Dear Russell Gmirkin, Though we disagree on Pliny's source on Essenes, let me begin by noting that we have (at least in the past) agreed that that source was from the time of Herod the Great, and that the mentioned destruction of Ein Gedi (singular--no other place specified) was from the c.40 BCE war, and that Yizhar Hirschfeld's proposed site dates too late to fit it. In other words, we recognize that Pliny's source, using present tense, was written well before 70 CE. I would add that Essenes were seen to have been there a while, as Joseph Baumgarten and Joseph Amussin indicate with Qumran mss parallels cited in the orion Pliny paper. You have presented a rather complex scenario that Juba used Nicolaus of Damascus on Essenes. But that elaborate story encounters many difficulties. The account in Pliny differs, in geographic range (north-west Dead Sea shore), from the Philo and Josephus accounts of Essenes. N. of Damascus cannot be the sole source for all three--if he is a source on Essenes at all; in any case, Josephus had more than one relevant source; maybe Philo too. Previously, you asserted Isogonus was the tradent for ND. Isogonus, you wrote, appeared "to be only known paradoxographer between" ND and Pliny (5 Sept 99); you concluded, "So Isigonus as an intermediary between Nicolaus of Damascus and Pliny seems very likely." You defended Isigonus in other posts as well. But Isogonus was not listed by Pliny as a source for Book 5. Plus, Pliny's source is probably not a parodoxographer, nor an Aristotelian (such as ND--also not listed by Pliny for Bk. 5), nor a Greek writer (such as Juba); but a Stoic, Latin writer, as M. Dulaey presented. M. Agrippa was in Judaea in 15 BCE; his writings surely include ethnographic interests (as gone over before); he was cordial with the Jewish people; as governor of Syria, he would know the toparchies of Judah (not then including the destroyed Ein Gedi; but including the non-destroyed Jerusalem); Pliny greatly admired M. Agrippa, his first listed source. Juba, on the other hand, has no entry in M. Stern's collection of writers on Jews and Judaism--he is not known for writing on Judaea. ND would know Essenes were more widespread. Pliny does not even mention Sodom, so there is no inverse "mirror image" motif. The mention of Sodom in Synesius, as detailed before on orion, was probably not added by Dio, a Stoic who never, to my knowledge, commented on the Bible, but rather from Bishop Synesius. best, Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
