Russell Gmirkin, again, I see many matters differently. Briefly, and relevantly on "falsification," George Athas' careful physical observations on the Tel Dan Aramaic inscription, if true as stated, falsify your asserted scenario in which a putative forger carved a dalet in the direction of a putative already-broken stone edge and stopped before the break, in part, because the dalet does not stop before the break, so falsifying your stated forgery claim. (Beyond other reasons to see the inscription as genuine.) Though I am not a Popper advocate in history research- -because history often involves reconstructions not always fully formally falsifiable on *current* data, but rather the best available plausible, coherent, and supported, not overdrawn resconstruction--nevertheless, some assertions can usefully be falsified, as in this case. The potential for *future* falsification or modification, with new data, of course, obtains for many other proposals.
Alexander Jannaeus as a candidate for "wicked priest," I say, is not falsified by the use of the roots you mention in the texts you mention. (And note the rhetorical move from "appears inconsistent" to "falsified.") I see no logical requirement that the root MLK must be used in the surviving fragments of 1QpHab that you select or else Jannaeus is called, by you, falsified. Different writers and contexts and genres and differing text survival can account for a range of word choices. E.g., some may not wish to acknowledge his title; others may wish to refer to it as a sign of current dire straits. And, as you know but did not mention, in my view, 4Q448, refers to King (MLK) Jonathan in a dualistic war setting manner I (and others) consider quite negative. And King Jonathan is Wicked Priest, I say, so even in the case that you chose, MLK does indeed appear in my proposal. No falsification there. By the way, words declared such as "insurmountable" (or "permanent") raise the question whether the asserter is really trying to follow Popper. And negative views of Jonathan (II) are not far to seek. His 27 year rule was a time of great sectarian strife and war. Your proposal is too early. (And you did not respond on chronology, sectarian development, and lack of Hellenizing crisis in the Qumran mss.) The brother of Jannaeus who was in power before him ruled too briefly to qualify as "wicked priest." Salome who followed him is not "wicked priest" by gender; their sons too late and too small. Briefly, Jannaeus is at the right time, and fits (not) admirably. (Were "king" the main complaint about him, "wicked king" might be in the pesharim.) Jonathan I was said to be supported when MMT gradually appeared, by the gratuitous claim that a 50 year time lag is to be expected in the 6 mss. If we limit history events to what was previously considered documented, then we would rob ourselves of the opportunity of new documents to inform us-- progress. Also, newly available documents, such as DSS, can challenge some of the other documents. That 1 Maccabees states something does not ipso facto make it true. Especially in the case of Qumran, where, for instance Hanukkah is not attested--despite the plethora of calendar- and temple-focussed texts, as it would be, were it accepted. See A. Baumgarten for other cautions on attempting to squeeze Qumran mss into the 1, 2 Maccabee worldview(s). (As, I suggest, in the case of the Gmirkin M "Maccabee War Manual.) And John Kampen and others have cautioned against linking Maccabee Hasidim and Essenes. The misunderstanding or error of conflating or otherwise associating Essenes with Hasidim--in some cases minimizing Essenes, as some seek to do today--goes back at least to Sefer Yosippon. The pre-1948 overemphasis on Aramaic etymology proposals is fading now, given the clear use of Hebrew for Qumran/Essene texts, including self-designation. That some Qumran texts are Essene is about as silver-platter offered a gift as historians ever receive. Our statements on Posidonius and Strabo are so far apart as to challenge my ability to survey them in one post. Again, e.g., I do not rely solely on Strabo as Geographer (nor agree with your reading). Readers of your posts might briefly forget that Josephus used Strabo, History, as a source, including in Ant. 13, where Essenes first appear. For now I'll state that my J. of Jewish Studies 45 (1994) 295f article plus many additions online over the years give reasons that Posidonius, Strabo, and M. Agrippa were sources on Essenes to several of the classical sources on Essenes. And, briefly, Russell, your proposal that Nicolas of Damascus is the source of not only Josephus but also Philo and Pliny on Essenes, I have also shown implausible before. Our source critical differences are too big to detail here. More could be offered about the case in favour of Jannaeus as "wicked priest," and his contemporary Judah the Essene as the "teacher of righteousness," and about the problems with various other candidates, but perhaps the above suffices for now. good day, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
