Since I asked for bibliography, in case it's of interest, here's part of a new review essay, "A 'Reconstructionist' Approach to the Dead Sea Scrolls..." on E. Puech's DJD XXV, by Matthew Morgenstern, on 4Q523. JJS vol. LV Autumn 2004 347-53, here 349:
"On pages 75-76, Puech provides us with an interesting story about the theft of the temple vessels and an impious priest on the basis of a partial reading YHWNTN and the word MZLGWT. There is no evidence that the name refers to a Hasmonean king as Puech claims, and it seems that any attempt to suggest an interpretation of this text is doomed to failure since it does not even contain two consecutive, certain words. It seems to me that in such cases it is preferable that the scholar acknowledge the limitations of the text rather than suggest forced interpretations that have no basis in the manuscript itself." I think that's somewhat overcritical. E.g., Frag. 1-2 line 6 is fairly certainy "Gog and Magog." And we have some reason to suspect King Jonathan, Alexander Jannaeus (though Puech chooses Jonathan son of Mattathias). I see now that Ken Penner's 2000 paper, "The Peculiar Prayer of 4QPsAp (4Q448)" is online, so I assume and hope it is appropriate, since it deserves wider readership, to provide a link: http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/papers/4Q448.pdf This is a fine paper, in my view, better than several peer-reviewed journal publications I've seen lately. And I say that as a critical reader. On one other paper by Ken, just to provide narrative contrast here, I was quite unpersuaded. But this paper is quite good, especially, on columns B and C. (On A, Psalm 154, with, e.g., in 11QPs a, "form a yahad", I'd suggest a few revisions.) One of its strengths: what's the verb? That's what indicates pro or con. (And stay with that verb, not e.g., Daniel 12:1 but say Daniel 11:25-- and see the flatterers 9cf. smooth thing seekers) vs. the doers in between.) And it's imperative, not, for example, like Qimron's suggestion from Job 8:6. Column C is fragmentary; caution on arguing from absence there. And of absence in B & C: nothing good is said of Jonathan. One need not propose to read lines down then construct a retrojected proposed parallel above. The Biblical and Qumran Hebrew--and the larger context--makes contra Jonathan much more likely. Russell, thanks for your 14 Nov post. Gregory, I did recall that in your Pesher Nahum book you accepted arguments that 4Q448 B&C was pro Jonathan; I did not recall if you addressed shin vs. ayin there; so, not having the book at hand, in an abundance of caution, I hesitated to mention it. Evidence that Jonathan, Alexander Jannaeus, was "Wicked Priest" and Judah the Essene was "Teacher of Righteousness" is growing. best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
