If I may begin by noting two recent publications; then I hope to invite renewed history discussion, because so much data is now available.
Ed Cook, known to all of us at least from the Wise, Abegg, Cook (1996) DSS translation book, has a good new blog, which has addressed DSS history: http://ralphriver.blogspot.com Maxine Grossman had an interesting note in the Nov. 2004 orion newsletter. Long ago, on orion, I praised her dissertation (now revised as a book) for clear writing, despite using what is often elsewhere jargony agony (post) modern theory. But, so far, I find more cautions about how history may be read in various ways, than discrete observations about what can be reliably stated; I hope for more and think that we now have the means. Now the newsletter note is merely a note, about news clippings. But it states that "...most, if not all the elements of recent scrolls controversies can be traced back to Allegro's claims from this period...." If I may say so, they go back earlier, to, e.g., Dupont-Sommer, to Harding in Illustrated London News, to Zeitlin, and even, in part, back to 1910 CD reactions, and so on. We could use a good volume on history of Qumran scholarship; there is not one yet. I hope Max and Ed are on this list, or will join. If not, I may try the (limited size?) comments box on Ed's blog site. Here's what Ed wrote on 2 Dec., commenting on a popular press item, that caught my attention, and that might serve to start constructive discussion. "I doubt whether many [Qumran DSS]--perhaps any--were copied before 100 BCE or after 5 BCE. But quite a few were _composed_ before 100 BCE--maybe even before 250 BCE." For conversation's sake, though I guess that most of us likely agree that many mss are within that 100 to 5 period, allow me to disagree, and add some comments for discussion. Several texts evidently fall outside that range. C14 data indicate a wider range. Paleography does too. It stands to reason that whoever collected texts would have some older ones, older, e.g., than the start of Hellenistic Qumran settlement. A few pro and con observations on Wise Abegg Cook (1996 views) pages 26-32, on history. I agree that the first Jonathan as wicked priest is too early. But even they write that the teacher was active in the late second century: right: Judah the Essene. And that the wicked priest time included early first century: right: Alexander Jannaeus. But they say 4Q448 is anti Jonathan. It is not. (And the options of an anomalous text or one composed before he "fell from the name of truth" were not absurd, as implied there.) This text focuses on two sects (Pharisees, Sadducees) when it suits the argument; and argues for more than 3 elsewhere. It shortchanges the threeness, multiply attested. A virtue: they recognize the presence in the mss of a sect. (That's better than Golb and Hirschfeld largely discounting sects.) It mixes, obscures, the issues of opposition to high priests based on a) lineage and b) disapproved temple administration. It moves from dismissing Jannaeus as wicked priest (despite their own pointers toward him), then settles on one of his sons, moving from discounting anti-Hasmoneanism to embracing it. There are many other pros and cons that could be mentioned, but perhaps that's enough for starters. Also, history of scholarship-wise, we need to move beyond so-called consensus/standard model versus new model dualistic language. Already, William Brownlee, the first pesherHab scholar, got some of this history (Jannaeus WP; Judah Essene TR) right; as did M. Delcor 1951, Jean Carmignac and many others. all the best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
