Greg Doudna and list, I question the recent presentation by GD, on the facts, on the framing of questions, and on conclusions.
GD asserted that it's the majority opinion that the Teacher of Righteousness had served as High Priest. Though I haven't surveyed all the literature on this lately, it's my impression that it may not be a conviction of the majority. For example, GD listed VanderKam's Calendar book page 116 as supporting GD's view, yet that page merely says "It may be...[that the TR as represented in H] make[s] one think that he once held high rank...." And if one reads VanderKam's more relevant and recent and more detailed treatment of this question in his book explicitly on High Priests, From Joshua to Caiaphas (2004) 244-250, one reads a long discussion and his conclusion: "...the argument turns out not to be convincing." And there is a difference between an Intersacerdotum with one or more unknown priests and priests whose names are known, not neatly fitting in GD's schema. The Diodorus quote does not help GD's case by claiming "the Jews are so docile...they fall to the ground and do reverence to the high priest." All? To Hyrcanus II or his brother? During Civil War? Also GD's post includes unnecessary and obscuring dichotomies. GD offers that the alternative (why just two alternatives, by the way?) was that the Qumran group "had a very marginal position," "ghettoized irrelevance." Gee, that's not my position. nor that of many others. (In other words, Essenes did have influence.) Dismissing Josephus on Hyrcanus II as biased storytelling is rather casual dismissal, bracketing off of evidence noncongenial to GD's proposal. (Bracketing that resembles Russell Gmirkin saying Hanukkah [and 1 Maccabees] went unmentioned in Qumran texts due to a split--an ancient (? attested where?) split and choice--to distinguish religious festivals from secular {Temple dedication?] ones, and exclude writing Hanukkah and Maccabees.) The dichotomy between second century and first century TR candidates is unhelpful, obscuring, since, in my view, both the Teacher and the WP were born in the former, and became prominent in the former, and both died in the latter century. GD calls his proposal "elegant." If one needs be told, perhaps one didn't notice. GD says he was unmoved by being the first to suggest Hyrcanus II as Teacher. Perhaps I recall a letter announcing this to a Barbara Thiering list, highlighting that very point, mistakenly? Might Hyrcanus II have been not proposed as TR , decpite the huge and varied literature, by anyone because he is quite unfitting? Because he was not the Teacher? Finally, GD offers the explanation that Hyrcanus II had never been proposed as TR before because of "pseudo-objections." But, if he had not been proposed, to what would scholars have been objecting, or pseudo-objecting? best Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot