The old focusation on historical or pseudo-historical figures and the common in- tention to develop a fortified castle in the air around them leads to new stress rather than to new models worth the discussion. We ultimatively have to leave, so it seems, the medieval appearing approach to the things which finally culminate into a classical literary ascension. The primary question is simply not "who led the Sons of Light or Darkness?" but "what has bothered factions like the Yahad and already its claimed ancestors of the Babylonic Age [or the Johanine group and some 'Galileans' at the eve of the Jewish War] to walk on beaten tracks through a savaged tale, part of the Book of Isaiah?"
Running empirical tests show that starters realize the problem within a week. They don't even need to know Aristotle, Philo or Pliny before - and thereafter... However, once the circumstances of the exile are clearly determined, and not before, one might start to speculate on the schadenfreude about an earless Hyrcan II in 1QpHab or the dogmatic "Clash of the Saddukaioi" between the forgotten, epithet-less Yehonatan and a staff look-alike named Eleazar at the end of the reign of Hyrcan I. _dierk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Goranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 1:00 PM Subject: [Megillot] reading for history > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
