1) Daniel, your paper "Old Caves and Young Caves: Two Qumran Collections?" raises interesting questions. Since no one else commented, I'll give a few preliminary comments, for starters, though I haven't had time to follow up all your suggestions.
The title is OK, though at first glance I thought you meant generally geologically old caves versus generally man-made or enlarged (mostly marl) caves, whereas you mean earlier and later cave deposits. It may be worth noting that, if accepted, your proposal would not only differ from the 68 CE deposit view, but even more strongly the 68 CE scrolls all from Jerusalem proposal. P. 3 on deposits with regard to age--this would be a factor if a genizah, yes? Another cave option is overflow off-site library storage for less often used texts. And p.4, you don't consider all the permutations of your categories (GL, LE, GE). Paleography dating by different scholars may be a bigger issue than you allow. n.7 "steering factor" could be clearer (=selection by discernable type?). While 4 BCE is possible as you use it, was 4 CE the end of that possible range? (No book at hand.) Did the whole settlement burn? P. 4 Reference or examples for "rolled up wrongly" and how does that sit with p. 5 "mutilated by attackers"? What about the possibility that some scrolls were taken away--and selectively-- say before the zealots arrived, as Essenes went to Transjordan (where attested later); or as medieval finds (cf. the Timotheus I letter) might affect the deposits? p. 6 "written" =penned? "Bedside table"...which caves were inhabited or inhabitable? n.13 add "the *first* fire." Cave and Test are in caps when proper nouns. Jody-->Jodi. 3QCu late and perhaps expired listing. Documentation in n11 is inadequate; perhaps directly ask experts: such as Andrea Berlin, Jodi Magness, Rachel Bar-Natan (the latter's book is interpreted unreliably in my view in the ref., and there was only 1 (or one portion of one scroll/cylinder) jar, strictly defined, in Jericho. Maybe discuss the Cave 4 mss you consider late additions. Maybe sort out the Yardeni/H. Eshel difference on some internally 4Q or not Q mss. P.4 clothes--> cloths or pieces of cloth. n 5 a so-->also. Perhaps consider which mss were repaired, e.g., had a replacement first sheet. Perhaps mention C14. Perhaps check scribal practices distributions. Perhaps consider cave distances from the Khirbeh (and what was found on which paths), and natural vs, man-made or -modified caves. Cf. J. Patrich's survey and Broshi/Eshel findings. Interesting paper. 2. Michael O. Wise has an article in the latest Dead Sea Discoveries 12.3 (2005) 313-62: 4Q245 (psDan' ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus Here's a link for those with institutional subscriptions: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://brill/dsd/2005/00000012/00000003/art00005 I've only had time to quicky scan it, but, provisionally, if his reconstruction, restoration, and arguments (if if if...) hold up, this may provide yet more indication--though I do not recall him writing this--that Alexander Jannaeus is the Qumran "Wicked Priest" rather than anyone earlier or later. The latter was advocated in the first edition of the Wise Abegg Cook DSS translation. (I haven't yet seen their new second edition to see if they revised their proposal.) 3. I have started to revise my article "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene" at http://www.duke.edu/~goranson So far I've mostly corrected typos and the like, but I'll mention that I added reference to a book that should have noted before, Albert Pietersma, The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians (Leiden, 1994). This is important because I argue, with help from L. Ginzberg (writing before WWI on CD), that Damascus Document's wicked Jannes refers to Jannaeus, as the opponent of the Righteous Teacher (Judah). Pietersma argues, inter alia, that the name (and his brother) demands a historical explanation. And, without implying that he now endorses my proposal, I can quote (with permission) from his email comment on my article: "Though I opt there for Jonathan and Simon (p. 20ff) as historical referents, you make a good case for Jannaeus and Absalom." best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
