[I misplaced the typo-fixed copy. Sorry. Here's a clearer version:]
In my view, the overlapping histories of Essenes and of Qumran are both
becoming clearer. This is happening, and I expect it will continue, given the
new data, whether or not scholar X, Y, or Z chooses to participate, or even
resist, and whether or not list or journal or university X, Y, or Z
contributes little or much. By all means, any reasonable caution that should
be raised, raise; any reasonable counterevidence, analysis of shortcomings,
methodological proposals, scientific test, or nuancing has its place.
But let's not be afraid--or presumed prevented by presumed methodological
purity--to try out some discrete observations about what can be reliably
stated. Methodological discussion has its place, but methodological discussion
without application to the work of an historian will surely fulfill, for that
individual alone, any promise of no history results. Admittedly, there are
many things we cannot know with the available data and means of testing. But
it is clear to me that we have now the means to go beyond either a sometimes
caricatured, sometimes ill-defined "consensus" view (though I'm not shy to
claim that some views held by some sometimes defined as in that consensus,
e.g., that 2 Aramaic etymologies of diminishing popularity for "Essenes" and
that the first Jonathan as WP are wrong) or a sometimes oddly imaged movement
of disparate alternatives-bearers from "freers" from "consensus" pressure
("freeings" themselves apparently at times in service of ideological
preferences).
The chronology, for instance, is becoming clearer, in fact. Confluence of more
than one type of evidence (e.g. C14, paleography, archaeology, texts) is
making clearer which proposals are too early or too late for particular events
or individuals. And, yes, I am stating, with good reason, that this history
includes some actual individuals, actual groups, and actual events. Of course
the texts convey some historical information (e.g., about matters of reading
torah and prophets that were then issues)--that much is ineluctable,
regardless of author intentions. The real, live question is how much history
and how much of it we can read for history reliably. For example, the B.
Thiering proposal is, among other things, now generally (i.e., by most
historians; basically by everone who does not wish it so) and reliably,
recognized as too late. As far as I am aware, no one has the warrant to deny
progress in history. Stated another way, I plan, inshallah, as it were, to
continue to work on Essene and Qumran histories, and I welcome help for others
on or not on this list. Perhaps I misunderstand one or another recent writer,
but if anyone says such research is doomed, I disagree. And I've seen some
progress, contested though some steps have been.
Of course the Greek and Latin sources cannot be merely taken at face value. We
need more analysis of them, but also more comparison with, e.g. archaeology.
Each is clarifying the other, to some extent. (Bergmeier's analysis is
certainly not the last word, and in part mistaken; but when he later in ZDPV
proposed Essenes were from Essa, transJordan, though I'm not persuaded
(perhaps the place name was second), we should allow that he at least
is talking about a group he considers real, in history.)
For those open to giving it a try, consider "Essenes" from a self-
identification from the root 'asah, attested in pesharim, and accepted by a
growing number of scholars (who join those scholars who saw, and in effect
predicted, this before 1948). Consider Judah the Essene teacher as that TR.
Consider Alexander Jannaeus, a priest, who when King was greatly
controversial, sectarianwise, who killed, who robbed, who made changes related
to the temple, as that Wicked Priest. Among other things his office was at the
right time. Both the TR and the WP were born in the second century BCE and
both died in the first century BCE. I invite you, after due scrutiny, to get
used to this. Posidonius and Strabo, sources for Josephus on Essenes, Stoics,
specifically liked some aspects of Essenes, and specifically considered
our "Alexander," by name, a "superstitious and tyrannical" priest par
excellence. That's an example of confluence.
best,
Stephen Goranson
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
----- End forwarded message -----
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
