Brief notes that I could expand or provide bibliography for, in most cases, if any are of further interest.
Ancient group names are most often self-designations, as correctly described by Al Baumgarten in his JBL 102 (1983) 411-28 article on the name Pharisees. Then the names are made fun of by opponents, as described by Saul Lieberman (who called this "cacophemism"; cf. "Caricaturnamen") and Daniel Boyarin. C. D. Ginsburg in the 19th century already showed that the name doers of torah is belittled in rabbinic literature (separatists who ostentatiously ask "what is my duty that I may do it" and variants. Of course Sadducees, Pharisees, and Rabbis would not credit Essenes with that name, thinking it applied to them (cf. Shomerim self-regard as the "true keepers of Torah), but philosophically appreciative outsiders would, and did. The notion that outsiders named the Essenes is largely an artifact (e.g. from Vermes, et al.) of the two main failed Aramaic proposed etymologies, which are attested for Essenes in no ancient text, much less at Qumran. Philo surely did not invent the name, or any of the Greek spellings, but expressed some puzzlement at it. Epiphanius was closer, on Jewish sect torah-observers Ossaioi/Osshnoi. Neither brother, Aristobolus II nor Hyrcanus II is suitable, characterwise nor timewise, as Wicked Priest, much less as Teacher of Righteousness. (I mistyped A II for H II before.) Vermes in Schurer ed. merely announces that pNahum, with Jannaeus as Lion, concerns a later time than the other pesharim. C14, so far, plainly indicates some Qumran mss date in first century CE. One must guard against outside hypotheses added a priori; they can distort. One cannot properly stipulate that all the scribes were left-handed, or all Judaea- born; or all red-haired; or all, or almost all, of one generation. Wise Abegg Cook p, 31 mentions (without ref.) F.F. Bruce on the Man of the Lie, but, more importantly, could have cited F.F. Bruce on the WP and TR, Second Thoughts on the DSS 1956 and The TR in the Qumran texts 1957--which provide support for Jannaeus WP and Judah the Essene TR. Wise's book main text never utters the word "Essene"; the notes are a nearly Essene-free zone, with a slight nod to Dupont-Sommer excepted--such exile cannot be willed permanent. WAC p. 29 recognizes pNahum fits into a "watershed time." So close to Jannaeus ID, if not set a priori against it. Note also how first Jonathan WP advocates (e.g. Vermes/Schurer ed.) merely declare pNah was about a later time than other pesharim. Jannaeus was a priest before he became King. Saying that non-ZDK lineage may not have been the breaking point does not erase anti-Hasmonean temple administration concerns, heightened in Jannaeus time. MMT original, Judah to Jannaeus early. That it can be seen as a foundation myth was already mentioned by me in a poorly-edited sidebar in BA years ago, before MMT official publication, back in the photocopy day. Of course some books are read differently over time--Apocalypse of John provides a striking and fairly well- known example of rereading; this observation, by itself, is not new. It's too late to declare little history is shown in DSS. We have already learned a lot about sectarian disputes. More to come, ineluctably. If 4Q448 is imagined as praise of King Jonathan, just what about him does it praise. And consider the dualism is also in column A, with wartime there too. If 4Q448 supposedly attempts to praise Jonathan, just what good points about him does it endeavour to convey? best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
