[Megillot] 2006 Qumran dig
According to Alexander Schick at http://www.bibelausstellung.de/ there will be excavation at Qumran 6 June to 31 July 2006. This may be a continuation of the Randall Price dig? best, Stephen Goranson "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene": http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene
Justin, may I suggest that if you wish to understand my views, then please read http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf and those works of Doudna that are fully cited there. The footnote that I quoted on this list, for example, needs to be read in context. best wishes, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Leviticus fragments publication
Prof. Devorah Dimant of Haifa University asked me to pass along the information that the fragments of Leviticus, announced by H. Eshel, are to be published in the Hebrew publication _Meghillot_ volume 3, which is now in press; this volume should be out in about two months. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
C14, was Re: [Megillot] Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene
Here is the complete text of Greg Doudna's footnote 92 [with my stars and brackets added]: "92. 'Management scatter' denotes a statistical spread around *a* [single] 'true date.' A useful analogy is *the* [single] blast from a shotgun at a target and the spread of the individual shotgun pellets." I say that is mistaken; disregarding C14 date ranges from any plural number of manuscripts is unscientific. Plus the text above the footnote does not specify any subset--which, even had it done so, would be another a priori, hypothetical, wrong definition and presumption, an outside hypothesis, serving to disregard data. There is a tension or absurdity moving from one (say skin) sample and muliple mss. Single event, single blast, single erruption, single battle, single generation (generation having many meanings, including if I recall correctly two text generations in a single day!)--I did not introduce or imagine these. I started making notes to respond, but it got rather long. I naddition to the three texts in my paper--in the second case I join Dr. Jull's criticism of disregarding certain "outliers" and in the third I note a "permanent" date end is not so-- I now disagree with a fourth text, the GD megillot post today. I disagree on the facts and on how to frame the question. Since we've disagreed on interpreting Qumran C14 for years, I question whether a long thread is useful. I have a right to disagree with these texts I cited and quoted. The problem is not my text. The problem was Doudna getting some of the science wrong. The absurdity is in the position, not my wording, as I have known for years. Reconsider. Megillot readers could take, for example Doudna's fine Figure 3 on page 462. Ask any respected C14 scholar of professor of statistics if a deposit date of 63 BCE is plausible. Doudna wrote that it was, after dismissing 5 of 19 date ranges, 2-sigma, totally after 63 BCE. On happier notes: Thanks for admiring some parts of "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene." And recall that I wrote that some pages of the Doudna DSS After Fifty Years v.1 article provide "much helpful information." I wrote that Doudna changed his dating proposal after the Qumran Chronicle article. I ended the section by noting that Doudna's pursuit of additional data was "constructive." best, Stephen Goranson Quoting Greg Doudna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > To Stephen Goranson: I was admiring your article on your website > concerning Judah the Essene and Absalom--in my opinion one of your better > pieces of work--when I came to, alas, my own name to which was attributed > something that, if I said it, would be extremely stupid (of me). > You argue against an idea that all c. 900 Qumran texts were produced > in a single moment like a "shotgun blast"--which I fully agree with > you is absurd, and join you wholeheartedly in informing your readers > that such an idea is to be condemned and consigned to outer > darkness--and you have me saying this! > > You write: > > "Doudna offers an analogy of a single 'shotgun blast' around > a true date. That analogy does not suit the 900 or so Qumran > manuscripts; though it could relatively better apply to > tests of one manuscript." > > Your second sentence implies that I applied the analogy in the > first sentence (of the "shotgun blast" of radiocarbon dates) to > all of the Qumran texts, "the 900 or so Qumran manuscripts". > > The only problem, Stephen, is I can't seem to find where I said > this. I would like to offer a retraction and get this > corrected. Could you tell me where I said this? > > I know I suggested that the image of the "shotgun blast" > could be applied, as an analogy, to interpreting radiocarbon dates > of an hypothesized *subset* of the c. 900 Qumran texts which *were* > from a single generation. (That is, radiocarbon dates on a subset > of the Qumran manuscripts from the same generation would produce > radiocarbon dates which might be likened to a shotgun > blast around the "bullseye" of the true generation date.) > It seemed, and seems, like a reasonable analogy to me. > > Obviously there is a big difference between saying ALL of the > Qumran texts were produced in a generation and proposing that > a SUBSET of the Qumran texts were produced in a generation. > The one is a non-starter and ridiculous. The other is > a reasonable starting-point for discussion. > > (I know you are an honorable scholar and would not > intentionally represent a scholar as saying the one, > if you knew that he/she said and intended the other.) > > But at the footnote that you give at this point in your >
[Megillot] Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene
In case it's of interest, here's a link to my new paper (34 pages; 334 kb pdf file), "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene," on the history and identities of the "Wicked Priest" and the "Teacher of Righteousness" in the view of Essenes at Qumran and elsewhere http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf Apologies for cross-posting best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Re: [ANE] Re: Philo on Sadducees and Pharisees??
Yes, Philip, it was "shorthand," as it appears you basically already knew. (Shorthand, though with citation of three fine publications that support the identification.) Now, to address something new that mayhaps you didn't already know, perhaps consider the possibility that Philo refers to Sadducees and Pharisees. best Stephen Goranson Quoting philip davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry to be a pedant. I reread 4Qpesher Nahum and did not find the > name of Alexander Jannaeus. Has a new fragment been published? Or is > this shorthand for 'a 'furious lion cub' which most scholars identify > with Jannaeus (but not Doudna, who I think here has made a > respectable case for an alternative interpretation), though I remain > openminded about it, especially given my scepticism about the > historical precision of pesher allusions). > > I'm mainly concerned that in a scholarly discussion we remain careful > to distinguish fact from theory. > > PD > > > > > > > >perhaps reread 4Qpesher Nahum in which > >Alexander Jannaeus, compared to a Lion, crucified fellow-countrymen, or > reread > >Josephus Antiquities 13, 375f, in which, reportedly, Jannaeus "slew no > fewer > that fifty thousaand Jews." > -- > Professor Philip R Davies > University of Sheffield > ___ > g-Megillot mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot > ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Re: [ANE] Re: Philo on Sadducees and Pharisees??
Russell Gmirkin, As you may recall, I am aware of your proposal to move the text from "Palestinian Syria" (Loeb tr, section 75) to Alexandria, Egypt. If I had been persuade of your Alexandria move and your too-late dating--Every Good Man is Free is a youthful work of Philo--then I would not have written what I did. The subject in Every Good is not the Romans, but Hasmoneans. As to your claim that no such ruler killed his own people, perhaps reread 4Qpesher Nahum in which Alexander Jannaeus, compared to a Lion, crucified fellow-countrymen, or reread Josephus Antiquities 13, 375f, in which, reportedly, Jannaeus "slew no fewer that fifty thousaand Jews." So, for these and other reasons, I find your proposal not persuasive. best Stephen Goranson Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > Stephen, > > Since the Essenes are earlier said to have inhabited the cities of Judea, the > > prevailing assumption has been that the passage you quote from Every Good Man > > is Free 89-91 must refer to the deeds of rulers of that country. Yet no > Judean ruler is known to have committed such outrageous deed against his own > > countrymen as Philo describes. Indeed, in âEmbassy to Gaiusâ Philo > indicates that > the Jews have been well treated from the time of Augustus down through the > reign of Tiberius, with the sole exception of certain misdeeds under Sejanus > in > Rome and Pilate in Judea. But Philoâs description of even the worst crimes > > under Pilate falls far short of the genocidal savagery Philo ascribes to the > > mysterious âpotentatesâ of the above passage. Rather, my own extensive > research > indicates that the true scene of the horrible events Philo refers to was > Alexandrian Egypt. Specifically, Philo unmistakably refers to Flaccus, the > governor of Alexandria under the anti-Jewish riots in 38 CE, as well as > prominent > anti-Semitic Greeks Isidorus and others who worked behind the scenes to > instigate violence against the Jewish community in Alexandria. This is > demonstrated > by numerous very striking verbal parallels between the passage and Philo's > essays On Flaccus and Embassy to Gaius. This necessitates a date of 38 CE at > the > earliest for Every Good Man is Free. > > > > Best regards, > Russell Gmirkin > > > > Stephen wrote: > > The following is Colson's Loeb translation of sections 88-91. Two types of > rulers are discussed, both quite disapproved by Philo here and by Essenes. > Can > you tell which type sounds more like the Essene view of Sadducee-influenced > rulers and which the Essene view of Pharisee-influenced rulers? > > "Such are the athletes of virtue produced by a philosophy free from the > pedantry of Greek wordiness, a philosophy which sets its pupils to practice > themselves in laudable actions, by which the liberty which can never be > enslaved is firmly established. Here we have a proof. Many are the potentates > > who at various occasions have raised themselves to power over the country. > They differed both in nature and the line of conduct which they followed. > Some > of them carried their zest for outdoing wild beasts in ferocity to the point > > of savagery. They left no form of cruelty untried. They slaughtered their > subjects wholesale, or like cooks carved them piecemeal and limb from limb > whilst still alive, and did not stay their hands till justice who surveys > human affairs visited them with the same calamities. Others transformed this > > wild frenzy into another kind of viciousness. Their conduct showed intense > bitterness, but they talked with calmness, though the mask of their milder > language failed to conceal their rancorous disposition. They fawned like > venomous hounds yet wrought evils irremediable and left behind them > throughout > the cities the unforgettable sufferings of their victims as monuments of > their > impiety and inhumanity. Yet none of these, neither the extremely ferocious > nor > the deep-eyed treacherous dissemblers, were able to lay a charge against this > > congregation of Essenes or holy ones [osion] here described" > > In this very partisan account, (young?) Philo shared an Essene point of view, > > and he may here reflect Essene views on Sadducee- and Pharisee-influenced > Hasmoneans, including Alexander Jannaeus, the Qumran-view Wicked Priest. > > > > > > > ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] DSS article on fragments and sales
Without, for now, comment on the content of the website or article, here's a new article by Henk Schutten that raises questions about fragments and money. Dutch article http://www.michelvanrijn.nl/artnews/artnws.htm English translation http://www.michelvanrijn.nl/artnews/deadseaparool.htm Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Philo on Sadducees and Pharisees??
Here's a heuristic exercise, for those open to it. From such people comments are welcome, especially on g-megillot (this is also posted to the reopened ane list, in part to remind DSS scholars of g-megillot list). G-megillot info page: http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot As is well known, Philo wrote about Essenes in three extant works, but his extant works do not include the names Sadducees or Pharisees. But is it possible that, in one work that is quite favorable to Essenes, Philo shared an Essene view of certain rulers, viewed quite unfavorably, who were influenced by Sadducees and Pharisees? In Every Good Man is Free, Philo discusses this Stoic saying. In section 74 he praises varioius groups "in which deeds are held in higher esteem than words." This is the reading by F.H. Colson in Loeb Philo IX p.52.1; compare his Preface and Introduction and the praise on the volume and specifically on this reading by A.D. Nock in Classical Studies 1943. Philo names Magi and Gymnosophists. Strabo, influenced by Posidonius, also brought up Magi and Gymnosophists in his Geography section on Jews 16.2.34f; this text is explicitly negative on Alexander Jannaeus; would that Strabo's longer book, History,were fully extant, with its mentions of Essenes, partly used by Josephus, e.g. Ant. 13; see JJS 1994, 295-8. Then Philo (75) brings up Essenes in "Palestinian Syria." He praises them in several sections. Recall, that from the Qumran Essene point of view, the Wicked Priest is a High Priest, a Hasmonean. 4QNpesherNahum, as many of us think, and as brilliantly supported and extended by J. VanderKam in the E. Tov and A. Saldarini Festschriften and in his 2004 High Priests book, Alexander Jannaeus appears as a Lion who killed his own people, and Pharisees appear as Seekers of Smooth Things/Flattery, a pun against Pharisee Halakha. Pharisees are also called Ephraim; an individual or a group can have two nanes in Qumran texts. E.g., the Lion can also be the Wicked Priest. The following is Colson's Loeb translation of sections 88-91. Two types of rulers are discussed, both quite disapproved by Philo here and by Essenes. Can you tell which type sounds more like the Essene view of Sadducee-influenced rulers and which the Essene view of Pharisee-influenced rulers? "Such are the athletes of virtue produced by a philosophy free from the pedantry of Greek wordiness, a philosophy which sets its pupils to practice themselves in laudable actions, by which the liberty which can never be enslaved is firmly established. Here we have a proof. Many are the potentates who at various occasions have raised themselves to power over the country. They differed both in nature and the line of conduct which they followed. Some of them carried their zest for outdoing wild beasts in ferocity to the point of savagery. They left no form of cruelty untried. They slaughtered their subjects wholesale, or like cooks carved them piecemeal and limb from limb whilst still alive, and did not stay their hands till justice who surveys human affairs visited them withthe same calamities. Others transformed this wild frenzy into another kind of viciousness. Their conduct showed intense bitterness, but they talked with calmness, though the mask of their milder language failed to conceal their rancorous disposition. They fawned like venomous hounds yet wrought evils irremediable and left behind them throughout the cities the unforgettable sufferings of their victims as monuments of their impiety and inhumanity. Yet none of these, neither the extremely ferocious nor the deep-eyed treacherous dissemblers, were able to lay a charge againts this congregation of Essenes or holy ones [osion] here described" In this very partisan account, (young?) Philo shared an Essene point of view, and he may here reflect Essene views on Sadducee- and Pharisee-influenced Hasmoneans, including Alexander Jannaeus, the Qumran-view Wicked Priest. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] another DSS medieval misdating
Philip, If the claim had appeared in a supermarket tabloid paper I would not have noted it here. But it appeared in the usually-distinguished Times Literary Supplement and is part of a series of attempts to claim, misleadingly, a medieval date for the scrolls. Because I think some people who know better might have interest in being informed and in writing editors to correct such misinformation, to better inform the public on what research has determined, I find I see this differently than you. But I leave it to other list members and the moderator to help clarify what suits this list. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting philip davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Can I suggest that if we are going to devote any attention to such > nonsense the list will quickly become overcrowded. This kind of stuff > ought just to be ignored. > > > > > > > > >In a letter to the Times Literary Supplement 15 July 2005 page 15, Peter W. > >Pick, who has been quoted in related late-scroll-dating newspaper articles > by > >Neil Altman and David Crowder, claims to know of "many Christian and > medieval > >features" of the scrolls.[] ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] another DSS medieval misdating
In a letter to the Times Literary Supplement 15 July 2005 page 15, Peter W. Pick, who has been quoted in related late-scroll-dating newspaper articles by Neil Altman and David Crowder, claims to know of "many Christian and medieval features" of the scrolls. He claimed that the Aramaic "Son of God" text is Christian, dating after Luke 1:32, 35. And: "In the important Isaiah scroll many medieval and anomalous features appear, such as the use of Western numbers, a system developed after 1200 AD, notations of '3X' written above the beginnings of passages that Christians claim prophetically refer to Jesus; and the appearance of non- Semitic words. Finally, the DSS catalogue cites Christian liturgical fragments, on the recto and verso of acodex page, a format that began to be used from the second century AD, as well as Arabic and Greek magical texts found in the caves of Wadi Murraba'at" This letter, in my view, includes much misinformation. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] DSD v.12 n.2 (2005) Table of Contents
Now available online to those with individual or institutional subscriptions, Dead Sea Discoveries 12.2. TOC: Articles 4QPseudo-Danielab (4Q2434Q244) and the Book of Daniel pp. 101-133(33) Author: DiTommaso, Lorenzo New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf, 4QIsab, 4Q226, 8QGen, and XQpapEnoch pp. 134-157(24) Authors: Eshel, Esther; Eshel, Hanan Were the Priests all the Same? Qumranic Halakhah in Comparison with Sadducean Halakhah pp. 158-188(31) Author: Regev, Eyal Gen 24:14 and Marital Law in 4Q271 3: Exegetical Aspects and Implications pp. 189-204(16) Author: Rothstein, David Reconstructing and Reading 4Q416 2 ii 21: Comments on Menahem Kister's Proposal pp. 205-211(7) Author: Wold, Benjamin G. Book Reviews Book Reviews pp. 212-232(21) best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Singapore exhibit
An exhibit in Singapore reportedly will include "two fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls." http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/153441/1/.html Jim Davila at http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com 19 June posted that and added some discussion or questions including some from me and Matthew Hamilton. (One small correction: I think Jordan nationalized the Palestine Archaeological Museum/Rockefeller in 1966 rather than 1956.) Though I've read that the Vatican Library donated money in 1951 to buy fragments from bedouin, the three of us are unaware that any of those fragments ever were sent to the Vatican Library. (I didn't locate any in their online catalog, though I'm not positive I used fully.) The exhibit is not limited to that source, though. I have heard from the Asian Civilisation Museum co-curator that the fragments are quite small, around 1.5 cm x 2 cm each. One in Hebrew is reportedly from Daniel. The other is in Aramaic "but cannot be deciphered." I have written back to request further information about provenance, current collection, which Daniel text (which third person masculine singular imperfect hitpa'el), whether these have been or will be published (apparently a catalog for the exhibit is planned). Anyone know more? best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Qumran Science conf. abstracts
Abstracts from the 22-23 May 2005 Qumran Meeting in Jerusalem, "Material and Bio-culture in connection with Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Cost Action G8 Working Group 7" are posted at: http://micro5.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msjan/abstracts.html best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Jannes and his brother
Previously I gave reasons to see that the Qumran mss view "wicked priest" was
Alexander Jannaeus, that his acquiescent surviving brother Absalom (War 1.84,
Ant. 13.323 and 1966 Marcus/Loeb note, and Ant. 14.71) was mentioned in 1QpHab
V 9, and that their contemporary Judah the Essene (War 1.78-80; Ant. 13.311) was
the "teacher of righteousness."
Speaking of Jannaeus and his brother Absalom, it is worth recalling the Damascus
Document passage in CD V 18 and in 4QD266 3ii6 and 4Q267 2,2 that Belial raised
Jannes and his brother when the Prince of Lights raised Moses and
Aaron. This tradition adds names to the sorcerers of Exodus 7:11. This is the
dualistic repeated situation at the time of the "teacher of righteousness," in
the perspective of his supporters. Admittedly the spelling (all three times) in
D is YXNH, whereas Jannaeus in Hebrew is usualy YN)Y; in other words, the names
are closer in Greek and Latin. But it may be interesting that here we have only
Jannes named and not his brother Jambres/Mambres/Jotape, given that the first is
close to Jannaeus and the second is not close to Absalom; and the first name is
more important. Usually in the many scattered attestations of these
sorcerers, both brothers are named (Targum; Pliny; OTPseudepigrapha [1985]
2.427-42). Might this usage have contributed to Rabbinic confusion between John
Hyrcanus and Jannaeus? That Yannai was the name of Alexander rather than of
Hyrcanus, and for spelling variations, see Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in
Late Antiquity, Part I, Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE (2002) 23-4, 144-50, esp. p.
147.
Louis Ginzberg (Unknown Jewish Sect, 1916/1922/1976, p.288) wrote:
"YXNH, (5,18) name of a sorcerer contemporary with Moses. In talmudical
sources (Exodus Rabba 9,4; Menahot 85a) he is called YWXNY, in NT (II Timothy
3:8) and in the Pseudepigrapha: Iannes. The mentioning of Moses' opponent by
the name of Iannes may be a disguised attack on (King Alexander) Jannaeus or
on King [sic] Ioannes (Hyrcanus)." In a footnote he adds that in the
vernacular the difference in the names "was scarcely perceptible."
We can now see that the mention of Jannes was an attack on ("wicked priest")
Jannaeus.
best,
Stephen Goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Absalom, brother of Jannaeus (pesher Habakkuk v 9)
Let me renew my request for bibliography (if it exists) in which it is asserted with confidence that Absalom, Jannaeus' brother, was the one mentioned in pesher Habakkuk v 9. It's a bit curious that this may not have been asserted earlier, though some of the reasons are apparent in retrospect. While one cannot claim absolute certainty, the available evidence and the context strongly indicate that he was that Absalom who was silent and did not help the teacher of righteousness (Judah the Essene) when aggrieved by the wicked priest Jannaeus (and, if he is a separate individual, unlikely in this pesher, the Liar). Brownlee in BASOR 1948 claimed that Absalom referred to David's son symbolically; but this Absalom was not rebelling, much less against his father, but acquiescing, just as Josephus describes him in both War and Antiquities. Absalom was not a common name, but it was repeated among Hasmoneans. Tal Ilan's fine Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity (2002) provides the details. She also argues that Yannai was clearly from Yonathan; and she provides attested double sigma Greek spellings of Joshua, from the same Hebrew letters, in reverse order, as the Hebrew source of the Greek name Essaioi/Ossaioi. Queen Alexandra, according to Talmud (bBer. 48a), had a brother, but his name, Shimon ben Shetah, was not Absalom. Unlike the Hasmonean Absalom use for the brother of Jannaeus, no evidence suggests she had a brother Absalom. Nikos Kokkinos in Herodian Dynasty (1998) has detailed genealogical discussion and a family tree--Herod married the greatgrandaughter of our Absalom. D.N. Freedman in BASOR 1949 provided an article claiming that Absalom was a contemporary individual in history, and would provide a good time peg for the scrolls, but missed the match. Similarly, Paul Winter, wrote that the pHab reference was "Non-Allegorical" (PEQ 1959 38-46). Bilha Nitzan gives a useful survey on "House of Absalom" in Encyclopedia of the DSS (2000). Books by Brownlee, Delcor, Elliger, Nitzan, Horgan and others give useful commentary and bibliography. It is becoming clearer that Yannai was the "wicked priest," and that his surviving brother, Absalom, was silent and did not help the "teacher of righteousness," Judah the Essene. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Qumran and Science meeting, May, Jerusalem
Jan Gunneweg of the Hebrew University has organised a conference on Qumran and Science, May 22-23, in Jerusalem. This link gives a preliminary programme: http://micro5.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msjan/preliminaryprogramme.html best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] forthcoming books, dissertations?; House of Absalom question
A few forthcoming Qumran books have been mentioned on this list, e.g. 3 or 4 more DJD volumes. And orion http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il is very helpful on publications recently in print, and they invite suggested additions and corrections. Would notes on forthcoming books and dissertations be of interest here? For instance, apparently, Emile Puech's new Copper scroll edition, translation and commentary is now expected in the STJD Brill series (thanks to a note in F. Garcia-Martinez' Copper Scroll Greek letters article, cited at orion). Some publications list dissertations in progress. E.g., Scripta Classica Israelica noted, e.g., Dalia Ayal, "Laws and Customs of the Essenes in the Scrolls," Tel Aviv U., some time ago. I look forward, e.g., to the Matthew Hamilton (Moore Theological College Library) dissertation, who has already amassed extensive information on ancient TaNaK mss. And Weston Fields, I think, is working on a book on Qumran discoveries and the fates of various mss and ownerships. I guess the FM Cross FS, An Eye for Form, will include some Qumran-relevant contributions, among other Festschriften in process. The Paris belles lettres edition (v. 5 part 2) of Pliny's Histoire naturelle passage on Essenes is not yet in print, to my knowledge. And, of course, several archaeological reports are expected, e.g., Y. Magen, Y. Peleg in the Judea and Samaria Publications series; the Brown conference; a scientific volume ed. Jan Gunneweg, etc. Ed Cook recently mentioned an eventual revised Wise Abegg Cook DSS translation volume. Anyway, I, for one, would be interested in reading notices of forthcoming Qumran-related books and dissertations. *** I recently proposed that the "House of Absalom" in pesher Habakkuk referred to the brother of Alexander Yannai, Absalom, the only brother he let live. I intend to look around to see if that proposal has been made before. But, since the literature is so big, if anyone happens to know a publication that previously made that proposal, I'd be interested to learn of it, so I can cite it when the occasion arises. Thanks. best, Stephen Goranson PS, BTW, Gershom Scholem, long a librarian, wrote an interesting memoir, if you like memoirs, From Berlin to Jerusalem (original in German). ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Yannai suffering; ergon nomou
The Qumran "wicked priest"--Yannai--was said to suffer, according to Qumran mss, from his life of wickedness (cruelty, drunkenness, impurity, robbery...), and from his countrymen, and from foreigners. No Qumran sentence known to me explicitly says he was killed by foreigners; nor by his countrymen; nor killed twice; but suffered variously and died once. Did he suffer from foreigners (and countrymen)? M. H. Segal, seeing that Yannai was "wicked priest" (JBL 1951), thought so, citing Josephus Antiquities 13.375f: "Then he engaged in battle with Obedas, the king of the Arabs, and falling into an ambush in a rough and difficult region, he was pushed by a multitude of camels into a deep ravine near Garada, a village of Gaulanis, and barely escaped with his own life, and fleeing from there, came to Jerusalem. But when the nation attacked him upon his misfortune, he made war on it and within six years slew no fewer than fifty thousand Jews. And so when he urged them to make an end of their hostility toward him, they only hated him the more on account of what had happened. And when he asked what he ought to do and what they wanted of him, they all cried out, 'to die'; [cf. 4Q448] and they sent to Demetrius Akairos [cf. 4QpesherNahum], asking him to come to their assistance." (Josephus also claimed that Alexander Jannaeus told his wife to offer his corpse to the Pharisees. On the relation of this story to 4QpNahum, see VanderKam, High Priests, p. 330f.) Paul, reportedly a former Pharisee, read Habakkuk differently than the Essene writer of 1QpesherHabakkuk whose 'osey hatorah had faith in Judah, the "teacher of righteousness." Sadducees, reportedly accepting neither named angels nor resurrection, were quite unlikely to become Nazarenes (later "Christians") nor bring those teachings. Among the very small minority of Jews who did become "Christians," conversations about observance of torah, evidently continued, mutatis mutandis, between former Pharisees and former Essenes. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] comb
In this report on the sifting of Jerusalem Temple Mount rubble http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1383353/posts is reported the following find "* An ivory comb, apparently from the Second Temple period. Similar combs have been found at Qumran and it is probable that they were used as preparation for ritual purification in a mikveh (ritual bath), prior to entering the Temple courts" I haven't yet seen a photo of this comb. It may be worth noting, provisionally, that two pairs of combs that appeared in several Dead Sea Scroll exhibits, and catalogues, are not from Qumran. Or, more precisely, two are from Wadi Murabba'at caves (DJD II); the other two, as far as I know, are not from Qumran; at least, they are not from de Vaux' excavation of Khirbet Qumran (as opposed to a Cave One broken fragment), based on the publications and on personal communication from J.-B. Humbert. The comb photo on the cover and on a full-page plate inside Y. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, is misleading, as it is not properly linked to Qumran. Perhaps some other dig than de Vaux may have found one or more combs at Qumran; but, to my knowledge, none have so far been published. So this is a note of caution about comparing the Jerusalem comb to Qumran. On the other hand, the sifting of the Temple Mount rubble surely has yielded very interesting finds and is a worthwhile project. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Temple scroll class
Dear Ian Werrett,
The word plays--not merely just one or two of these {see e.g. VanderKam's High
Priest book and his article in the Tov FS)--are evidence for the second temple
use of the term "halakha" by Pharisees, then retained in Rabbinic Hebrew. The
Meier JBL article explicitly brackets out--excludes, hence distorts--some of
the Pharisee evidence; I found it quite non-persuasive. I don't have my copy
at hand, but it has many penciled objections, and lacking bibliography; I
could find it and go into detail, but there seems little point. BTW J.
Baumgatrten, private communication [some years ago] confirmed that there is
no use of halakha in Qumran ms known to him. Of course they use the root, as
does any Hebrew writer--but not the technical term of themselves. D. Boyarin
and A. Baumgarten have written on self-designation names followed by
cacophemism (cf. caricaturnamen).
I wish Qumran scholars would not use the term "halakha" of the Qumran/Essene
writers that opposed "halakha," but I am beginning to sense that some scholars
will likely continue to use it in those contexts. Again, I find no benefit in
its (totally, utterly unnecessary) use, only a down side--describing Qumran
mss legal determinations with a term they rejected; and other, neutral words
are easily, readily available. It's using the "winners" vocabulary to describe
the losers (losers in terms of survival as a group). I consider it a poor
method move; and a tossing out of "what if" heuristics. But I'm repeating
myself, so I guess, for now, we could agree to disagree.
Perhaps, on the other hand, we could agree that Alexander Jannaeus was
the "wicked priest," who reportedly told his wife to hand over his corpse to
Pharisees to do with as they decided??
all the best,
Stephen Goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Temple scroll class
Dear Ian, If you are "aware of" my view--and the majority view, well restated and strengthened in J. VanderKam's 2004 High Priest book and in his article in the E. Tov FS-- on the Qumran pun against halakha, then I'm not having it two ways. Pharisees used it during second temple times and Qumran writers belittled it. No contradiction. "Halakha" was what *some* (non-Qumran) but not all Second Temple period Jews taught and observed. best wishes, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Temple scroll class
Dear Ian Werrett, Thanks for your comment on Joseph Baumgarten. We still differ on "halakha." Pharisaic and Rabbinic "halakha" is all the "halakah" there is. (See, e.g. Tradition volume 1.) If speaking of differences between Rabbinic "halakha" and wrongly so-called Qumran "halakah" using the wrong term (Qumran actively *opposed*! halakha) can be done, how much better using the methodologically better terms (legal texts). Previously I mentioned the absurdity of calling some Qumran text even halakha- type halakha! I see MMT somewhat differently than Prof. Sussman. Additionally, for all those interested in "counterfactual" or "what if" history, kindly try this heuristric exercise: imagine that Essenes survived the Second Temple period as one of the main religions in the world. (They did in fact survive 70 AD, but as a minority grop, and died out after a disputable length of time, depending on group definition, but do not survive [despite some other minority groups using the name today] continuous up to today.) And imagine that Rabbinic Judaism (with its vovcabulary) did not become a major religion. So, method-promotors and occasional "counterfactualists," please consider using the free terminology that does not distorT, as "Qumran halakha" indeed *does*. In my view, it is a unfortunate habit without any benefit. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Temple scroll class
Thanks for the many useful notes, Jim Davila, at http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com and at http://qumranica.blogspot.com If I may make two points about the Temple Scroll class note at the latter: 1) Joseph M. Baumgarten *does not* (in many recent publications, bibliography on request) and *did not* (in JJS 1980) assert a Sadducee origin of Qumran mss. He pointed out some MMT agreement with what is later called Sadducee in Mishna. Two groups can agree on some points, against a third group, without being identical groups. (It happens, e.g., in politics.) J. Baumgarten has for 50-some learned years consistently given many good reasons to consider Essene, not Sadducee, origin of Qumran mss. 2) Here's why it is *not* helpful to call Qumran legal texts "hakakha": because that was not in their vocabulary, and because that uses the vocabulary of a group that Qumran writers plainly opposed on a broad range of legal matters, and because it makes it difficult to first read the Qumran legal texts in their own intention, and because the surviving mainstream (Rabbinic) Judaism used the term "halaka" (continuing Pharisee usage) and when the term "halakha" is used of Qumran, it obscures the fact that the Qumran/Essene legal texts did not become that mainstream, i.e., it can obscure the history of sectarianism. For your consideration, please. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] "wicked" Yannai: more evidence
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
[Megillot] called by the name of truth (1QpHab)
More on Yannai as the Qumran "wicked priest" and on VanderKam's "From Joshua to Caiphas: High Priests after the Exile" (2004)--a very good book. Pesher Habakkuk viii: " this concerns the wicked priest who was called by the name of truth when he first arose." Of the five brothers born by two wives of John Hyrcanus, only Yannai and his brother Absalom (the latter who was silent when the teacher of righteousness was aggrieved) survived past 103 BCE. The second wife released three children from prison, and she "placed on the throne Alexander who had the double advantage over the others of seniority and apparent moderation of character. However, on coming to power he put to death one brother," and let Absalom live (War 1.85). She thought him good at first. By the way, Tal Ilan (JSJ 1993) argued that she was not the same woman as the wife of Yannai. VanderKam accepts that they were, and in one of the few quibbles with the book, the otherwise fine bibliography lacks any T. Ilan publications. In a dream (of interest to pesharim readers), according to Ant. 13. 320-3 (cf. War 1.68-9) John Hyrcanus was informed that it was the destiny of Alexander, sent to frontier Galilee, to be his successor. Divine revelation; called by the name of truth. Unlike, say, proposed Qumran "wicked priest" Menelaus, merely the office highest bidder. Unlike, say, Hyrcanus II known for indolence. Really, was Hrycanus II at least in part proposed as "teacher of righteousness" because apparently no one else had done so? (And because Dupont- Sommer proposed him as "wicked priest"?) VanderKam answers the Hyrcanus II proposal and affirms Yannai as the Angry Lion of 4QpNah; and Yannai as the negative King Jonathan in 4Q448. That Yannai has been recognized as wicked priest by several (e.g. Jean Carmignac, Bilha Nitzan) is not a problem but a help; now there is additional evidence. VanderKam accepts Jonathan Maccabee as wicked priest; but, I suggest, his recounting of the basis for that helps show how weak it always was; he recognizes, e.g., that it is not known that the teacher of righteousness served as high priest; the offered supports for the first Jonathan (Maccabee) as wicked priest, in brief, work better for the second Jonathan (Alexander, Yannai). Recognizing Yannai as the wicked priest and Judah the Essene (doer of torah) as the teacher of righteousness will help us better understanding the roots of what is later called in Greek heresy in the newly-added (attested to my knowledge only post 70 CE) negative sense and what is likewise (attested post 70) called in Hebrew in the newly-added negative sense minut. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] house of Absalom; wicked at beginning or end
Andy, Column V, line 9 Stephen Goranson Quoting ". ." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Stephen, > Where is "Absalom" in Peshe Habakkuk? > Andy ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] house of Absalom; wicked at beginning or end
According to Pesher Habakkuk v, the House of Absalom failed to help the teacher of righteousness when the wicked priest rebuked him; Absalom "kept silence." If we follow the pHab viii hint of juxtaposed House of Judah, 'osey hatorah, and the Teacher of Righteousness and accept Jannai as its "wicked priest," perhaps we should consider the only surviving brother of Jannai, Absalom. After all, Jannai did not kill his brother Absalom (unlike others), because he considered him no threat as a rival for power; his brother, "...the survivor, who was content with a quiet life." (War I 84; cf. Ant. 13. 323 "brother who preferred to live without taking part in public affairs" and Marcus/Loeb note a; Ant. 14.71). Quiet; silence; Absalom. The accounts in Josephus and Talmud about sectarian-upset dinners of John Hyrcanus and Jannai (or one dinner twice assigned) are complex. But it's interesting that Raba reportedly said (b. Berakot 29a): "Johanan and Jannai are different [i.e., John Hyrcanus was not Jannai--correct]; Jannai was originally wicked and Johanan was originally righteous." Possibly this reflects Essene and Pharisee/Rabbinic polemic. In the Essene view Jannai was at first "called by the name of truth" (pHab viii 9) and then became wicked (the wicked priest). For Raba the opposite obtained. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] the teacher, Judah, again
Philip, You write that you see "no probabilities...of identifying the historical teacher." I do, both theoretically (your negative declaration goes way beyond the evidence), and as it has already happened. I accept that later accounts are not necessarily accurate, and we are well-advised to look for that too, but "ideological constructs" can themselves also be overly (and sometimes ideologically) imagined (or urged) as not building on or interpreting of on history. For example, two individuals may be in a conflict and only ome consider it a crucial dualistic struggle, but, still, two individuals were in conflict. Perhaps you have been influenced by the false, unsupported, traditions that the Semitic Vorlage of "Essene"/"Ossene" is not and cannot be in the scrolls? (When it is). Or the false tradition that the teacher is not mentioned by Jusephus? (When Judah is.) Taking your proposal, when would be the time between D and S most likely? (Hint: Yanni.) And your advice on ideology: well, the ideologies fit these two. The confluence of evidence is there. The job now is refining, to the (admittedly limited) extent possible. Not going behind Essenes, or beyond Essenes, or denying Essenes, but clarifying what is true and false about Essenes--plenty of both was eventually written. Not all history is knowable, but we can know some, and any history method warning us off history raises the question what such method has to fear. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting philip davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > As every New testament scholar knows (or should), there is a Jesus of > history and a Christ of faith. So no doubt with the Teacher; whoever > historically this person may have been, the texts do not necessarily > point directly to him. A good example is the impression that he was > persecuted by a 'Wicked Priest' (and this also answers the question > whether there ever was a historical 'wicked priest'). There are > reasons to doubt that this is simply a historical datum, just as > there are reasons to doubt the Jewish trial of Jesus. > > As for 4QMMT; its mention of 'camps' suggested an already sectarian > organization on the lines of D, though nothing that points to S (the > latter point is not conclusive, but I don't see a strong case for the > yahad being envisaged as an organization in several different loci.) > > Put in Maxine's way: the Teacher in the Scrolls is an amalgam of > several readings, though all by his followers (not unlike the NT > really). Also, like the NT, no external evidence for the person at > all (I don't buy Josephus and Tacitus is a third-hand source). > > It is better not to take as fact something that might be than to take > as fact something that may not be, I think. Of course, most 'facts' > are a matte of probability, but I see no probabilities in the matter > of identifying the historical teacher. Exploring him (and his > opponents) as an ideological construct within the texts is better - > and also the first step in any historical work. > > Philip > -- > Professor Philip R Davies > University of Sheffield > ___ > g-Megillot mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot > ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Max thanks
Maxine, At the moment I guess we read MMT somewhat differently. But I intend more research. And your good works helpfully remind us to consider many possibilities. Thank you. Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Max lecture
Though I am perhaps not a card-carrying postmodernist--is such a thing possible? :-)--and though my knowlege of infinite deferral of meaning might be limited (though some science allowing for unknowns is mayhaps rather not must needs be a new thing, really), unless my soul perpetually knows, if I have a soul, and though I was tempted to begin comments by deconstructing the first sentence of Prof. Maxine Grossman's guest lecture, at http://qumranica.blogspot.com/ and though I do recall Stanley Fish standing by the Duke chapel door after a Holocaust denial ad was published in the student paper to affirmm that he knew plain talk that the Holocaust did happen, and though I have praised the clarity of most Max sentences, and though at the Sepphoris dig Max and I seeing a Yannai coin, saying "ah, PaleoHebrew," and "neat" or some such word, seems good, and though even partially kvetching about a free lecture (thanks) could be thought to be churlish, so let me stop this poor litany or (de)stabilizing to turn to a few comments about Qumran mss, (or ;) here goes. Some historians have "suggested that" the Teacher of Righteousness "may have been a displaced High Priest" (page 1). I suggest that he was not (nor contemporary with Jonathan Maccabee), and the assumption that he was confuses history and perhaps influenced the paper a bit. For example, (page 8) on a "late date" of MMT manuscripts: "In this case MMT *cannot* be an actual letter dating to the time of the community's foundation, although it might preserve traditions about a real early conflict." May I venture to say, yes it can? Perhaps I am unclear what was intended as an "actual letter." Admittedly there are variants in the mss, so all as letter- perfect copies of any one exemplar is excluded. But, say, if Yannai was the wicked priest (the earliest MMT mss are estimated likely from his lifetime) and if Judah the Essene teacher of righteousness sent him a letter quite close in wording to extant MMT copies (parts B and C), even if the 6 or 7 (if the 7th is in cryptic text as Pfann proposed) extant copies are not that ms, MMT could, at least conceivably, have been a letter. (Though *not* halakhic, in its own vocabulary.) Or did I misread (or not give the "best" reading--an oldfashioned word in the lecture.) The Gettysburg address was actually delivered, though my schoolkid memorization and my teacher's presentation might have added or subtracted meanings too And a text can be two things at the same time, can't it? (I do not claim that is disallowed all through the paper, but when the method declarations are intended to be read on face value is not always clear to me.) For example, MMT could have been both a letter and could have come to be used in the role of a foundation myth (as some old BA sidebar might have raised, if I recall correctly). Is the "*cannot*" above shading toward totalizing or being overdrawn? In other words, I looked for conclusions, and one of the most emphatically-stated ones I found I found not at the moment persuasive. Question 2. After working methodologically, what then, in brief, are the main, even if provisional, conclusions about D and MMT in history? What can we or you reliably say? Thank you Max. all the best, Stephen Goranson "Opposition is true friendship" --Wm. Blake ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] VanderKam on 4Q448
I just got a copy of James VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiphas: High Priests after the Exile (Fortress & Van Gorcum, 2004). Though I haven't read it all, it so far appears to be Jim's typically excellent work. Let me quote from the Alexander Jannaeus section (p.336): "It is surely possible that the attitude of the covenanters at Qumran toward the Hasmonean rulers changed as circumstances did; nevertheless, the other evidence on this matter shows only negative views about the reigning house. In this respect, the approach to 4Q448 defended by E. Main seems to point in a more helpful direction. According to Main, a study of the biblical usage of the phrasing found in line 1 (WR (L demonstrates that the prayer asks God to fight against King Jonathan but to bless his people." Yes. VanderKam also cites Lemaire. To those three names (Main, Lemaire, and VanderKam) we can add Penner, Lorein, Harrington/Strugnell, (and me). I suggest it is time to focus on the chronology of "wicked priest" Alexander Jannaeus and "teacher of righteousness" Judah the Essene. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Verbs and War Scroll by Soren Holst
I see on the Orion Center current bibliography, at http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/resources/bib/current.shtml Holst, Soren. Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll. Kobenhavn: Det Teologiske Fakultet, Kobenhavns Universitet, 2004. Soren, would you care to tell us something about your book? thanks, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
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
[Megillot] 4Q226 frag. 6a; etcetera
Thanks, Soren, for mentioning the DSS Reader 3 text 4Q226 frag. 6a. I haven't seen DSSR vol. 3. Is there more information there about this fragment and its assignment or provenance or editor (H. Eshel; J. VanderKam?)? It had/has previously been called Genesis 22 frag. and 4Q252 frag. Maybe it's just me this morning, but the photos of 4Q226 in DJD XIII plate XI seem fairly poor quality. I see "Isaac" is spelled the same way in frag. 7 line 5. By the way, the DSS Reader vol. 6 is in print, according to brill.nl I think it was supposed to include a few corrected readings of pesharim (with a revised DJD V Brooke and Bernstein to come later, unless I'm misinformed). Anyone seen that? Some other still unpublished privately-owned Qumran-claimed fragments are in the Schoyen Collection. Those from 11QT col. 1 if genuine may be important. Yadin said the first sheet was a replacement sheet, scribe A. I requested from the Shrine of the Book the locations (sheet or fragment) of the C14 tests; I have received a reply that it may take time to locate the information. Such would aid in attempting to verify (if we can speak of verifying) stray fragments. And potentially for comparing C14 results with DNA results--since not every sheet in a scroll need have the same date or source, but fragments of the same sheet should have. I also asked at the Schoyen Collection whether they would C14 test, or have done so, the date pen. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] the teacher and the high priest?
It has sometimes been stated that the "teacher of righteousness" had either served as the high priest or had expected to be named the high priest. Is there good reason to state that? best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] dead sea scrolls for sale....? - PseudoJubilees??
I'd need to check papers at home to be more sure, and I don't have DSSR 3 at hand, but, I think, tentatively, yes, this is one of the fragments mentioned in the article and on display in the "Ink and Blood" exhibit, there called a Genesis fragment. Photo: http://www.inkandblood.com/wysiwyg- uploads/files/downloadable_graphics/Genesis_Frag-hi.jpg best, Stephen Goranson Quoting Søren Holst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The article doesn't specify what the "new" fragments are, but the mention of > Hanan Eshel makes me think of the one recent reference to new Qumran > fragments that I've seen in a scholarly publication, namely the extra > fragment "6a" of 4Q226 "Pseudo-Jubilees" included with the edition of this > text on p. 114 of "Parabiblical Texts" (The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader vol 3.), > ed. Parry and Tov, Leiden: Brill 2005. > > The fragment, a fuller publication of which is said to be forthcoming in DSD, > seems to refer to the Aqedah. The full text is something like > > ] God to Abraha[m > I]saac his son "Take the [..." > ] and the angel of [Y]HWH [ > > Does anyone know, whether the new fragment(s) referred to in the article > forwarded by Jim could be this? > > all the best > Soren, Copenhagen > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:g-megillot- [EMAIL PROTECTED] på > vegne af Jim West > > Sendt: 16. marts 2005 14:45 > > Til:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; g-megillot@McMaster.ca > > Emne: [Megillot] dead sea scrolls for sale? > > > > Listers may be very interested in this story: > > > > http://www.thepilot.com/features/r031605Scrolls.html > > > > (i've attempted to blog this morning but blogger seems to have been > > killed- so maybe I can blog this later if its revived) > > > > -- > > Jim West > > > > Biblical Studies Resources - http://web.infoave.net/~jwest > > Biblical Theology Weblog - http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com > > > > > > ___ > > g-Megillot mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot > > ___ > g-Megillot mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot > ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
P.S. Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
P.S. I could address further claims in R. Gmirkin's latest post, and will, if seems useful. And corroboration and coherence and chronological-suitability, for instance, are all among important aspects of worthy proposals. But I would like to state more clearly than I did before that the Qumran mss also offer some new information on history, including information not available already in, say, Josephus, and the other currently available sources--some things not previously known--and that Qumran texts also help illuminate some of those sources. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
Russell Gmirkin, In response: I do not agree with many of your recent statements. I'll mention some and try to look for a more productive way forward than the recent exchange. Briefly, as you called my comments "incorrect," G. Athas, on detailed observation, declared that dalets were carved in a direction that, if true, falsifies the proposed scenario that a forger carved the arms of the dalet both toward the left and stopped before a stone break; further, Athas claimed that the dalet goes all the way to the break, that, if true, redundantly falsifies what you described. This is relevant here, because what constitutes falsification, and recognition of it, is at issue. Back to Qumran. You wrote of "Strabo the geographer." Strabo, of course, also wrote History. The History, using Posidonios, and used by Josephus and others, is the text that I have presented much information about, again too long to repeat here. (The Histories of Posidonius and Strabo, both beginning in 146 BCE--the date Josephus borrowed to introduce Essenes and others--were once quite influential, in the time many extant Essene classical sources, many of the Stoics, got their information, but the histories fell out of favor, for reasons discussed in the literature.) Strabo's History in many ways is a more important and more ambitious work than his Geography, and it included much not in the Geography, so calling him "Strabo the geographer" will not do. Anyone is free to disagree with a history reconstruction. I have presented historical corroboration. You state that I have not, and you state that you have. In my view, it has not been demonstrated that the Hellenizing crisis or Maccabee proposed dating fits the evidence, though that was once a popular view. I suggest it is too early for the events named, and that it lacks corroborating Hellenistic crisis focus in the Qumran mss, and that it fails to account for the sectarian texts of Qumran. I could present these in more detail. But I wonder whether that is worthwhile at this point. In part, because I see differing levels of evidence required by you for your reconstruction than for mine. For example, your canditate has been described as wicked; so has my candidate; yet, in your post, the former is credited as evidence, and the latter is not credited as evidence. You state a candidate for, say, "wicked priest," and present that candidate as falsifiable. I state a candidate for "wicked priest," and--unless I read incorrectly--you implied that my canditate is not falsifiable. I could go on in response, but perhaps this much suffices for now. On one thing, at least, I think we partly agree, so I'll end with that. You wrote that these events did not happen "in a corner." I partly agree. I do not think everything mentioned in the Qumran mss was necessarily public and well known, in part because Essenes and Qumran writers had some secret and/or sectarian writings. But I agree that the character they called "wicked priest" would be an individual known to history. One way to determine which well-known candidate fits is to pay more attention to chronology and to sectarian developments. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] table of contents - Dead Sea Discoveries vol. 12 no. 1 (January 2005)
Andy, I thought some list readers would be interested in the new bibliography. Those with institutional subscriptions can read these online. Should I not send this type information? If the moderator states that I ought not send such, OK. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > What are we supposed to do with these, Stephen? > Andy Fincke >[] ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] table of contents - Dead Sea Discoveries vol. 12 no. 1 (January 2005)
[Fwd:] Please find below your Ingenta TOC Alert. Record 1. TI: Introduction: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Popular Imagination AU: Grossman Maxine L.; Murphy Catherine M. JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: January 2005 VO: 12 NO: 1 PG: 1-5(5) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20050101)12:1L.1;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 2. TI: Great Scott! the Dead Sea Scrolls, McGill University, and the Canadian Media AU: du Toit Jaqueline S.; Kalman Jason JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: January 2005 VO: 12 NO: 1 PG: 6-23(18) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20050101)12:1L.6;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 3. TI: Inverting Reality: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Popular Media AU: Schiffman Lawrence H. JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: January 2005 VO: 12 NO: 1 PG: 24-37(14) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20050101)12:1L.24;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 4. TI: The Scrolls in the British Media (1987-2002) AU: Brooke George J. JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: January 2005 VO: 12 NO: 1 PG: 38-51(14) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20050101)12:1L.38;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 5. TI: On the Fringe at the Center: Close Encounters between "Popular Culture" and the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls AU: Clements Ruth JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: January 2005 VO: 12 NO: 1 PG: 52-67(16) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20050101)12:1L.52;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 6. TI: Mystery or History: The Dead Sea Scrolls as Pop Phenomenon AU: Grossman Maxine L. JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: January 2005 VO: 12 NO: 1 PG: 68-86(19) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20050101)12:1L.68;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 7. TI: The Dead Sea Scrolls in Popular Culture: "I can give you no idea of the Contents" AU: Mahan Jeffrey H. JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: January 2005 VO: 12 NO: 1 PG: 87-94(8) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20050101)12:1L.87;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 8. TI: Why the Papers Love the Scrolls AU: Silk Mark JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: January 2005 VO: 12 NO: 1 PG: 95-100(6) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20050101)12:1L.95;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Profile number/username: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please quote this reference when contacting us Search millions of articles, access thousands of full-text scholarly and professional publications, and find answers to your specific research needs at www.ingenta.com. copyright 2005 ingenta [Fwd by S. Goranson] ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
Russell, your misrepresentation included declaring that there was no evidence other that what you mentioned, whereas you know I that draw on other evidence (too much to retype here; I hope to offer more later). Misrepresentation included again presenting Judah "ensconsed" in the temple, as if he had that option or as if he could not move (in other words, it is the wrong word), and as if his prophecy concerning two brothers of Jannaeus just before the latter took power somehow made him effectively about to die in Timbuktu (spelling?), i.e. irrelevant. (This reminds me of the minimalism (of another) declaring a min was attested in Sepphoris on one time only. Strabo's extant description of Egypt includes Jews in one line only--did he know more, say in his more ambitious History?) Rather than describing Judah as the first known Essene, teacher, at the beginning of Jannaeus getting out of prison; a sectarian among sectarians--local and some foreign groups of every stripe had cause for worry during Jannaeus' long time. He was a major priest and ruler. Most others proposed as "wicked priest" are too late or too early. On ANE list you Russell recently declared differences between you and G. Athas small or the like; but he described carving of the dalet that you consider forged was written in a direction that would make your forgery claim (about what the carver did) on the Tel Dan Aramaic inscription falsified. I have read your curious source criticism and your claim that M is the Maccabee War Scroll. I am puzzled why you offer a method lecture. Have you taught method at some university? A point I was trying to make is that the 3 items (listed, not argued there) are related: E.g., Are the 2 characters historical? Are they contemporary? Is one Essene? What's Essene? Some things are more readily falsified or more completely falsified than others. Falsification may not be our only tool. Another observation or invitation was to consider the most probable (tentative) reconstruction of history, the confluence of evidence. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
Russell, you have misrepresented my views especially in what I consider to be the support for them and possibilities for falsifying, so I doubt whether dialogue with you on such unreliable basis was much promise. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
If I may venture comments on some matters perhaps not quite resolved on the
sometimes quite helpful ane and g-megillot lists. It was perhaps misleadingly
stated that I do not recognize the falsifiability method. I think what I've
said is that I'm not a Popperian. Falsifiability, itself, existed before Karl
Popper did; and likely many of us use it sometimes. I merely am not persuaded
that Popper (or Kuhn's different view--2 smart people) adequately explained
all that happens, nor all that should happen, in science or history research.
E.g., briefly, can Popper be falsified? (There's a journal that allows such
questions, more rigorously stated.) Can falsification be 100%? If so, how can
that be falsified? Popper may be good enough for, say quantum mechanics--hire
some quantum mechanics to make a bomb; good enough for
government work. ;.) Part of the problem may be the boundaries of the problems
(if you dislike Plato, atomism?). Popper, I guess, was not post-modern. And I
assume we agree some problems are unsolved or not mutually agreed on
("Istanbul" origin, e.g.). But, to try 3 specific ane cases, perhaps
falsifiable claims.
1) In some Qumran texts, the "wicked priest" is Alexander Jannaeus.
2) In some Qumran texts, the "teacher of righteousness" is Judah the Essene
(the first Essene attested in Josephus, War and Ant., as alive and teaching in
Jerusalem just before Jannaeus took power.)
3) The various Greek spellings of what English has as "Essene" and "Ossene"
came from Hebrew 'osey hatorah, self-designation in some Qumran texts, texts
on other grounds widely, properly assessed as Essene texts.
What would it take to falsify or affirm or declare data-insufficient or
declare improperly-stated or any other appropriate option I left out?
Not to repeat all the arguments or to get too philosophically windy, a few
specific comments.
Number 1 at least conceivably can be falsified, if the data exists. But if the
WP were a title held by more than one individual including AJ, shall we call
it partly falsified? What's the nature of the boundaries of the problem?
What's relevant to consider and write in history research? Two problems at
once? Two methodologies at once? Writer tendenz over time with different
data? When someone claims a methodology but does not follow it? And what are
non-falsifiable claims in history? Is etymology (i.e., what happened in
language, not what one might have prescribed)? If one claims or claimed, say,
that all Qumran mss predate 62 BCE and that all internal text
references stop before then "permanently," is that falsifiably-stated? If
there are X number of 2 sigma C14 date ranges entirely after 62 BCE, does that
falsify?
Is it appropriate to consider a complaint that those around the scrolls early
on underestimated urban Jewish culture, so the scrolls weren't connected to
Qumran? When is it methodologically appropriate to consider and/or quote old
stuff in history, history of research? Bios praktikos, operarii, factores
legis, observers of torah, Essenes as experts in the law of God, rabbinic
texts versus ostentatious separatists named from saying 'what is my duty that
I may do it'?--of Essenes/Ossenes. "Jewish 'Ossaioi'at all events,
various writers have shown that there must be a close connection between
the 'Ossaioi' and the earlier Essenes [note 12 to Lightfoot, Hilgenfeld,
Thomas]." (p. 45, "The Qumran Covenanters and the Later Jewish Sects," J. of
Religion 41 (1959) 38-50, N. Golb)?
best,
Stephen Goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] John Allegro book(s), etc.
A new biography of John M. Allegro by Judith Anne Brown is scheduled for publication this year. If interested see: http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802828493 Some time ago I read or heard that Philip R. Davies was writibg a biography of Allegro. If Philip reads this, perhaps he can update us. P. Davies wrote "History and Hagiography: The Life of the 'Teacher' in Hymn and _Pesher_" pp. 87-105 in Behind the Essenes and Ideology in the DSS (1987). I note that some matters left unresolved there are solved by recognizing the "wicked priest" as Jannaeus and the teacher as Judah the Essene teacher. For example, on page 101 there is some concern that in pNah Demetrius may not be a contemporary, "on nearly all modern recokonings." But in my reckoning, joined by many other modern reckonings, they are contemporary. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] wicked priest ID; new R. Feather book
On the "wicked priest" ID, briefly (more detail later if seems useful). We can reasonably exclude some proposed canditates as too early or too late. For instance, the C. Roth and G. R. Driver zealot sixties proposals are too late, aren't they? Briefly, others can be excluded, too. The pesharim don't quote Hodayot verses, do they? In any case, why would a pesharist bother to write about scripture being fulfilled in the instance of a (putative) fictional character? The "Maccabean" theory, proposed before the centrality of Hebrew was fully appreciated, suffers from, among other things, attempts to link Hasidim and Essenes Aramaic usage that is not attested in any relevant text. And, I suggest, too early. The second most often proposed candidate is not Simon but Jannaeus (bibliography on request). The Groningen proposal, in part, offers stepwise movement from one Janathan to another. But separate TRs are difficult to see. I suggest: one, the second Jonathan. 4Q448, including col. A is dualistic, amid war. There is a negative opponent individual: Jonathan. Jonathan, already known to be quite a major figure in long sectarian strife. Warrior (including in land east of Jordan and north of Judaea), drinker, priest, greedy, cruel, long-time ruler (some others are too insubstantial characters), etc. Perhaps consider Jonathan as "wicked priest." Plus, he was contemporary with the first known Essene, a teacher, Judah the Essene. (And cf. Brownlww on Judah in 1QpHab). The claim that Josephus does not name the TR can be misleading: one cannot tell if the name is included unless one knows what name to look for. --- Robert Feather, a correspondent informed me, has a forthcoming book. I mention this not to endorse the book (that I haven't read and that seems quite unlikely), and I found his copper scroll book (1st ed. of 2?) quite unpersuasive, but mention this as bibliography: http://www.innertraditions.com/isbn/1-59143-044-5 best Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] pesharim typo, Jannaeus
James Davila's lecture summary on pesharim http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/pesharim.html makes several good observations; a typo in the second historical allusion section may be worth noting. For "Alexander Hyrcanus" read "Alexander Jannaeus." This may be worth noting because evidence has increased that he was the "wicked priest." For instance, many of the other proposed candidates are too early or too late. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] DSS coming to Charlotte NC (2006)
"Dead Sea Scrolls coming to Charlotte" North Carolina starting 17 Feb., 2006: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/entertainment/events/10967779.htm?1c Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] 2 archaeology publications
recently available: Broshi, Magen and Hanan Eshel, "Three seasons of excavations at Qumran," Journal of Roman Archaeology vol. 17 fasc. 1 (2004) 321-32. Broshi, Magen, "Response to Y. Hirschfeld, review of J. Magness, The archaeology of Qumran, JRA 16 (2003) 648-52," J. of Roman Archaeology 17/2 (2004) 761-63. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: Epiphanius (was Re: [Megillot] Neil Altman on Qumran, Toronto Star
This proposal has been repeatedly answered. If, Jack, you wish to present a formal argument for this Aramaic proposal (apart from your other Aramaic proposal), perhaps a response would be merited. S. Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] copper scroll copy question
According to Jerusalem Post 17 Feb. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=11 08610308258 the Ecole Biblique has a Copper Scroll copy made "by pressing soft copper against the original." Is this a mistake for the copy made by the French Electric company? Pressing copper on the somewhat brittle original is something I had not heard of and, given the condition of the original, would seem a bad idea. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Epiphanius (was Re: [Megillot] Neil Altman on Qumran, Toronto Star
About 20 years ago I wrote that Epiphanius' Panarion was the most important patristic text not yet (not then) fully translated into a modern European language (unless you count Russian); Prof. Elizabeth A. Clark (known as president of AAR, NAPS, etc. etc.) agreed. His account of torah-observing Jewish Ossaioi/Osshnoi is important. "As examples of valuable information already recognized in Panarion, consider that it includes: extracts of the gospel of Marcion (Heresy 42.11); the letter of Ptolemy the gnostic (Heresy 33.3-8); Montanist oracles (Heresy 48); writings by Marcellus and his opponent Basil (Heresy 72); long quotations of Methodius writing on resurrection against Origen (Heresy 64); titles of many gnostic books (e.g., Heresy 26.8.1). This list could easily be extended, and further examples will be discussed in the course of this study (p. 16)"--that is, my 1990 Duke dissertation. Of course he needs to be read critically, but he is an important source on so- called heresies and minut, certainly relevant to history of Essenes at Qumran and elsewhere. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting Dierk van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Epiphanius - important for what? [] ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Neil Altman on Qumran, Toronto Star
Epiphanius' Panarion is a very important historical source. One need not appreciate him personally or his writing style to see that his confidence that he can refute heretics and his work to learn about various groups and their literature allows him to quote from them and describe them extensively, using many now-lost, hence quite valuable, sources. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting Dierk van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Epiphanius' half-witted Panarion is not even a tertiary source for a serious > > approach to the historicity of the DSS. Personally I have not enough > sitzfleisch to deal with his obscure 'faces', amalgamated with a will that > is doubtlessly off one's trolley and wholly bent on multiplication and > ubiquity of the demon of heresy. > > _Dierk > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Stephen Goranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 2:16 PM > Subject: [Megillot] Neil Altman on Qumran, Toronto Star > > > > > > Neil Altman, "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" in the 19 Feb, Toronto Star > > > > http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer? > > > pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1108595411286&call_pageid=97 > > 0599119419 > > > > again tries to revive the claim that the Qumran scrolls are medieval, > > without > > mentioning evidence that they date to the Second Temple Period. The > > article > > explicitly misrepresents texts by Epiphanius. Etc. More details available > > if > > interested. > > > > best, > > Stephen Goranson > > ___ > > g-Megillot mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot > > > > > > > ___ > g-Megillot mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot > ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Neil Altman on Qumran, Toronto Star
Neil Altman, "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" in the 19 Feb, Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer? pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1108595411286&call_pageid=97 0599119419 again tries to revive the claim that the Qumran scrolls are medieval, without mentioning evidence that they date to the Second Temple Period. The article explicitly misrepresents texts by Epiphanius. Etc. More details available if interested. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Davila lec. 2; halakha, etc.
Again, the James Davila lecture this week, on D and S, among other matters, is a good one. A few thoughts. (On some points I could expand or provide bibliography, if there is interest on one of them.) 1. It's good to hear that Maxine will give a lecture. I note that last week Popper was mentioned approvingly; this week Grossman approvingly. Popper; Grossman--are they compatible? Both fine of course for a course, but working along the same lines? Falsification surely has its place and uses, but I suggest Popper may not have described how science actually works, much less history. Max writes admirably clear sentences, especially noteworthy given that she speaks of pomo theory, so often jargony elsewhere, but, at the end of those fine sentences, where is the history result? After the method, what can we reliably see? Example? 2. C. Hempel, e.g., I suggest, would loose nothing (in her debatable proposal) to find a term other than "halakhah." Merely because something has "entered the literature" is insufficient reason to continue. For instance, "cold fusion" endered physics literature; is that reliable? Plus we now have on the table options of calling all Qumran law halahka (H) or just a Hemple subset H (or the H-type H?!), or none of it H. The third option, of course, I prefer-- it costs nothing and it helps. Several Q texts reject H. The Meier JBL article is a Catch 22, a heads I win tails you loose, preset deal: if H appears in Q (in a given sense) then they don't oppose it (?!), but if H does not appear (in sense X) then how could they be making a pun against it (answer: easy, given that they did). Plus Meier's article is an inadequate survey of the literature (Kutscher, Safrai...), plus brackets off directly relevant evidence. VanderKam's Tov FS article shows that oral torah--Q rejected--and H are linked. 3. The M. Klinghardt proposal appears unlikely. See, e.g., reasons given by Daniel Falk: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/1999b/msg00371.html 4. The "real" start of D? Meaning the original or earliest attested? Did a medieval reader Grossman-wise have a different view? BTW, Fred Astren has written about the (halakhaless) Karaites ironically developing tradition and history. All text religions need interpretaion and lkegal determinations, but not all that is halakhah. 5. N. Golb in his book with errors and in Cambridge History of Judaism and in a recent Jer. Post letter claims Jerusalem refugees were on the way to Machaerus. But he does not ask, why no scrolls there? Or on the path before Qumran? Nor is S or D at Massada. Plus Qumran floods; Masada much less so-- less ms chance for survival at Khirbet Q (unlike caves). Plus Period III habitation at Qumran changed things there. Different levels of proof in Golb's unlikely proposal. Plus Josephus has Jerusalemites smuggling things in not out. Plus Josephus got a Jerusalem scroll after it fell. 6. The partly Golb supporting works of Y. Hirschfeld--also with many errors-- has been described by Puech negatively (Le Monde des Religions Jan-Fev p. 15 e.g., "farfelue". Also in the 2004 J. of Roman Archaeology, M. Broshi responded to the error-filled Hirschfeld JRA review of Magness. 7. Of the 3, I think Damascus=Babylon is the minority view, J M-O'C and a few students mostly. I haven't done a recent review of the literature, but I think a real exile out of Judaea and north to a land of Damascus (north of Peraea?) is (over D=Q) perhaps the first view. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Halakhah and Qumran law
Briefly, I quoted J. Baumgarten's article title that used "Qumran Law" just to show how simple it is to write "law" instead of "halakhah" in the Qumran context. Compare: practice, praxis, observance, serek, legal rulings, and so on, among available words. The 4QHalakhah text was, I think, named by Milik, not Baumgarten, who merely retained the title, not to cause title confusion. Larry Schiffman wrote on page 5 of the article cited by Jim Davila on http://qumranica.blogspot.com about some of the reasons the term is a problem when used for Qumran. Then: "Accordingly, with due apologies for the problems in using this word, we find little choice but to continue to make use of it." Little choice? If a historian cannot be prepared to choose words carefully, that's a problem. In fact, in Larry's previous sentence he himself used "Jewish law"--exactly the sort of language he then declares unavailable. And the problem involves anachronism for halakhah and for conceptions of Sadducees. In this case, I suggest, this anachronism matters. When someone says "Islamic law" we know it involves religious and civil law; no problem; no need for apologies, or for remembering that we don't really mean a term. "Law" is easy to use; it costs nothing; it avoids the problem of speaking of halakhah concerning people who rejected halakhah. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
Dear Ian W., You have restated (below) that you consider it "helpful" to call Qumran legal texts "halakhic" I really do not. I find that it is either (a) assigning to them a quite distorting view owned by sect they opposed (Pharisees) and/or (b) retrojecting, without warrant, rabbinic terminology, on a group not rabbinic. There were more groups in the second temple period than what became later Judaism and Christianity. To study second temple period sectarian history, I think, a historian needs first of all to read them in their own voice. This is not a new problem, but it remains a problem (as I wrote in DSS After Fifty Years vol 2.) One of the occasion that this occured to me is when I years ago saw in the library a learned book by Bernard Revel: _The Karaite Halakha and Its Relation to Sadducean, Samaritan and Philonian Halakha_ (Philadelphia: Cahan, 1913; based on JQR 1911-12 articles). I thought: did Sadducees have halakha? Isn't that exactly what they rejected? If I may also suggest: "Sadducees," in some (2nd temple period) uses may be a distorting retrojection of a later, rabbinic sense (eventually used even to include Christians after all!). Words like halakha, Sadducees, Essenes, Ossaioi, Ebionim, minim (see, e.g. R. Kimelman in Jewish and Christian Self Definition v. 2 1981; and articles by Daniel Boyarin), hairesis, Nazarenes, maybe even ioudaismos, evolved. Sometimes with more than one concurrent sense. I suggest we can see that evolution if we are sensitive to appropriate time and terminology calculus. It it easy to start; see, e.g., Joseph M. Baumgarten's title in Proc. 12th World Congress of Jewish Studies: "The Relevance of Rabbinic Sources to the Study of Qumran Law." It's not hard; it might help. But you are of course free to think differently and perhaps we will agree to disagree. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting Ian Werrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [] For the moment, however, it is helpful in > scholarly discussions to describe the legal material at Qumran as 'halakha'. ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
Dear Ian W. Again you are using the argument that if someone (modern) did it, it is OK, even good. (But, Mom, all the kids do it.) Your first example, Larry Schiffman's dissertation title, is I recall correctly, did not arrive without considerable regrets by some learned advisors. You have the option of less problematic, less obscuring, language, if you are open. To take another example, should we say Philo writes halakha, before considering his Greek? Did early Samaritans practice halakha? best, Stephen Goranson P.S. Herb, good example. ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
Dear Ian Werrett, We are not compelled to call "halakha" legal determinations that the authors would have cringed to hear called "halakha"--is there an history advantage to calling something what it is not?--and, I suggest, it's better method if we do not use a misleading term. "Legal" texts is more generic and easy enough to use. Yes, I deny presence of (Pharisaic and Rabbinic) halakha at Qumran, and, if I may say so, that is a useful recognition. Not only do Qumran writers not use it, but they criticise it by puns plain enough to be seen by most Qumran scholars. As for Meier's JBL article, I don't have it at hand, and will quote from it later if that seems useful, but he explicity brackets out much of the directly relevant evidence about Pharisees; and hence, IMO, presents a skewed assessment. For a broader and, in my view, more insightful analysis, see James VanderKam's article, "Those Who Look for Smooth Things, Pharisees, and Oral Law," in _Emanuel_, the Tov Festschrift, (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 465-77, for additional evidence of Qumran opposition to, and characterization of, Pharisee traditions. If I recall correctly, Joseph Baumgarten has explicitly stated, in publications, and in private communication, that "halakha" in the Rabbinic Hebrew sense does not appear in the DSS. He and some others (including Schiffman, at times) sometimes use the word in quotes and or with a demurrer about its use in this context. And sometimes (not by virtually everyone, but, even if it were so, is that justification? can we not improve usage?) the word is used without acknowledging it as out of place. To take another example, Karaites did not accept Rabbinic halakha. It would not be a good history of Karaites that obscured that such obtained. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting Ian Werrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Stephen, > > Are we to deny the presence of 'halakhic' material at Qumran simply because > the > word 'halakha' does not appear in the scrolls or because it is not used in > the > rabbinic sense? Virtually every scholar working on the legal material in > the > scrolls, including J. Baumgarten, uses the word 'halakha' to describe the > rulings and legal positions forwarded in these documents. Furthermore, in a > recent article entitled "Is There 'Halaka' (The Noun) at Qumran?" John P. > Meier > notes: > > "One need only read the 'Rule of the Community' (1QS) or the so-called > 'Halakic > Letter' (4QMMT), to say nothing of the extensive treatment of legal issues > in > the corpus of Philo or in Josephus's 'Jewish Antiquities,' to settle the > question of the existence in the first century B.C.E. and C.E. of the > reality > that we call 'halakha.'" JBL 122 (2003): 150. > > Seeing that we cannot deny the presence of legal material in the scrolls that > is > 'halakhic' in nature, the word 'halakha' would appear to be an appropriate > label. That is, of course, providing we acknowledge that the use of such a > word is anachronistic. > ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
Dear Philip, You may not be persuaded about the significance of different perspectives on the word "halakha," but, I submit, the authors of many Qumran texts were; so, if we are interested in history, we'd likely do well to recognize that and not use anachronistic terms. And beyond terminology, we may as well be open to possible differences in sources and methods of legal rulings. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting philip davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I just want to make one small comment on an issue that has been > raised by Stephen Goranson but has recurred throughout the more > recent history of DSS discussion. > > > > >These legal matters are best not > >termed here "halakha," because that rabbinic term is not used at Qumran in > the > >rabbinic sense > > The question is not what the term is called but whether it is the > same thing. In fact it is not a term consistently used by the rabbis > either. Legal exegesis aimed at regulating the life of a Jewish > community, in both cases. And the techniques are similar enough, as > are the presuppositions. I remain to be convinced that the 'rabbinic > sense' is sufficiently different (hardly different, really) to > warrant a distinct terminology. > > > I. at any rate, despite the structures of my dear friend Al > Baumgarten, prefer this to any other word (such as??) for this > hermeneutical technique. > > > Philip Davies ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
James Davila has posted a summary of his good first, Indroduction, lecture for his DSS course, linked at: http://qumranica.blogspot.com To this good introduction, may I suggest a little nuancing of one matter. It is quite true that Joseph M. Baumgarten was the first to publish (in J. of Jewish Studies 31 [1980] 157-70) on comparison of a portion of (what was eventually fully published as) 4QMMT and some rabbinic legal views attributed to Sadducees. That is, shared view, not group identity--for one thing, "Sadducees" has a different range of meaning in rabbinic literature than in second temple period literature. These legal matters are best not termed here "halakha," because that rabbinic term is not used at Qumran in the rabbinic sense; rather, as recognized, for example, in the good articles by Albert Baumgarten (no relation) in Encyclopedia of the DSS, Qumran texts include negative puns rejecting Pharisee halakha. See also JMB in volume 1 (1958-9) 209-21 of Tradition: a Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought. Joseph Baumgarten's insights are important. A quite learned Orthodox rabbi and emeritus Professor, who did his PhD dissertation on Qumran mss (The Covenant Sect and the Essenes, Johns Hopkins, 1954) with Wm. Albright, Joseph Baumgarten has spent more than five decades comparing these legal texts. So I think it is appropriate to note that his publications (bibliography on request) not only caution against identifying Qumran texts as Sadducee, but also advance several reasons to recognize in Qumran characteristics of Essenes. There may be some who still say Qumran was Sadducee (in the second temple period sense), but, as far as I can tell, Joseph Baumgarten is not one of them. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Fwd: [ANE] Qumran
I forward the following from ane-list, in case it is of interest here. That lsit maintains an open archive at http://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane I thank the list owners of g-megillot and ane for maintaining open archives. best, Stephen Goranson - Forwarded message from Stephen Goranson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:05:56 -0500 From: Stephen Goranson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ANE] Qumran To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you, Joe Zias, for helping to clarify the data from the Qumran cemetery. Your Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000) 220-253 article is a fine contribution to learning on this subject. Now, if I understand corectly--and perhaps I do not; we await publication--in addition to your research, we now have, or soon will have, more data from the Y. Magen, Y. Peleg, Y. Nagar et al. Qumran excavation. You wrote that they excavated some Qumran cemetery burials. And that in each case--lets say, for conversation's sake, nine, then reinterred--the physical anthropologist Y. Nagar determined that each North-South burial was a single, ancient, adult, male. And that each East-West burial was a later, Bedouin, burial. *If* that turns out to be the case, then it would provide strong evidence favoring your DSD article thesis, in my opinion. Someone impertinently wrote that the bones did not have the name "Essene" on them. Yet the name "Essenes" does appear in some of the Qumran manuscripts, found in the Dead Sea "northwest shore" area, just as C. D. Ginsburg in 1870 read Pliny. Of course, "Essenes" does not appear in the scrolls in English, nor in any of the many Greek spellings, including Ossaioi, but in the Hebrew original self-designation, recognized by several scholars before 1948 (bibliography on request) and by several scholars after 1948: 'osey hatorah, observers of torah, a self-designation that some other sects, unlike some Stoic philosophers, naturally refused to use for them. best, Stephen Goranson - End forwarded message - ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus
Roland Bergmeier's book, _Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus_ (1992) was evidently not withdrawn from the market. It was initially published by Kok Pharos, Kampen. The Pharos imprint is now distributed by Peeters of Leuven. The ISBN is 90-390-0014X. It is 175 pages. Price: 25 Euro. If interested, see: http://www.peeters-leuven.be/boekoverz.asp?nr=6641 There were several reviews (bibliography on request), largely appreciative, though not necessarily persuaded. The most negatively critical published evaluation, to my knowledge, is by Steve Mason, in a paper, "What Josephus Says about the Essenes in his _Judean War_," (part 1) at http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/programs/Mason00-1.shtml Though I have many big reservations about other parts of that paper, and though I would assess the book somewhat differently than Mason, he makes some valid criticisms, which we could discuss, if there is list interest. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] anachronisms & not; etc.
Dierk, Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I bought and still have R. Bergmeier's book, and read it and read every available review, and Duke library owns it too; and I have _Qumran kontrovers_ checked out and at home. I didn't notice any burning "at the stake of ignorance," Giordano Bruno-like, or otherwise. best, Stephen Quoting Dierk van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Stephen, > > J. Frey and H. Stegemann (Ed.)_Qumran kontrovers_Beiträge zur den Textfunden > vom Toten Meer, Bonifatius, Paderborn 2003. > > The fact that Stegemann has edited an article by Bergmeier*, directly > followed by a refutation by J. Frey**, which quite obviously turns into a > kind of support for Bergmeier reveals the intention behind - to make the > best out of a bad job. Bergmeier, as you know, was already literary buried > in early 1994, his work removed from the book market in perpetuity. He was > indeed the Giordano Bruno of his time, burnt at the stake of ignorance, > sacrificed to the Essene world view of the early 90s. However, somebody has > let risen the schoolteacher again - probably thought as vanguard auxiliary > (B. never rejected Essenes a priori) in the upcoming confrontation on basic > axioms. > > * The historical value of the Essene reports in Philo and Josephus, > pp.11-22 > ** On the historical analysis of the ancient Essene reports, pp.23-56 ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] anachronisms & not; etc.
As already noted, a "triclinium" at Qumran would not be anachronistic, if it existed--it does not IMO (cf., e.g. R. Reich in JJS 1995, 157f), nor did the sometimes excessively-criticised de Vaux propose that. Pauline Donceel-Voute famously did; but, I think, Henri del Medico and Godfrey Rolles Driver did so during de Vaux's lifetime. And de Vaux, I think, did not call Qumran a momastery. "Scriptorium," if I may suggest, is not anachronistic either, if it existed, as de Vaux did say. (And strawmanwise, I did not declare 200 scribes at Qumran at a time.) The plaster items, reconstructed on a new wooden frame at a guessed height, may have been used, e.g., for making the dry lines or for gluing or sewing papryus and skin skheets. There is not yet certainty on this, but merely declaring Qumran, site of more inkwells than any other site in that (large) era and area not a place of writing, will not suffice. (Hirschfeld's new book is unreliable on inkwells and locus 30.) "Scriptorium" was used, e.g., by Sir Alan H. Gardiner, in "The House of Life," J. of Egyptian Archaeology 24 (1938) 175 and by others in many other studies of ancient writing that are not accused of anachronism. The plaster items may be scheduled for publication in the Ecole Biblique series. One could contact J.-B. Humbert to ask, or the IAA or the Hebrew U, Science and Archaeology group (e.g. Jan Gunneweg; Joe Zias, et al.) with suggested tests. But money may be a factor as well. What is anachronistic, or at least inappropriate, I suggest, is the use of the term "halakha"--i.e., in the Rabbinic Hebrew sense--in collocation with Qumran and/or Essenes. Essenes plainly opposed Pharisee halakha, and used cacophemism toward it. Meier's JBL 2003 150f article, IMO, is misleading, in part, because it brackets out the broader issue (and hence the actual evidence) of Essene and Qumran differences with Pharisees. J. VanderKam in the Tov Festschrift (Emanuel, SuppVT 94, 2003 p465f) provides additional evidence about Qumran Essene (dis)regard of Pharisees. One might also usefully ask whether using "halakha' rather than legal determinations is appropriate when discussing Sadducees, Samaritans, Philo, and Karaites. Dierk, do you have the citation of the article unclearly described as involving Stegemann, Bruno, and Bergmeier? The orion Jan. 2005 conference schedule is out. Some interesting titles. Eyal Regev has written some interesting sociological analysis (e,g., comparing Essenes and Shakers--who died out slowly, no sudden event there), but I hope his paper title, "From Enoch to John the Essene: An Analysis of a Sect Development," does not rely too heavily on "John the Essene" being an Essene. As Schalit in the Josephus Concordance Namerworterbuch has suggested, the so- called "Essene" part of that name (unlike Judah, Menachem, and Simon, Essenes) may be a mix-up with a gentilic. There has been much poor writing on Qumran C14. The Arizona and Zurich reports are good, but have one significant lack: the fragment or column locations of the samples tested. They do tell us this (column location) in the case of 1QIsaiah, which is helpful: both labs tested the same sheet of skin. But, e.g., Yadin said the first sheet of 11QTemple was a replacement sheet; hence it may differ in age from other sheets. Now Martin Schoyen claims (with good reason) to own parts of that first sheet. So what sheet was C14 tested? A similar question obtains, e.g., with a 4QDamascus ms. So I have requested (and have not yet received) this information. Without seeking a long exchange with Russell on source criticism now, I will mention that I was recently requested by a well known DSS scholar to publish in his volume my M. Agrippa material (though I declined for the moment); and the George Nickelsburg FS (R. Argall) makes use of my Posidonius and Strabo JJS 1994 material. N. Damascus as source for Philo, Pliny, and Josephus all, seems quite unlikely--to me. More attention may be useful on the 4Q448 relationship between columns A and B/C. Both are dualistic. Both reflect war. To imagine Jonathan in B/C praised-- what about him is supposedly praised? If he is imagined the good one, who is the bad one--and why is the bad one unnamed? Caution of parallels proposed merely based on (L. The previously-known A text, in variant versions, was often (in many pre-4Q448 publications) called "proto-Essene" or simply "Essene." Interesting that it includes the word "yahad." (Perhaps compare 4Q177 5-6 18.) best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Qumran history (brief replies To R. Gmirkin)
Dierk, the word in the text I cited, the new book by Y.H., page 161, note 222, is indeed "refuted." S. Goranson Quoting Dierk van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Even more worse, for Zangenberg was indeed meant. > > Hirschfeld_ QUMRAN IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD, Reassessing the > Archaeological Evidence, LA 52 (202), p 277 # 92. > "Zias (2000) claims that the graves in the southernmost extension that have > an east-west orientation are recent Bedouin graves. Zangenberg (2000b) > refutes his claims one by one." > No past tense (refuted) as Stephen argued, but an ongoing and apparently not > yet finished process of refutation of Zias by Zangenberg is meant. > Roehrer-Ertl & Rohrhirsch (2001) run parallel to this. ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Qumran history (brief replies To R. Gmirkin)
Dear Russell Gmirkin, Maybe we should agree to disagee on a few things, for now. 1. When you quoted me you totally omitted the sentence in which I gave my view that it was mistaken of G. Doudna to analogize Qumran's circa 900 manuscripts, and their usage, and their deposit with "ONE EVENT," with a single generation, with a single battle, and with a single vulcano erruption. See, e.g. Doudna's page 463 for the "single event" idea. But, Russell, circa 900 manuscripts simply are not a single event! Plus, we disagree on what Dr. Jull, current editor of Radiocarbon [journal], corrected G.D. about on orion list. I say he warned against disregarding "outliers" except if all are from runs of one sample (e.g. one piece of skin), with one anomaly. Not disregarding "outliers" because of an outside hypothesis (like the single generation hypothesis). (Google: Jull, Doudna for the orion thread.) I say the unscientific mix of standard C14 science with that hypothesis had misled numerous readers. I could give numerous examples. But each can decide for him or herself. 2. We have discussed Essene account source criticism many times, on more than one archived list. Each apparently prefers his own account and thinks the other duly refuted. Instead of repetition, for now (I have some new stuff in the works), perhaps we can invite any interested readers to google "Gmirkin Goranson"--both fairly uncommon names--and the ancient writer(s) of their choice. happy new year, Stephen Goranson P.S. Y. Hirschfeld p. 161 n. 222 claims J. Zangenberg (2000) "systematically refuted" the claims of Zias (2000). But Zangenberg had not yet read Zias (2000) when he wrote his (2000); rather he responded to an earlier oral presentation. ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Qumran history, again
is absent at Qumran--odd, that, on Golb's proposal. One enters Cave 4 only after entering the settlement; it's really par of the site. Sectarian Essene texts (e.g. S, MMT, pesharim) were not found at Masada; they cluster on Qumran, not elsewhere. Y.H. claims Qumran is well built and on a lovely site, owned by an aristocrat. Perhaps that's why the finest luxury homes of Israelis today cluster about Qumran. Rather, maybe read War 2.122 "...neither the huniliation of poverty nor the pride of wealth is to be seen anywhere among them." Group wealth (like 3QCu for a future hoped-for temple) is not identical with individual wealth. With or without reading "yahad" the Herodian Qumran ostracon still shows S- related transfer of property at initiation year two. Y.H. footnotes Broshi and Gunneweg on pottery origins, without mentioning they disagree. Of course there are two comb fragments in Cave 1 as any DJD reader knows. But we have yet to get the Hirschfeld presupposition ruling on whether those comb bits are necessarily foreign, like all scrolls forever, unrelated to the khirbeh, no coastal road then beneath, or say something about locals--see the path). It's no accident prettier Murabba'at combs are shown in colour on the cover and inside the book both. Luxury impression certainly intended, as with the late beads. See C. Murphy's book on wealth and the Essene Qumran relation. The Y.H. book is quite inadequate on which items were from Period III, after Essenes left, before zealots arrived, to transJordan, where later Epiphanius knew of Jewish sect torah observers [Philo's bios praktikos; who reputedly held deeds in greater esteem than words] named Ossaioi/Osshnoi. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Hirschfeld, "Qumran in Context" pt. 2
Prof. Hirschfeld might want to consider asking the publisher to hold up his
book, so he can fix it and issue a much revised edition.
The book does include some well-printed illustrations. Unfortunately, many are
misleading. And not only the Murabba'at combs mislabled (Fig. 101) as "Wooden
combs found at Qumran." At times the book reads as if Yizhar recorded his
wishes for revisionist history and had an assistant tack on some footnotes.
Here's one of those misleading notes (p. 232 n. 83), "Before the discovery of
the scrolls there were no doubts among scholars that the Essene settlement
should be located in the En-Gedi area" But Strack in German translated
Pliny as locating En Gedi South of the Essenes. One might think Y.H. would
know this, as this is explicitly cited by de Vaux in Archaeology and the Dead
Sea Scrolls, a book one would have thought or hoped Y.H. had carefully read.
(He does list it in his bibliography.) And that bibliography includes Puech in
BASOR on the cemetery; had Y.H read Puech he would have read that de Saulcy
located the land of Essenes considerably North of Ein Gedi. Had Y.H. read Dead
Sea Discoveries, he would have read of C. D. Ginsburg explicitly locating
Pliny's Essenes on the Northwest shore of the Dead Sea. A few days ago,
looking for something else I found another (1893) locating of Essenes similar
to these three. Readers of "Qumran in Context" will be misled, here and on
many other pages. Mary Beagon describes Pliny's views on describing water, in
Roman Nature: The Thought of Pliny the Elder (Oxford, 1992), p,196. We find in
Pliny personified good Jordan water assisting all as it meanders, reluctantly
moving downstream to the Dead bad water. Then Essenes; then Ein Gedi; then
Masada; then Judaea's boundary--five in a row.
Y. H. presents Essenes as a "small sect" (p. 231), borrowing a straw man from
a source, Norman Golb. Y.H. tells us (p.5) he seeks to "liberate Qumran from
the burden of religious significance" But by the end of the book a switch
has happened. After dismissing Essenes as too small for the mss; though they
include Essene texts, surely, and though Essenes were not small nor short-
lived ("myriads" of Essenes, Philo wrote), and after falsely supposing
that Sadducees were larger (false: Josephus: these aristocrats
persuaded "few"), and after supposing, falsely, that the texts suit Sadducees
(e.g. despite resurrection; with named angels; with torah interpretations
criticising Sadducee temple administration--what, besides Torah, are Sadducee
texts anyway [one Book of Decrees, maybe?--absent at Qumran, in any case]),
having imagined moving Essenes out of Qumran, Y.H. moves Sadducees (and
religion?) in.
This book is a mess, which is a shame, as the author is an experienced
archaeologist, who could offer better, and, on other occasions, has.
Stephen Goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] J. Post on Qumran (problematic)
I guess some will welcome the article. One paragraph on page 3: "'It was the most important thing ever found at Qumran: the bottom of the pool has some three tons of high-quality clay,' Peleg told the Post. 'We started to understand the site--there were no Essenes.'" On the other hand, some among us may fail to see how clay in a cistern necessarily excludes Essenes at Qumran. And some of us may venture to suggest that the Qumran 900 or so ms remains are more significant than that clay. Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Hirschfeld, "Qumran in Context"
The misinforming and/or misleading in Yizhar Hirschfeld's new book, Qumran
in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (2004) begins already with
the dust cover photographs. We see two wooden combs and a string of beads set
over a photo of Qumran.
But these two wooden combs are not from Qumran! Despite the explicit claim in
the caption. They are both from the Wadi Murabba'at caves and were published as
such in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II (1961), part 2, planches, pl.
XIV.8 and Pl. XIV.9. In any case, such combs were used to remove lice from
hair, and lice infest either gender. Y. H. made the same wrong claim in J. of
Roman Archaeology 16 (2003) 648-52.
And the beads, apparently, are intended to suggest feminine luxury. But these
beads, found in the cemetery, are, with quite high probability, from a burial
from long after the time that the Essenes left Qumran, circa 68 CE. The
important article by Joe Zias in Dead Sea Discoveries (2000) on some later than
Second Temple Burials is mentioned and dismissed quite briefly, on page 161
note 222, and misleadingly in the mere two sentences allowed to Zias's
important contribution; jewelry dating is not mentioned there. The more
extensive study by Christa Clamer (in Humbert and Gunneweg ed.) is briefly
mentioned, but again with no mention of Jewelry dating. Clamer even notes an
Ain Feshkha burial of a woman with jewelry apparently including a (lost!)
Turkish (?) coin. In brief, at least some of the burials of women at Qumran are
post Second Temple Period. By the way, Joan Taylor's PEQ 134 (2002) 152 informs
us that a 19th century visitor to Qumran, A. A. Isaacs, considering the
cemetery "... believed they were Bedouin." Also, BTW, G. L. Harding mentions an
early (1949?) sounding in the cemetery, and, though his dating may quite well
have beeen mistaken, initially estimated (in Illustrated London News; I'll dig
up the date if needed; also, BTW, he mentions an Aramaic Enoch scroll--was he
mistaken?) the cemetery as third or fourth century AD. The contribution of Zias
in DSD is widely accepted, though a reader of Hirschfeld would have no clue of
that.
In brief, these two cover photographs mislead the readers.
The subtitle of the book matches that in Hirschfeld's long SBF Liber Annuus
article (nominally 2002, available 2004), already shown to be problematic on
ane list. Other errors appear in the book's main text.
There is nothing wrong with looking at the region ("context"--and the 1QSerek
hayahad quotation of Isaiah 40:3 is a big hint on the Essene self-location),
but nothing about the region/context excludes Essenes.
best,
Stephen Goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] J. Post on Qumran (problematic)
Another journalistic report on Qumran, "A crack in the theory," http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1103170788474 or if that URL does not work, try http://www.jpost.com and go to "features" There are big problems with this article, as with so many newspaper Qumran accounts, that I'll address if there is interest. best, Stephen Goranson Google Alert for: qumranA crack in the theoryJerusalem Post - Jerusalem,Israel... hot on the mountainside and the view is unbelievable," said Alexander, a Ukrainian immigrant, remembering his numerous visits to the Qumran archeological site ... This as it happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google. Remove this alert. Create another alert.Manage your alerts.
[Megillot] Qumran & Essene notes
Brief notes that I could expand or provide bibliography for, in most cases, if any are of further interest. Ancient group names are most often self-designations, as correctly described by Al Baumgarten in his JBL 102 (1983) 411-28 article on the name Pharisees. Then the names are made fun of by opponents, as described by Saul Lieberman (who called this "cacophemism"; cf. "Caricaturnamen") and Daniel Boyarin. C. D. Ginsburg in the 19th century already showed that the name doers of torah is belittled in rabbinic literature (separatists who ostentatiously ask "what is my duty that I may do it" and variants. Of course Sadducees, Pharisees, and Rabbis would not credit Essenes with that name, thinking it applied to them (cf. Shomerim self-regard as the "true keepers of Torah), but philosophically appreciative outsiders would, and did. The notion that outsiders named the Essenes is largely an artifact (e.g. from Vermes, et al.) of the two main failed Aramaic proposed etymologies, which are attested for Essenes in no ancient text, much less at Qumran. Philo surely did not invent the name, or any of the Greek spellings, but expressed some puzzlement at it. Epiphanius was closer, on Jewish sect torah-observers Ossaioi/Osshnoi. Neither brother, Aristobolus II nor Hyrcanus II is suitable, characterwise nor timewise, as Wicked Priest, much less as Teacher of Righteousness. (I mistyped A II for H II before.) Vermes in Schurer ed. merely announces that pNahum, with Jannaeus as Lion, concerns a later time than the other pesharim. C14, so far, plainly indicates some Qumran mss date in first century CE. One must guard against outside hypotheses added a priori; they can distort. One cannot properly stipulate that all the scribes were left-handed, or all Judaea- born; or all red-haired; or all, or almost all, of one generation. Wise Abegg Cook p, 31 mentions (without ref.) F.F. Bruce on the Man of the Lie, but, more importantly, could have cited F.F. Bruce on the WP and TR, Second Thoughts on the DSS 1956 and The TR in the Qumran texts 1957--which provide support for Jannaeus WP and Judah the Essene TR. Wise's book main text never utters the word "Essene"; the notes are a nearly Essene-free zone, with a slight nod to Dupont-Sommer excepted--such exile cannot be willed permanent. WAC p. 29 recognizes pNahum fits into a "watershed time." So close to Jannaeus ID, if not set a priori against it. Note also how first Jonathan WP advocates (e.g. Vermes/Schurer ed.) merely declare pNah was about a later time than other pesharim. Jannaeus was a priest before he became King. Saying that non-ZDK lineage may not have been the breaking point does not erase anti-Hasmonean temple administration concerns, heightened in Jannaeus time. MMT original, Judah to Jannaeus early. That it can be seen as a foundation myth was already mentioned by me in a poorly-edited sidebar in BA years ago, before MMT official publication, back in the photocopy day. Of course some books are read differently over time--Apocalypse of John provides a striking and fairly well- known example of rereading; this observation, by itself, is not new. It's too late to declare little history is shown in DSS. We have already learned a lot about sectarian disputes. More to come, ineluctably. If 4Q448 is imagined as praise of King Jonathan, just what about him does it praise. And consider the dualism is also in column A, with wartime there too. If 4Q448 supposedly attempts to praise Jonathan, just what good points about him does it endeavour to convey? best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
RE: [Megillot] Essenes
In my view, Josephus did not invent the Essenes nor the Pharisees nor the Sadducees, his interest in Greek goups notwithstanding--comparison does not equal origin. All three are real, historical groups, who wrote using real ink, well attested groups outside of, and not depending on, Josephus. Bannus is one individual, if that, not an organizied group. The estimate numbers are actually *more* than 4000, more than 6000, and then Sadducees, probably smallest of the three. But don't forget that Philo also wrote there had been "myriads" of Essenes over time (Apologia pro Iudaeis [Hypothetica] in Eusebius, Praep. evang. 8.11.1). Pliny, Philo and elsewhere all indicate a widespread, large, long-lasting group of Essenes. No chimera group owned manuscrips so numerous that 900 or so are still partially extant today. Qumran mss plainly are not Pharisee, and not Sadducee. And not all Judaeans (and/or Peraeans, Gallileans, Syro-Palestinian Jews) were members of a neutral- sense "heresy." The majority were am ha'aretz. AJ 18. 9-25 is fourth philosophy, already counted, precursor of zealots, in any case after first century BCE. The 3 groups are attested not only in Josephus and other writers, but in 4QMMT, and possibly in Strabo, and in 4QpNah, etcetera. Other putative groups are often illusory, as is M. Goodman's attempt in JJS to push R. Yohanan's symbolic 3rd century mention of 24 kitot of minim into second temple times (yerushalmi Sanhedrin 28c; details on request). Even Al Baumgarten once wrote (Graeco-Roman Voluntary Associations and Ancient Jewish sects," p. 107 in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, M. Goodman ed., 1998): "It is probable that Pliny's Essenes were the Qumran community." best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Essenes
Good, Philip Davies, you have invited methodological discussion. OK, methodologically-speaking, I say, starting with "Josephus's Essenes" is not methodologically the best place to start. (Bergmeier's book also has a related problem.) Because Philo is plainly earlier. Because Pliny's source, Marcus V. Agrippa, is plainly earlier. (By the way, both support current existence, as far as they knew, in both first centuries, BCE and CE, of Essenes.) Because Josephus's sources and Philo's sources plainly overlap (e.g., in the hypertetrakischilioi Essenes estimate). This source overlap, I think, was recognized long before 1948. Posidonius, ethnographer, etymologist, historian, Stoic/Platonist, Syrian, and Strabo are involved. Bibliography: L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levison, Josephus' Contra Apion (AGJU 34; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 22-48. S. Goranson, "Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts," The DSS After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed Flint & VanderKam; vol. 2, Brill 1999, 534-51). best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] reading for history--for Edward Cook, part 1
Ed Cook kindly responded to my g-megillot post in this thread on his blog 14 Dec.: http//:ralphriver.blogspot.com I'll respond here and try to post a link there in comments. Previously Ed blogged that all Qumran mss were copied from 100 to 5 BCE, with *few if any* outside that range. Now he happily moderates that to claim the mss are "largely confined to the first century BCE." We all agree (how often can you say that?) that *many* mss are from that century; at issue are earlier and later mss. For sake of history research let me disagree with various points either in the blog and/or in Wise Abegg Cook pages 26-34. For boring reasons I'm a bit rushed. I hope to provide more support in part 2. Briefly: It is plainly false that C14 does not support first century CE ms dates. It plainly does support such. I can discuss the facts, and widespread misunderstandings later. For now, merely look at figure 3, page 462 in DSS After Fifty Years vol. 1. And archaeology supports continuing of Qumran occupation into the first century CE. Paleography still supports dates before and after 100-5 BCE. 4Q448 is *against* King Jonathan. The language and the history and A BC context show this. What is imagined praised about him? If he is good guy, who is the conveniently unnamed bad guy? Ed did not address the odd and obscuring jumping from focus on 2 sects to focus on more than 3 sects, underplaying 3 sects, even given MMT (from the observers of torah, self-called.) The Wise book never utters the collocation "Judah the Essene." Would that his next one will, and skip denial of him. WAC switched from denying anti-hasmoneanism in Jannaeus time to embracing is for his sons, both two wimpy, insubstantial, changeable to be WP in any case, surely not "the only two candidates" ! (p. 31) Much less can either be the TR. And if the TR began ministry in 2nd c. BCE, long time to await a A II WP. Wise later allowed post 63 dates, with Romans present. But there are very few *agreed upon* dated internal references in any case, so a week reed to rest dating limit claims. Left unaddressed: internal contradictions: Essenes both involved and not involved in politics; the obscuring of differt grounds to find a hasmonean priest unfit (related to the 4Q448 misunderstanding then switch to allow anti A II). The sentence fragment quoted from a sentence by Doudna page 464 is flat false. Also unaddressed: the exceedingly probable reality, in a mss world, that anyone collecting mss gets some older ones. Thanks, Ed. I see progress. all the best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] reading for history--for Philip Davies
Philip and list, Progress in Qumran history is possible. After all, you helped, along with John Kampen and Fergus Millar and others in warning against the old saw that Essenes derived from the 1, 2 Maccabees Hasidim. That mistake is tied into the wrong proposal of the too early Jonathan as wicked priest. (Speculation: 1 Maccabees was written in Jannaeus' time, and harmonious with some of his changes?) Philip, I see the starting place (already passed anyway) differently than you. But perhaps you could take your first paragraph, with its I would have thought difficult mention of intention, and answer for us your own two-part question. Do some texts qualify, pass your proposed text, in your view? Plainly, I think some texts can be used, with care, for history. (Example. pNah does refer to an 88 BCE event.) Do you? best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Contents: Dead Sea Discoveries vol. 11 no. 3 (2004)
Here is the TOC of the latest DSD. The URLs will work for institutional subscribers. The "books in debate" section gives two reviews of Jodi Magness's _Archaeology of Qumran and the DSS_. Stephen Goranson Record 1. TI: Reading Wisdom at Qumran: 4QInstruction and the Hodayot AU: Matthew J. Goff JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: 2004 VO: 11 NO: 3 PG: 263-288(26) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20041101)11:3L.263;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 2. TI: More on the Qumran Roundel as an Equatorial Sundial AU: George M. Hollenback JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: 2004 VO: 11 NO: 3 PG: 289-292(4) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20041101)11:3L.289;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 3. TI: Did John the Baptist Eat like a Former Essene? Locust-eating in the Ancient Near East and at Qumran AU: James A. Kelhoffer JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: 2004 VO: 11 NO: 3 PG: 293-314(22) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20041101)11:3L.293;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 4. TI: Methodological Problems in Reconstructing History from Rule Texts Found at Qumran AU: Sarianna Metso JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: 2004 VO: 11 NO: 3 PG: 315-335(21) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20041101)11:3L.315;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 5. TI: The Temple Scroll Courts Governed by Precise Times AU: Barbara Thiering JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: 2004 VO: 11 NO: 3 PG: 336-358(23) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20041101)11:3L.336;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 6. TI: Reply to Dong-Hyuk Kims Paper on "Tovs Qumran Orthography" AU: Emmanuel Tov JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: 2004 VO: 11 NO: 3 PG: 359-360(2) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20041101)11:3L.359;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 7. TI: Books in Debate AU: JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: 2004 VO: 11 NO: 3 PG: 361-372(12) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20041101)11:3L.361;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. Record 8. TI: Book Reviews AU: JN: Dead Sea Discoveries PD: 2004 VO: 11 NO: 3 PG: 373-384(12) PB: Brill Academic Publishers IS: 0929-0761 URL: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?body=linker&reqidx=0929-0761 (20041101)11:3L.373;1- Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the publication. ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] reading for history (typos fixed)
[I misplaced the typo-fixed copy. Sorry. Here's a clearer version:]
In my view, the overlapping histories of Essenes and of Qumran are both
becoming clearer. This is happening, and I expect it will continue, given the
new data, whether or not scholar X, Y, or Z chooses to participate, or even
resist, and whether or not list or journal or university X, Y, or Z
contributes little or much. By all means, any reasonable caution that should
be raised, raise; any reasonable counterevidence, analysis of shortcomings,
methodological proposals, scientific test, or nuancing has its place.
But let's not be afraid--or presumed prevented by presumed methodological
purity--to try out some discrete observations about what can be reliably
stated. Methodological discussion has its place, but methodological discussion
without application to the work of an historian will surely fulfill, for that
individual alone, any promise of no history results. Admittedly, there are
many things we cannot know with the available data and means of testing. But
it is clear to me that we have now the means to go beyond either a sometimes
caricatured, sometimes ill-defined "consensus" view (though I'm not shy to
claim that some views held by some sometimes defined as in that consensus,
e.g., that 2 Aramaic etymologies of diminishing popularity for "Essenes" and
that the first Jonathan as WP are wrong) or a sometimes oddly imaged movement
of disparate alternatives-bearers from "freers" from "consensus" pressure
("freeings" themselves apparently at times in service of ideological
preferences).
The chronology, for instance, is becoming clearer, in fact. Confluence of more
than one type of evidence (e.g. C14, paleography, archaeology, texts) is
making clearer which proposals are too early or too late for particular events
or individuals. And, yes, I am stating, with good reason, that this history
includes some actual individuals, actual groups, and actual events. Of course
the texts convey some historical information (e.g., about matters of reading
torah and prophets that were then issues)--that much is ineluctable,
regardless of author intentions. The real, live question is how much history
and how much of it we can read for history reliably. For example, the B.
Thiering proposal is, among other things, now generally (i.e., by most
historians; basically by everone who does not wish it so) and reliably,
recognized as too late. As far as I am aware, no one has the warrant to deny
progress in history. Stated another way, I plan, inshallah, as it were, to
continue to work on Essene and Qumran histories, and I welcome help for others
on or not on this list. Perhaps I misunderstand one or another recent writer,
but if anyone says such research is doomed, I disagree. And I've seen some
progress, contested though some steps have been.
Of course the Greek and Latin sources cannot be merely taken at face value. We
need more analysis of them, but also more comparison with, e.g. archaeology.
Each is clarifying the other, to some extent. (Bergmeier's analysis is
certainly not the last word, and in part mistaken; but when he later in ZDPV
proposed Essenes were from Essa, transJordan, though I'm not persuaded
(perhaps the place name was second), we should allow that he at least
is talking about a group he considers real, in history.)
For those open to giving it a try, consider "Essenes" from a self-
identification from the root 'asah, attested in pesharim, and accepted by a
growing number of scholars (who join those scholars who saw, and in effect
predicted, this before 1948). Consider Judah the Essene teacher as that TR.
Consider Alexander Jannaeus, a priest, who when King was greatly
controversial, sectarianwise, who killed, who robbed, who made changes related
to the temple, as that Wicked Priest. Among other things his office was at the
right time. Both the TR and the WP were born in the second century BCE and
both died in the first century BCE. I invite you, after due scrutiny, to get
used to this. Posidonius and Strabo, sources for Josephus on Essenes, Stoics,
specifically liked some aspects of Essenes, and specifically considered
our "Alexander," by name, a "superstitious and tyrannical" priest par
excellence. That's an example of confluence.
best,
Stephen Goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
- End forwarded message -
- End forwarded message -
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] reading for history
In my view, the overlapping histories of Essenes and of Qumran are both
becoming clearer. This is happening, and I expect it will continue, given the
new data, whether or not scholar X, Y, or Z chooses to participate, or even
resist, and whether or not list or journal or university X, Y, or Z
contributes little or much. By all means, any reasonable caution that should
be raised, raise; any reasonable counterevidence, analysis of shortcomings,
methodological proposals, scientific test, or nuancing has its place.
But let's not be afraid--or presumned prevented by presumed methodological
purity--to try out some discrete observations about what can be reliably
stated. Methodological discussion has its place, but methodological discussion
without application to the work of an historian will surely fulfill, for that
individual alone, any promise of no history results. Admittedly, there are
many things we cannot know with the available data and means of testing. But
it is clear to me that we have now the means to go beyond either a sometimes
caricatured, sometimes ill-defined "consensus" view (though I'm not shy to
claim, that some views held by some sometimes defined as in that consensus,
e.g., that 2 Aramaic etymologies of diminishing popularity for "Essenes" and
that the first Jonathan as WP are wrong) or a sometimes oddly imaged movement
of disparate alternatives-bearers from "freers" from "consensus" pressure
("freeings" themselves apparently at times in service of ideological
preferences).
The chronology, for instance, is becoming clearer, in fact. Confluence of more
than one type of evidence (e.g. C14, paleography, archaeology, texts) is
making clearer which proposals are too early or too late for particular events
or individuals. And, yes, I am stating, with good reason, that this history
includes some actual individuals, actual groups, and actual events. Of course
the texts convey some historical information (e.g., about matters of reading
torah and prophets that were then issues)--that much is ineluctable,
regardless of author instentions. The real, live question is how much history
and how much of it we can read for history reliably. For example, the B.
Theiring proposal is, among other things, noe generally (i.e., by most
historians; basically by everone who does not wish it so) and reliably, too
late. As far as I am aware, no one has the warrant to deny progress in
history. Stated another way, I plan, inshallah, as it were, to continue to
work on Essene and Qumran histories, and I welcome help for others on or not
on this list. Perhaps I misunderstand one or another recent writer, but if
anyone says such research is doomed, I disagree. And I've seen some progress,
contested thogh some steps have been.
Of course the Greek and Latin sources cannot be merely taken at face value. We
need more analysis of them, but also more comparison with, e.g. archaeology.
Each is clarifying the other, to some extent. (Bergmeier's analysis is
certainly not the last work, and in part mistaken,; but when he in ZDPV
proposed Essenes were from Essa, transJordan, we should allow that he at least
is talking about a group he considers real, in history.
For those open to giving it a try, consider "Essenes" from a self-
identification from the root 'asah, attested in pesharim, and accepted by a
growing number of scholars (who join those scholrs who saw, and in effect
predicted, this before 1948). Consider Judah the Essene teacher as that TR.
Consider Alexander Jannaeus, a priest, who when King was greatly
controversial, sectarianwise, who killed, who robbed, who made changes related
to the temple, as that Wicked Priest. Among other things his office was at the
right time. Both the TR and the WP were born in the second century BCE and
both dies in the first century CE. I invite you, after due scrutiny, to get
used to this. Posidonius and Strabo, sources for Josephus on Essenes, Stoics,
specifically liked some aspects of Essenes, and specifically considered
our "Alexander," by name, a "superstitious and tyrannical" priest par
excellence. That's an example of confluence.
best,
Stephen Goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
correction Re: [Megillot] reading for history
Hi, all, Here is a mistake I made: quoting Stephen Goranson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >[] But they [Wise Abegg Cook] say 4Q448 is anti Jonathan. It > is not. Close, except that it should read the exact opposite. Sorry. Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] reading for history
If I may begin by noting two recent publications; then I hope to invite renewed history discussion, because so much data is now available. Ed Cook, known to all of us at least from the Wise, Abegg, Cook (1996) DSS translation book, has a good new blog, which has addressed DSS history: http://ralphriver.blogspot.com Maxine Grossman had an interesting note in the Nov. 2004 orion newsletter. Long ago, on orion, I praised her dissertation (now revised as a book) for clear writing, despite using what is often elsewhere jargony agony (post) modern theory. But, so far, I find more cautions about how history may be read in various ways, than discrete observations about what can be reliably stated; I hope for more and think that we now have the means. Now the newsletter note is merely a note, about news clippings. But it states that "...most, if not all the elements of recent scrolls controversies can be traced back to Allegro's claims from this period" If I may say so, they go back earlier, to, e.g., Dupont-Sommer, to Harding in Illustrated London News, to Zeitlin, and even, in part, back to 1910 CD reactions, and so on. We could use a good volume on history of Qumran scholarship; there is not one yet. I hope Max and Ed are on this list, or will join. If not, I may try the (limited size?) comments box on Ed's blog site. Here's what Ed wrote on 2 Dec., commenting on a popular press item, that caught my attention, and that might serve to start constructive discussion. "I doubt whether many [Qumran DSS]--perhaps any--were copied before 100 BCE or after 5 BCE. But quite a few were _composed_ before 100 BCE--maybe even before 250 BCE." For conversation's sake, though I guess that most of us likely agree that many mss are within that 100 to 5 period, allow me to disagree, and add some comments for discussion. Several texts evidently fall outside that range. C14 data indicate a wider range. Paleography does too. It stands to reason that whoever collected texts would have some older ones, older, e.g., than the start of Hellenistic Qumran settlement. A few pro and con observations on Wise Abegg Cook (1996 views) pages 26-32, on history. I agree that the first Jonathan as wicked priest is too early. But even they write that the teacher was active in the late second century: right: Judah the Essene. And that the wicked priest time included early first century: right: Alexander Jannaeus. But they say 4Q448 is anti Jonathan. It is not. (And the options of an anomalous text or one composed before he "fell from the name of truth" were not absurd, as implied there.) This text focuses on two sects (Pharisees, Sadducees) when it suits the argument; and argues for more than 3 elsewhere. It shortchanges the threeness, multiply attested. A virtue: they recognize the presence in the mss of a sect. (That's better than Golb and Hirschfeld largely discounting sects.) It mixes, obscures, the issues of opposition to high priests based on a) lineage and b) disapproved temple administration. It moves from dismissing Jannaeus as wicked priest (despite their own pointers toward him), then settles on one of his sons, moving from discounting anti-Hasmoneanism to embracing it. There are many other pros and cons that could be mentioned, but perhaps that's enough for starters. Also, history of scholarship-wise, we need to move beyond so-called consensus/standard model versus new model dualistic language. Already, William Brownlee, the first pesherHab scholar, got some of this history (Jannaeus WP; Judah Essene TR) right; as did M. Delcor 1951, Jean Carmignac and many others. all the best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] SBL Qumran?
Hello, Would anyone who attended San Antonio Qumran sessions care to comment on any of the papers (beyond the one on the new Enoch fragment)? Thanks. Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] new Aramaic Enoch fragment
Jim Davila reports today (22 Nov) some more information on the "new" ancient papyrus fragment of Aramaic 1 Enoch. At: http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
RE: [Megillot] Jonathan: 4Q448 and 4Q523
Since I asked for bibliography, in case it's of interest, here's part of a new review essay, "A 'Reconstructionist' Approach to the Dead Sea Scrolls..." on E. Puech's DJD XXV, by Matthew Morgenstern, on 4Q523. JJS vol. LV Autumn 2004 347-53, here 349: "On pages 75-76, Puech provides us with an interesting story about the theft of the temple vessels and an impious priest on the basis of a partial reading YHWNTN and the word MZLGWT. There is no evidence that the name refers to a Hasmonean king as Puech claims, and it seems that any attempt to suggest an interpretation of this text is doomed to failure since it does not even contain two consecutive, certain words. It seems to me that in such cases it is preferable that the scholar acknowledge the limitations of the text rather than suggest forced interpretations that have no basis in the manuscript itself." I think that's somewhat overcritical. E.g., Frag. 1-2 line 6 is fairly certainy "Gog and Magog." And we have some reason to suspect King Jonathan, Alexander Jannaeus (though Puech chooses Jonathan son of Mattathias). I see now that Ken Penner's 2000 paper, "The Peculiar Prayer of 4QPsAp (4Q448)" is online, so I assume and hope it is appropriate, since it deserves wider readership, to provide a link: http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/papers/4Q448.pdf This is a fine paper, in my view, better than several peer-reviewed journal publications I've seen lately. And I say that as a critical reader. On one other paper by Ken, just to provide narrative contrast here, I was quite unpersuaded. But this paper is quite good, especially, on columns B and C. (On A, Psalm 154, with, e.g., in 11QPs a, "form a yahad", I'd suggest a few revisions.) One of its strengths: what's the verb? That's what indicates pro or con. (And stay with that verb, not e.g., Daniel 12:1 but say Daniel 11:25-- and see the flatterers 9cf. smooth thing seekers) vs. the doers in between.) And it's imperative, not, for example, like Qimron's suggestion from Job 8:6. Column C is fragmentary; caution on arguing from absence there. And of absence in B & C: nothing good is said of Jonathan. One need not propose to read lines down then construct a retrojected proposed parallel above. The Biblical and Qumran Hebrew--and the larger context--makes contra Jonathan much more likely. Russell, thanks for your 14 Nov post. Gregory, I did recall that in your Pesher Nahum book you accepted arguments that 4Q448 B&C was pro Jonathan; I did not recall if you addressed shin vs. ayin there; so, not having the book at hand, in an abundance of caution, I hesitated to mention it. Evidence that Jonathan, Alexander Jannaeus, was "Wicked Priest" and Judah the Essene was "Teacher of Righteousness" is growing. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] FW: Doudna on Jonathan: 4Q448
I cited four writers who read *(or once read)* shin, and I cited the *dated* orion post *precisely* merely in response to R. Gmirkin raising Doudna's old paper reading shin. I myself regard the shin reading as a dead letter. I would not have addressed the shin reading had not Gmirkin challenged me about it, explicitly citing *Doudna*. Yet Doudna complains of me and not Gmirkin Doudna today does not read shin. Good. Perhaps we can move on to live issues. Psalm 154 has more than one version. Many scholars--citations on request--concluded it was "Essene" or "proto-Essene." 154 presents the pure in crisis because of the wicked. Praise of God and the pure; condemnation of the wicked. Dualism. Essenes on Jonathan: pure or wicked (wicked priest)? 4Q523 (with our Jonathan, I say, even though Puech [who claims the earlier Jonathan] is an excellent scholar)) and 4Qpesher Nahum (in my view clearly Lion=Jonathan) also reflect a time of crisis. Perhaps Ken can convey his paper to Greg. Then Greg may have another opportunity to reconsider the more likely use of the Hebrew here as for or against Jonathan. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Jonathan: 4Q448
The reading of Shin starting col. B line 1 of 4Q448 has been proposed by M.O. Wise, N. Golb, G. Doudna, and R. Gmirkin. A much longer list of readers read Ayin; and a number of the latter have declared that the reading of shin is "materially impossible" or the like. (Citations on request.) The four who read (or once read) Shin are related in more than one way. The Eisenman & Wise 1992 book p.16 gives its first acknowledgement for "help and suggestions" to Norman Golb; Wise was Golb's student. Doudna, I think, briefly studied at Chicago. The latter three are otherwise influenced by Golb. Gmirkin cited Doudna's paper. Doudna also on orion quite emphatically declared for Shin, though a differently shaped shin than Golb's. By the way, Golb and Doudna use "effaced" rather than "defaced"; the latter might imply intention. Golb did not revise his 1995 book when reissued in paperback, nor correct errors: e.g. on supposed absence of Herod the Great coins; on Pliny supposedly in Judaea [where he never set foot], etc.--merely adding an addendum naming Y. Hirschfeld--before the--still unpublished--Y. Magen, Y. Peleg dig. Golb (p. 262-7) dismissed the paleographic skills of Ada Yardeni in his book; soon afterward, he changed his tune, when the "yahad" (or not) ostracon was published. Though Wise read shin; Abegg in Wise Abegg Cook 1996 read ayin, as had Abegg and Wacholder, and many others. Compare also Andre Caquot "...On propose de traduire la colonne de droit 'Eveille-toi, Saint'" (Annuaire du College de France 1993 p. 671). On 11 Jan 2000 G. Doudna wrote, in part: "...I am no longer sure that reading is Shin. Perhaps it is Ayin after all." and "Main makes a very good argument for the 'Rise up against Jonathan' reading." Those who wish to read the context, the long post, see: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/2000a/msg00038.html For my part, I have looked at, over the years, many photos, b/w and color, in various reproductions, and the original at the 1993 Library of Congress exhibit. I read ayin. Golb read the entire column B as a prose "rubric." R. Gmirkin did not explicitly specify where his proposed title ends. But wherever he proposes it to end, that would affect his claim about proposed relevance of Hebrew poetry parallelism. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Jonathan: 4Q448
Russell Gmirkin, I do not agree with what you wrote. Let's address this, for starters. You wrote: >On the matter of 4Q448, I think the reading "A Hymn for King Jonathan > > and all the Congregation of Your people Israel" is completely sensible > (although I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if you have sound reasons). A reason for not reading "A Hymn" is that the first letter of line one column B is not shin but ayin. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Jonathan: 4Q448
As previously noted, Daniel Harrington, John Strugnell, Emmanuelle Main, Andre Lemaire, Geert Lorein, and I have argued that the 4Q448 columns B and C text speaks against King Jonathan. And I added that he, Alexander Jannaeus, was the Qumran Wicked Priest as well as the pesher Nahum Lion. Now I can add another scholar to that list. Ken Penner in 2000 wrote a paper on 4Q448 that I've now read (thanks Ken). His paper makes several good observations, in my view, and he concluded (p. 13) that this text "is antagonistic toward 'King Jonathan'; it is not a prayer for his welfare." Proponents of the view that 4Q448 favours Jonathan have not adequately addressed the arguments that the text condemns Jonathan. For example, in the Eshel, Eshel, and Yardeni IEJ 42 (1992) publication, page 208, they recognize the materially possible reading ayin-waw-resh...ayin-lamed, but state that "the common biblical meaning...'rise against'...does not fit the context." Such could be seen as circular reasoning or begging the question, as the context is itself in question here. Again in the Eshel and Eshel JBL 119 (2000) article, the versus Jonathan arguments are dismissed in one footnote 23, pages 654-5. Though the Eshels correct one statement by Main, it is merely a minor side issue, and the rest of the argument there I find too general and hypothetical, e.g., how a writer would have phrased something, if written according to their expectations. It is finally becoming clear that the Qumran "Wicked Priest" is Alexander Jannaeus, and that his contemporary, Judah the Essene, is the Qumran "Teacher of Righteousness." best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Jonathan: 4Q448, 4Q523, recent bibliography?
In my view, evidence is increasing that King Jonathan, Alexander Jannaeus, also the Lion of 4Qpesher Nahum, was the Qumran mss "Wicked Priest." And that his contemporary, Judah the Essene, the first known Essene individual, mentioned in War and Antiquities, and as a teacher and prophet, was the Qumran "Teacher of Righteousness." It may be worth noting that Psalm 154, in a version in the 4Q448 A text, in the 11Q Psalms a version includes "Form a yahad...," praise of God, and condemnation of the wicked. 448 B&C (also on the tie end of a scroll likely worth preserving for its main text, regardless of these marginal additions) plausibly records "Rise up, O Holy One, against Jonathan the King"-- D. Harrington/J. Strugnell JBL 1993 498-9; Emmanuelle Main, in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the DSS, 1998 113-35; A. Lemaire 1997 & 2000, G. Lorein, Ned. Theol. Tijd. 1999 265-73; i.e. is plausibly seen as wicked. Qumran's Hellenistic period may well have begun in his tenure, as well as flight to the "land of Damascus," sometime after he "fell from the name of truth" (1QpHab). The Eshels have added (in JBL 2000) more thoughts on the periods within Jonathan's rule, and previously mentioned other possible Qumran ms allusions to a warlike Alexander. I suggest that the proposals of Main et al. on the B & C columns have not been sufficiently considered and addressed, though the Eshels acknowledge and use Lemaire's proposals for the A text, and reread/conjectured it to include mention of Sennacherib. Posidonius and Strabo, sources on Essenes, considered Alexander, explicitly named, as notably "superstitious" and "tyrannical." And the Teacher, Judah, arising an estimated 390 years plus 20 (Damascus ms) after the end of Babylonian captivity fits these texts. Puech in RQ 1996 and DJD XXV published 4Q523, with mention of Jonathan, and ? Gallikah or ?Glakous or... (any possible IDs for that?...cf Bat Gallim in 4QpIsa a ??). Puech argued for the earlier Jonathan, but both 4Q448 and 4Q523 may quite well both refer to the Jannai Jonathan. (I am aware of proposals to read the Lion as gentile; I don't need more bibliography on that, thanks.) Are there more recent studies or notable reviews 4Q448 and 4Q523 besides the above-mentioned? Thanks. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Qumran archaeology (Ben-Ami; Thiering)
1) Yaron Ben-Ami, "The Enigma of Qumran" is available at: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ben-Ami--The_Enigma_of_Qumran.htm This article, I'd say, is relatively more balanced than some of the journalism we've seen in recent months, but still leaves much to be desired as an overview news report on Qumran. In its favour, it does correct the misimpressinon of earlier news stories that Y. Magen considers Essenes and Qumran mutually exclusive, or, to use Y. Hirchfeld's perfectly hyperbolic phrasing, that recent digs "contradict everything we know about every aspect of the Essenes." (Haaretz 31 July 04) Y. Magen, chief archaeologist of the Israel administration of the West Bank, proposes that Qumran may first have been a fort. He does not (in this brief article) explain the unprotected water supply nor the (besides a single tower) thin walls and unprotected entrances. Nor are finds of first century BCE weapons adduced. Then he proposes Qumran became a pottery exporter. If you were to pick a site to produce and export plain, heavy pottery, would you pick one of the lowest sites on earth, making export an uphill battle? And export to where? The so-called "scroll jars," for example, are known to appear, so far, only one single time in Jericho, and reportedly one time in a later tomb outside Abila--nowhere else. Of course we'll need to see the dig report. Unfortunately, several digs at Qumran have been less than cooperative with one another, and, at times, seem insufficiently to consider others' work. For instance Jan Gunneweg's study of Qumran pottery--including analysis of what he calls the "ninth" Qumran inkwell- -has so far been insufficiently reviewed. No one I know claims that "all" the scrolls were produced at Qumran. It's time to let that straw man rest. The claim that all scrolls came from Jerusalem merely lacks evidence. These mss criticise Temple administration, so are not plausibly from a Temple library. We're offered the view that they are from all Second Temple Judaism, not sectarians. But that period is notable precisely for sectarians. No Qumran ms known to me can be identified as Pharisee. Belief in resurrection and speculation on named angels contradicts ancient reports on Sadducees. Some books (like Daniel, with named angels, and resurrection) take a view that God and angels will basically take care of the expected spiritual war, a view not excluding present peaceful attitude. Qumran, on all available published evidence known to me, remains, most plausibly, a settlement of Essenes. 2. Barbara Thiering has proposed that Qumran is the site of the origin of Christianity. I do not agree. She proposes that the four NT Gospels, plus Acts, and Apocalypse of John were written in order to be decoded. She calls this "pesher" technique. (She explains her views in books and at a yahoo discussion group, "qumran_origin".) For instance, she claims John the Baptist was the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness. Among other objections, I consider him too late for that; she responded, giving reasons she considers my critiques of her proposals to be quite mistaken. I find both the method she uses and the resulting narrative not believable as history. Here I'll mention some related archaeology. Yizhar Hirschfeld redug Ein Feshkha, in part, I think, looking for evidence of balsam production. To my knowledge he found no balsam. But this recent report is of interest, among other things, to compare with Dr. Thiering's narrative because she includes two buildings located between Kh. Qumran and Ein Feshkha, buildings Dr. Hirschfeld reports on in his "Excavations at "'Ein Feshkha, 2001: Final Report" Israel Exploration Journal v. 54 n.1 (2004) 37-74. Thiering claims one building, east of the long North-South wall, that de Vaux called an "isolated building," was the manger in which Jesus was born. I remarked that, among other things, the plan did not look like a manger to me. Then Hirschfeld's article appeared. He proposes that it may have been a tower used as a columbarium, for gathering pigeon droppings for agriculture. A second building, west of the North-South wall (correctly in YH's text but not so in Fig. 1), according to de Vaux was an Israelite building. That is, in use only in the Iron Age; and not in the Roman Period. But Thiering claimed that that building was an orphanage in which Jesus and others were reared. Therefore, the archaeology of these two buildings, in my view, disproves Thiering's claims for them best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] new Aramaic Enoch fragment
Over at http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com today (Friday 15 Oct.) Jim Davila passes along interesting news from Esther and Hanan Eshel via Gabriele Boccaccini of a photo of a papyrus fragment of parts of 5 lines of Enoch 8-9 in Aramaic. Presumed to be from Qumran. The message points out that 6Q8 is from the Book of Giants "in a later hand" and is also on papyrus. (Cave 7 papyrus Enoch fragments go unmentioned, presumably because they are in Greek.) In any of the descriptions of the photos of perhaps an Enoch scroll said to be seen by John Strugnell, did he describe it as skin or papyrus? best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Misdating scrolls (I. Young article)
Dear Prof. Ian Young, Thanks for your reply. Your DSD 9 [2002] 364-90 article does indeed show close MT relations in certain Masada texts, though these texts, as I see matters, be few and, by you, quite questionably selected and quite questionably dated. If I read your reply correctly, you imply that some of my sentences were poorly written. If that is what you meant, I am certainly willing to concede that some of my sentences could have been better written. But, I suggest another factor was at work. My post assumed familiarity with the literature of Qumran archaeology, paleography, and radiocarbon. I would have thought that, for your article that makes radical redating claims for both Masada texts and for Qumran texts, you would have closely aquainted yourself with this literature. I suggest that making radical redating assertions obligates one to take that literature seriously. Perhaps I can clarify another point that I may not have written as clearly and explicity as I might have done. I am saying that there is a direct relationship between denial of Essenes at Qumran and some highly counterfactual Qumran history reconstructions. Examples of this type, I suggest, include some writings of N. Golb, G. Doudna, A.D. Crown, Y. Hirschfeld, L. Cansfield, "I. Hutchesson" (aka John J."Jay" Hayes [not to be confused with a real scholar, John H. Hayes], Ann L. Kramer etc.). Admittedly, allowing Essenes a place in history does not, by itself, guarantee plausible history reconstructions. Examples of unacceptable Essene histories include, in my view, some writings of B. Thiering, R. Eisenman, the author of _Wichtige historische Enthullungen uber die wirkliche Todesart Jesu_, and many others. Stephen Goranson P.S. Below is a link to the original review by Atkinson, which, in my view, makes still-valid observations, as do the other three reviews that I cited: all four reviews caution against, amonst other things, dating claims they all found doubtful, as did, for example, several archaeologists attending the Brown Univ. Qumran archaeology conference: https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-March/007970.html ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Re: [ANE] Misdating scrolls (G. Doudna article) slight correction
I wrote that the Aramaic ostracon published by Yardeni (IEJ 40 1980) concerned delivery of dates (I had date formulas on my ming, but it was about figs. S Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Misdating scrolls (G. Doudna article)
but there is question whether FMC would do so, and whether Cross allowed pre- Herod precursors. In other words, much ado about perhaps nothing, though the writing of all three (including Cross' final sentence, quoted but perhaps misunderstood by GD) are not always clear. Too much to type now (N-aleph; inverted V-aleph etc.) GD no doubt a quicker typist. GD' JHS article on the "yahad" ostracon (cited online) gets a date formula argument wrong, I say, even if I may slightly disagree with Yardeni here. GD argued against the "year 2" ostracon mention as Essene-related --without month or day found on datings. He claimed an ostracon published by Yardeni (IEJ 40 1990 130f) gives a parallel in Aramaic; but it does not. It gives day and month for each item of delivered dates. The opening has a year designation. Day and month are needed here only for each item below. So? It remains that year 2 here probably means (as greg briefly agree years ago) year 2 of an Essene initiation process at Qumran. (More details later if interested.) There were not decades between Ib and II--but if there were, GD's implied statistics of phantom Herodians is even harder to believe. GD proposed 3 types of "Herodian" hands simultaneous before 63 or 40, never mind typology development--will the Mas Shir Shanbb late dating claim involve typology progression? BTW Mas texts stabilized...by whom [cf. talmon Masada vi p. 149.]? BTW in pNah crucifixion never done since...by a Jew (Alexander), not a gentile Lion. More relevant notes at hand and at home, but details enough for noe. Greg Doudna wrongly used the word "ignorant" in a sentence with the name Jodi Magness; he should apologize. Doudna wrongly claimed Cross stretched paleography dates back to 70 without relevant pegs; correction at least appropriate. Doudna has spread more misinformation than any other about how properly to apply C14 for history of Qumran; when he realizes that, public written apology appropriate. de Vaux apologised in 1952 for a misdating he fixed. Please, Copenhagen Dr. Doudna, learn from de Vaux. Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Misdating scrolls (I. Young article)
Ian Young has presented and discussed an article (DSD 9 [2002] 364-
90) on Masada texts, but it misdates both Masada and Qumran texts.
It is not the case that all see the MT situation at Masada as Young has it.
E.g. E. Ulrich, "Two Perspectives on Two Pentiteuchal Manuscripts from Masada.'
in Emanuel {Tov FS, 2003] 453f gives good arguments for explanations other than
the one offered by Young. Plus, it is no small matter that IY excluded Mas Gen,
recognized as Gen, not Jubilees (cf. J. VanderKam, the leading Jubilees
expert), called Gen by Talmon in Masada VI. Talmon in Masada VI provides
weighty reasons that the Mas mss came from a variety of places. By IY's
limiting canon and MT sample, e.g.,
the Samaritan text is excluded from view. Also R. Reich's archaeology articles
(e.g. ZDPV)
argue for different backgrounds in different areas of Masada in the war. Ian
tells us about MT texts "in use." Does he, do we, know which were in use? when?
Can he tell us which Qumran texts were in use and when? To ignore the evidence
for variety of all Mas texts greatly weakens the article, and reminds me of
Meier's JBL
article on "halakha" at Qumran which in catch-22 fashion brackets out the
question of other evidence for the clear Qumran criticism of Pharisees. (For
more excellent evidence that Qumranites indeed criticized Pharisees, as seekers
of smooth things, see VanderKam in the Tov Festschrift.
Speaking of Pharisees, it is quite unnecessary to demonstrate that Pharisees
controlled Judaism in late second temple in order to be associated with a
particular text tradition, one that largely survived.
The quote from Josephus contra Apion does nothing to help IY's case, as
Josephus
claimed that for "long ages" no text change was made--plainly false, unless one
follows IY's assurance of 24 books (inc. Daniel) in the temple in 164/3--
implied MT-related (not clear?)--quite speculative, not at all stringent for
dating (IY
put Qumran as a midpoint somehow between 164 temple and masada MT). Plus, the
quote from Josephus, if limited to the time of writing, was 90s AD--too late to
indicate widespread stabilization pre 70.
AD Crown affirms? Recall his Jer. 50 yr. conf. abstract "If we ignore the
Essene
identification...[sic!]" Recall others, some wishing big redating: farewell to
Essenes in the cemetery! and Essenes cannot be located but they aren't here.
Golb on Essenes as an "obscure sect," then trying to make them obscure. Doudna:
Essenes are too hard to know (even while he offers the [easy to know?!]
Hyrcanus II as Teacher of
Righteousness). Didn't different tradents have different texts all through the
second temple period? What would Qumran texts be doing with criticism of the
temple administration? Calling on early Qumran deposit is not only a deus ex
machina but one undefined: Ian Young does not investigate whether the Doudna/
Ian Hutchesson dating has made any credible claim, has any merit, can really
toss out paleography, archaeology, C14, says that's outside the bounds of the
article. Not so, since that deposit time does not work.
Ian slights the fact that a 73/4 end date does not date the mss--how much
older are they? Paleography suggests 1st BC dates, hence a difference of
tradition, not chronology.
Stephen Goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits
I will be brief. Gregory Doudna correctly quoted part of Prof. Magness' email: "...I disagree with nearly all of his research,..." Please note that later posts by others on this list unfortunately misquoted this without the word "nearly." And the reference, in context, as I read it, may not have been solely to the online paper, but included "previous research." In fairness, it should be added that Prof. Magness, as I explained before and as she explained to Doudna, currently has limited occasional access to (slow) email. In addition to being busy with an archaeological dig, and not being a member of this list, I assume that she does not have a Qumran archaeology library at hand in the field for use for reference. And, in fact, in the past, she did indeed discuss, for example, precisely the locus 2 jar and related matters with Doudna and others, on orion list. Archaeologist Magness evaluated the evidence differently than Doudna. In my view, I have already demonstrated inaccuracies, omission of evidence, and special pleading in the online Doudna paper; and I know further examples. But, in order to allow other views ample time and space, I intend to be silent for some days on this list. Thanks, Ian Young, for your post; talk to you later. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits
I have now checked the sentence fragment quoted by Gregory Doudna (fragmented by Doudna) from Rachel Bar-Nathan's Jericho pottery book page 100. Here is the complete sentence, which appears in a discussion of Jericho pottery cup types: "The presence of cups identical to J-CU1D in Qumran (Period Ib, Locus 130 and Period II) again raises the possibility of a pottery workshop common to both Jericho and Qumran, as well as the question of the final dating of Period Ib at Qumran, which seems to be HR1 (see Appendix I)." This sentence raises a *"possibility"* and a *"question,"* without specifying dates, supplied in Doudna's use in []s--square brackets he also used, incorrectly, adding to my initial sentence on Magness disagreeing with several Doudna Qumran archaeology presentations. So Bar-Natan plainly wrote "see Appendix I." Rather than use a fragmented sentence in a discussion of cups, why not see Appendix I? Appendix I: "The Problem of the Existence of a Community at Qumran During thr Reign of Herod the Great." There, Bar-Nathan explicitly agrees with Magness on the end of Qumran Ib and does not agree with Doudna's misreading and misrepresentation of her views. Bar-Nathan also agrees with Magness (as do I) that there was not any gap in habitation or at least one not so long as de Vaux proposed. I disagree with Russell Gmirkin who wrote that this online article by Doudna is "well-researched" and "an example of history of scholarship at its best." Rather, the article includes innacuracies, omission of evidence, and special pleading, as has been shown. Further, on another example, one that Doudna declared did not happen but did happen. I refer to the documented (PEQ 1952) case in which Harding, not merely any archaeologist, but the co-director of the 1951 dig at Qumran, used the 33 AD linen C14 date range midpoint in precisely the manner I claimed and that Doudna denied. A further curiosity about this is that I already provided this information to Doudna on 3 December 2002 on ane list, which I think he read at that time, since he participated. ane list archives: http://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane I wrote "...Plus, Harding in PEQ 1952 (uncited [[by Doudna]]) cites redating of some pottery earlier not later. Harding also cited scroll cloth C14 dated to 33AD + or - a lot, giving reason for 1st century dating (unnoticed by GD), 1st c. which Doudna doubts, with perhaps severally shifting levels of evidence required throughout the paper." I could add other observations on the problems with this paper--how many suffice to show it unreliable?--and, if seems useful, I'll post further observations which even further demonstrate this. Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits
Perhaps someone (other than those already writing in this thread) could inform us about any relevant new datings provided in the new book edited by Jean- Baptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg (which hasn't arrived at our library yet). Greg Doudna quoted a sentence *fragment* from Rachel Bar-Nathan's book. I don't have the book for context at hand. Presumably she does not mean Ib began in 31. In any case, the place to quote is the one explicitly addressing the Ib end date, as given earlier, and in agreement with Magness, and in plain disagreement with the online paper. Perhaps we spoke past one another on Sukenik. My point is pre-1951 non- consensus in dating. From his son Yadin, Message of the Scrolls 1957 p. 18 quoting Sukenik's diary 28 Nov 1948 "...the writing resembled letters which I had found on several occasions on small coffins and on ossuaries which I discovered in and around Jerusalem, in some ancient tombs dating back to the period before the Roman destruction of the city." That is, pre-70 CE, just like Qumran mss. Here then is documentation, Greg, of what you said did not happen with the 33 AD midpoint date of linen with archaeologists. G. Lankester Harding, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1952 page 105. Harding explains that they found the (really) first century *CE* "scroll" jar. Then, next paragraph: "This is interesting confirmation of the accuracy of the date established by submitting some of the linen from the cave to what is known as the Carbon 14 testwith a central figure of A.D. 33." It did indeed happen. The Masada character of texts, as explained before, need not by explained by chronology, but, say, by ownership(s). And the sample was limited and skewed, excluding Genesis as if Jubilees and excluding non-canon (when was the canon fixed?) and ignoring Samaritan and non-canon elements; plainly the country could have (and did have) different loci with differing texts at one time. Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits
Gregory L. Doudna wrote--without giving a reference--that Rachel Bar-Nathan gave the end of Period Ib as c. 15 BCE. That is simply false. It plainly contradicts what she wrote on page 203 of Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho vol. III (2002). "The destruction that marked the upper limit of Period Ib took place only at the end of the first century BCE, and if the site was indeed abandoned this state of affairs continued for but a short while." In other words, in basic agreement with Magness. Magness is footnoted! Plus, if I recall our Nov. 2002 conversations correctly, Rachel--with whom I dug at Sepphoris--clearly agreed with the dating of first century CE Qumran deposits. And, to the best of my knowledge--I was at the Brown Qumran archaeology conference and took notes and had many conversations with many Qumran specialists there--no one there was persuaded by the paper read for the absent Doudna. If Bar- Nathan's views were misreported, are others'? I haven't time to check each claim in each email, but I can say some strike me as mistaken, irrelevant, unpublished or fishy. Doudna oversimplified the matter of a quite brief inscription in the "pantry." The various statements of Cross, de Vaux, Milik and others need attention by anyone wishing to analyse this. Plus, Magen and Peleg claimed (Peleg speaking) at Brown that the pantry was covered by a post 70 CE earthquake. I report this, not being convinced, merely to indicate again that Doudna oversimplified. (Caution on Qumran publications that use the word "paradigm"--Kuhn would cringe--even "consensus" is overused.) In discussing Ian Young's article--peculiar it is since Prof. Young elsewhere champions simultaneous diversity--one might at least note his exclusion, shunting aside from the already small canon sample Mas Gen as if a copy of non- canon Jubilees. Mas Gen is *non*-MT. Skewing the analysis of the small. smaller sample. And perhaps consider Talmon's suggestions on different groups (and note different find areas). Samaritans...stabilized? If Masada were stabilized--a bit of a curious word for Masada at war--should we take it that stabilization reigned throught the land, all ownerships, no sects, everywhere? Was the MT stabilized before 70? Before Christianity? Sukenik early on considered the scrolls genuine in part because they resembled ossuary inscriptions, very many of these first century CE. Doudna quoted a 1955 Sukenik publication that is not to the point of his pre- 1951 consensus dating claim. Paleography of Qumran is not only about Qumran 9and the quite misused "elastic" and "circular" words). Ossuaries etc. provide comparanda. Doudna in DSS After Fifty Years v.I p438 gives a rule of thumb--an iffy one, but please bear with me--[in ital] "all areas within a one-sigma date range should be considered equally possible and probable." This, to protect against "one of the most persistent fallacies in interpretation of radiocarbon dates: the assumption that 'the middle of the range is the most probable.'" Yet now he appears shocked, shocked that I mention that some of those in the infancy of radiocarbon dating in the early '50s gravitated to the linen range midpoint of 33 AD. Speaking of probability, one ought to report and consider also those date ranges overlapping Doudna's undisclosed and so elusive end of Ib and II beginning--not only those totally after. Or does Doudna not follow his own rule of his own thumb? Allow that probably some first century CE range parts include some true date hits? In that same article appears the unfortunate, misleading metaphor of one shotgun blast (461n) for the manuscripts--production and deposit practically conflated--the latter later written about by Doudna as "ONE EVENT." No. The exclusion of evidence and special pleading of the (now-abandoned, then "permanent" [Qumran Chronicle] 63 BCE deposit date proposal is a previous discussion worth recalling. The exclusion of evidence then included 5 of 19 date ranges totally after, not to mention overlapping ranges (and only one totally before). The current proposal excludes less C14 data, but still excludes, and by the same type misunderstanding of how radiocarbon dating should be used by historians. I request that Dr. Doudna learn properly how to regard not disregard what he called "outliers"--a lession, as far as I can tell, still unlearned, despite being offered to him not only by me but (on orion) by Radiocarbon expert Dr. Jull. Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
