Russell Gmirkin, In response: I do not agree with many of your recent statements. I'll mention some and try to look for a more productive way forward than the recent exchange.
Briefly, as you called my comments "incorrect," G. Athas, on detailed observation, declared that dalets were carved in a direction that, if true, falsifies the proposed scenario that a forger carved the arms of the dalet both toward the left and stopped before a stone break; further, Athas claimed that the dalet goes all the way to the break, that, if true, redundantly falsifies what you described. This is relevant here, because what constitutes falsification, and recognition of it, is at issue. Back to Qumran. You wrote of "Strabo the geographer." Strabo, of course, also wrote History. The History, using Posidonios, and used by Josephus and others, is the text that I have presented much information about, again too long to repeat here. (The Histories of Posidonius and Strabo, both beginning in 146 BCE--the date Josephus borrowed to introduce Essenes and others--were once quite influential, in the time many extant Essene classical sources, many of the Stoics, got their information, but the histories fell out of favor, for reasons discussed in the literature.) Strabo's History in many ways is a more important and more ambitious work than his Geography, and it included much not in the Geography, so calling him "Strabo the geographer" will not do. Anyone is free to disagree with a history reconstruction. I have presented historical corroboration. You state that I have not, and you state that you have. In my view, it has not been demonstrated that the Hellenizing crisis or Maccabee proposed dating fits the evidence, though that was once a popular view. I suggest it is too early for the events named, and that it lacks corroborating Hellenistic crisis focus in the Qumran mss, and that it fails to account for the sectarian texts of Qumran. I could present these in more detail. But I wonder whether that is worthwhile at this point. In part, because I see differing levels of evidence required by you for your reconstruction than for mine. For example, your canditate has been described as wicked; so has my candidate; yet, in your post, the former is credited as evidence, and the latter is not credited as evidence. You state a candidate for, say, "wicked priest," and present that candidate as falsifiable. I state a candidate for "wicked priest," and--unless I read incorrectly--you implied that my canditate is not falsifiable. I could go on in response, but perhaps this much suffices for now. On one thing, at least, I think we partly agree, so I'll end with that. You wrote that these events did not happen "in a corner." I partly agree. I do not think everything mentioned in the Qumran mss was necessarily public and well known, in part because Essenes and Qumran writers had some secret and/or sectarian writings. But I agree that the character they called "wicked priest" would be an individual known to history. One way to determine which well-known candidate fits is to pay more attention to chronology and to sectarian developments. best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
