This message gives more evidence that Alexander Jannai, King Jonathan, was the 
Qumran "wicked priest," during a time of great sectarian strife. (The 12 and 
14 April messages gave some of the other evidence; and there's still more than 
will fit in this one, e.g. on 4QpIsaiah timing, as well as other mss.)

As noted, J. VanderKam's new book on High Priests is a handy resource for 
reviewing "wicked priest" proposals, because it is widely and correctly agreed 
that the "wicked priest" had served as a high priest. So all the candidates 
are reviewed with most of what's known about them well presented and most 
often quite well evaluated. My only major disagreement with the book so far is
its claim that Jonathan Maccabee was WP. Actually, the book provides much of 
the evidence that King Jonathan, Yannai, is better qualified. And process of 
elimination helps too: for instance, Menelaus was not called to the office by 
call of truth but money (and the proposed trail to Qumran of putative Menelaus 
text is tortured). 

To be brief, there is no evidence that the Teacher of Righteousness had served 
as high priest, as is quite well detailed by VanderKam on pages 244-50.

It is sometimes claimed that the WP's enemies killed him, but that is nowhere 
in Qumran texts explicitly claimed, nor explicit in this book's citations. 
1QpHab ix, for example, has been shown in detail not to make such a claim, 
e.g., by Wm. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (1979) and by Phillip 
Callaway, History of the Qumran Community: An Investigation (1998).  Yannai, 
surely, was aggrieved by his many enemies, and suffered, in a close call, more 
than once.

There is more reason to consider Yannai a drinker than Jonathan Maccabee.

Yannai sought out war more than Jonathan Maccabee.

Yannai taxed more heavily (e.g., the now annual half shekel) and was more a 
tyrant and was more hated than Jonathan Maccabee.

It has sometimes been claimed that the 4QpNah Angry Lion was a foreigner. 
VanderKam refutes that so well and so clearly on pages 325-331 (answering, 
e.g., G. Doudna) that it seems unnecessary for me to type at length on the 
subject.

Similarly, supposed parallels offered for 4Q448 claiming to praise Jonathan 
have repeatedly been shown not here stringent. I have argued that column A is 
sectarian (e.g. "create a yahad" in the 11Q copy of the psalm) and dualistic 
and in a time of war. The Divine plainly one side; Jonathan the other--no 
other mentioned (i.e. no anonymous bad guy); nor anything praised about 
Jonathan. Column A is more closely related to Columns B and C than sometimes 
thought.

In the 12 April message I should have distinguished between the Liar from the 
WP, as some think they are separate; but the point is the same: the House of 
Absalom was silent when the TR was aggrieved. Josephus writes about this one 
surviving brother of Yannai. No brother of Queen Alexandra appears in Josephus 
(based only on a quick check, though). Talmud may provide a brother, Shimeon 
ben Shetah, but then his Hebrew name is not Absalom. And the description of 
Absalom in Josephus really fits 1QpHab to a T beautifully. Amazingly, D.N. 
Freedman already in BASOR 1949 properly and helpfully alerted us to the 
significance of Absalom as a history peg, and R. Marcus in Loeb helped, but 
(for reasons apparent in hindsight) missed the specific chance.

I invite constructive observations, as the history can become clearer. Just as 
the Qumran texts have helped clarify Second Temple Period history, so have the 
observations offered by many scholars. Hasmonean family relations are a bit 
complex to sort out: even Josephus's own family lineage that he gave in his 
Vita is still partly a puzzle. But the new data, and cooperation of historians 
has, IMO, considerable promise.

best,
Stephen Goranson

P.S. The question whether Aristoboulus I or II should be assigned coins is not 
identical to the question whether Aristobulus I did or did not take the title 
of king. Any analysis of Strabo on this that fails to mention Posidonius is 
difficult to regard as credible.




_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot

Reply via email to