not Gmirkin....
Doudna today does not read shin. Good. Perhaps we can move on to live issues. Psalm 154 has more than one version. Many scholars--citations on request--concluded it was "Essene" or "proto-Essene." 154 presents the pure in crisis because of the wicked. Praise of God and the pure; condemnation of the wicked. Dualism. Essenes on Jonathan: pure or wicked (wicked priest)? 4Q523 (with our Jonathan, I say, even though Puech [who claims the earlier Jonathan] is an excellent scholar)) and 4Qpesher Nahum (in my view clearly Lion=Jonathan) also reflect a time of crisis. Perhaps Ken can convey his paper to Greg. Then Greg may have another opportunity to reconsider the more likely use of the Hebrew here as for or against Jonathan. best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
