p.s. Re: [Megillot] For the record (TR as high priest)
Another relevant citation: If anyone is _not_ the Teacher of Righteousness, it is Hyrkanus. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin http://www.mail-archive.com/orion@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il/msg00822.html Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] TR as high priest
Greg Doudna and list,
I question the recent presentation by GD, on the facts, on the framing of
questions, and on conclusions.
GD asserted that it's the majority opinion that the Teacher of Righteousness had
served as High Priest. Though I haven't surveyed all the literature on this
lately, it's my impression that it may not be a conviction of the
majority. For example, GD listed VanderKam's Calendar book page 116 as
supporting GD's view, yet that page merely says It may be...[that the TR as
represented in H] make[s] one think that he once held high rank And if one
reads VanderKam's more relevant and recent and more detailed treatment of this
question in his book explicitly on High Priests, From Joshua to Caiaphas (2004)
244-250, one reads a long discussion and his conclusion: ...the argument turns
out not to be convincing. And there is a difference between an Intersacerdotum
with one or more unknown priests and priests whose names are known, not neatly
fitting in GD's schema.
The Diodorus quote does not help GD's case by claiming the Jews are so
docile...they fall to the ground and do reverence to the high priest. All? To
Hyrcanus II or his brother? During Civil War?
Also GD's post includes unnecessary and obscuring dichotomies. GD offers that
the alternative (why just two alternatives, by the way?) was that the Qumran
group had a very marginal position, ghettoized irrelevance. Gee, that's not
my position. nor that of many others. (In other words, Essenes did have
influence.)
Dismissing Josephus on Hyrcanus II as biased storytelling is rather casual
dismissal, bracketing off of evidence noncongenial to GD's proposal.
(Bracketing that resembles Russell Gmirkin saying Hanukkah [and 1 Maccabees]
went unmentioned in Qumran texts due to a split--an ancient (? attested where?)
split and choice--to distinguish religious festivals from secular {Temple
dedication?] ones, and exclude writing Hanukkah and Maccabees.)
The dichotomy between second century and first century TR candidates is
unhelpful, obscuring, since, in my view, both the Teacher and the WP were born
in the former, and became prominent in the former, and both died in the latter
century.
GD calls his proposal elegant. If one needs be told, perhaps one didn't
notice.
GD says he was unmoved by being the first to suggest Hyrcanus II as Teacher.
Perhaps I recall a letter announcing this to a Barbara Thiering list,
highlighting that very point, mistakenly?
Might Hyrcanus II have been not proposed as TR , decpite the huge and varied
literature, by anyone because he is quite unfitting? Because he was not the
Teacher?
Finally, GD offers the explanation that Hyrcanus II had never been proposed as
TR before because of pseudo-objections. But, if he had not been proposed, to
what would scholars have been objecting, or pseudo-objecting?
best
Stephen Goranson
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Fwd: (Philip Davies message) Re: [Megillot] some recent publications
I forward this to the group, as his text addresses us, plural, not just me, and since I responded to it, assuming that it went to the list. Stephen - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:54:08 +0100 From: philip davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: philip davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Megillot] some recent publications To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am disappointed to see so much effort still being expended on the identification of the Wicked Priest. Fine, let's enjoy some speculation that if there were such a character and if the depiction of him were largely accurate, we could work out, on a percentage basis, which of the priests we know about best fits the bill. That has been done many times already. But what are the chances that we have preserved in the pesharim enough reliable data to pursue this quest? I am reminded of the excesses of biblical archeology in which bits of information were extracted from biblical texts and fitted into known historical data, without any care to examine the nature of the sources from which these nuggets are drawn. Can we be a bit more open about the methodology here? When and why do we take data as historical? Do we take anything and see if it works? That does not necessarily proves the historicity of the reference. There are good reasons to be cautious; there is no WP in the D material; and a comparison of the language in the Hodayot and pesharim, especially the soubriquets, might suggest that the pesharim have created individual characters out of more general terms in H. Yes, this conclusion might be wrong, but it can't be dismissed. And should we assume that historical data in the pesharim are necessarily historical? If so, let's look for Matthew's star, for the route the Holy Family took to to Egypt, for Herod's massacre. I think the issue boils down to this: do we want to know as much as possible even if the quality of the knowledge decreases the harder we try? Or are we better off being more certain about what we know an recognizing where speculation begins. The difference? Speculation is OK, but very soon speculation becomes something on which we build more speculation. DSS scholarship has many wonderful examples of this building of sand upon sand; we have taken almost as long dismantling 'facts' as in creating them. Knowing what we don't know is rather important. and to my mind, the identity (or even existence) of an individual figure to whom the title 'wicked priest'; can apply is not something we know; I am not even sure there is such a person to know. Is anyone? I'm happy to for people to carry on with their guessing game as long as they acknowledge they are guessing and have no reason to be sure that the literary sources are sufficiently firm for any conclusions to be other than speculation. Which means that we can't make any further hypotheses about such hypotheses. -- Philip Davies Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield - End forwarded message - ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Qumran again: NYTimes misreporting, etc.
Of course the three often-published inkwells from de Vaux's Qumran dig are genuine inkwells. One can learn about inkwells by attending to the forms and developments, and the literature, and the ancient descriptions and depictions (e.g. at Pompeii). Then there are other hints: One of these inkwells contained some dried ink This from a source not far to seek: de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls page 29. I recommens that those who wish to write about Qumran first read this book. De Vaux published those three inkwells. Gunneweg discovered another inkwell in de Vaux's remains, while he was conducting NAA tests of the clay. De Vaux found another inkwell at Ain Feshkha. Steckoll found another inkwell, also with dried ink. (To save time: some doubt this inkwell [not at U. Haifa Museum; published by me in Michmanim] is reliably from Qumran; in my view, though he was an incompetent digger, he did not plant this, but others disagree. So the total depends on what you count. The Schoyen collection has an inkwell (plus other things clearly from Qumran--but iffy). Steven Fine published another now in U. S. Calif. A private collector has another. In any case, more inkwells than typical for an ancient site. The room of scribes at Dura Europos, complete with a splash of ink on the wall: no inkwells found. I never saw an inkwell at Sepphoris, home of the Mishna. My teacher Eric Meyers, in many years of digging, found (I think) only one inkwell at Meiron, in a burial, Despite the general prohibition of grave goods, But a rabbinic text allows an exception for a scribe. Here literature and material realia may be helpfully compared. There is no clear dividing line between text and monument. An ancient scroll is also an artifact. Archaeologists use both, Check Oxford English Dictionary if you doubt it. The NYTimes video speaks mistakes. It says the name Essene never appears in the Scrolls. In brief, in Hebrew, osey hatorah, it does, in texts known as Essenes on other grounds: initiation, predestination, sectarianism etc. Qumran, beyond the tower, is not fortified, hence not a fort. The modern clay in the broken water system was not tested to compare with known pottery--despite big databases available. Mere unscientific assertion instead. People who quote or cite Josephus for, say, Hasmoneans and Sadducees but not Essenes distory the available evidence. Qumran is not Royal; but anti-Royal. Magen and Peleg dug largely in dumps, so their not-yet-reviewed assertions are less reliable and less published so far less tested than de Vaux's. When you first visited Qumran did you think, my, what a major crossroads? Would you pick that, the lowest spot on earth to invest in a pottery (coarse, cheap) pottery export factory, pottery to be pack-animal-driven uphill? What about the now-published (Humbert-Gunneweg volume) Qumran ostraca, with some handwriting like the scrolls, and including religious text? Magen and Peleg mention nine burials but neglect to tell the sex of those adult burials. The Cemetery and Communal rooms remain archaeological evidence, despite those who deny their relevance. good morning Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Qumran again: NYTimes misreporting, etc.
David, if, as you propose, Qumran could only be inhabited, early on, seasonally, when Magen and Peleg claim it was a 'fortress that would be an oddly ineffective one, would it not? If it's easier to make cheap export-pottery elsewhere (as if that has been shown, where what pottery went) why then make it at Qumran in a Rube Goldberg machine and then schlep it uphill? You shift the demands of evidence, claiming archaeology (in your apparently narrow definition, contrary to normal English usage) cannot confirm nor deny Essenes historical presence (if I read you right). Yet magen, apparently, in BAR as well as in the error-laden Brown book, and as represented in NY Times, claim in effect to banish Essenes from the site, Yet you also wrote that you largely agree with them. Something does not add up. Plus, if Qumran were such a strategic site, why was it uninhabited for, well, most of human history? No major battle is ever known to have happened there. Just one minor skirmish circa 68, Romans easily overcoming recently-arrived zealots. Where are the Hasmonean weapons? Soldier burials? Fortifications? Royal inscriptions, ostraca, architecture, decorationsanything royal whatsoever? It's mere declaration, not dirt archaeology. Josephus names and locates forts: none matching Qumran. I think you skipped over that fact that archaeologists use texts, but, some, merely bracket out, for whatever reasons, certain selected passages. That is not-good methodology. best Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Another Qumran misinterpretation (Magen, Peleg, NYT)
The New York Times 15 Augusr, Archaeologists Challenge Link Between Dead Sea Scrolls and Ancient Sect, by John Noble Wilford: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/science/15scroll.html And a related NYT video (thanks to Joseph Lauer for the link): http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=a2079ba3e:10d1134909d:-6b7ffr_story=2fb8f6f982ce987fcdcc44a71948903e53222e9fst=1155637880192mp=WMPcpf=truefr=081506_061739_2079ba3ex10d1134909dxw705erdm=572670.5397135776 Unfortunately, the New York Times article and video both include mistakes. The NYT report is based largely on an article by Y. Magen and Y. Peleg in the Brown Universiry Qumran Conference volume. They also have an article in the Sept/Oct BAR. Unfortunately, the Brown article by Magen and Peleg, as well as some other contributions to that volume, include significant mistakes. I have written a journal review of the Brown volume, which is not yet in print, that will list some of these errors and unreliable assertions (though some of the chapters are helpful), and may write on some of these here, if there's interest The New York Times article ends with the sentence: Despite the rising tide of revisionist thinking, other scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls continue to defend the Essene hypothesis, though with some modifications and diminishing conviction. In my case, that is false; my conviction that Essenes wrote several of the Scrolls and that Essenes lived at Qumran has not diminished but increased, because the evidence for that association has increased. best, Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] another Copper Scroll novel; BAR Y. Magen article
1) _The Copper Scroll_ by Joel C. Rosenberg (Tyndale, 2006) caught my attention because the advertising claimed that the scroll was uncovered in 1956. There was a 1956 New York Times article, but there was also a 1952 NYT article (1 April 1952, p.13 col. 6) following the 20 March 1952 discovery. The novel itself gets the 1952 date right, but much else there is unreliable. Since I've read the novel--which I can't really recommend as literature--here are a few comments, in case there's interest in this case of popular (mis)represention of the scrolls. The book involves a search for the Key Scroll and then the deposits, and also the Ark of the Covenant, with lots of killing, and political and religious assertions along the way. Of course the Copper Scroll does not lack speculative narrative attractions, and the book to some extent makes use of this. The Acknowledgments lists some bibliography, but lacks, e.g., Milik, Puech, and _Copper Scroll Studies_ (2002) In this book Essenes lived by the Dead Sea around 200 BCE (102). The Shrine of the Book display includes ink-stained quills (103). The Isaiah Scroll is the oldest Biblical manuscript ever found (103). Scrolls include a journal of daily life (108). Father Bargil Pixnerwas a member of the original team...who discovered the Copper Scroll... (174). Typos: Erin's closet [closest?] friend at the CIA(21); He wore small a yarmulke (107); Hold one, Jack Knife, hold one... [should be Hold on...] 2) September BAR apparently includes an article by Y. Magen claiming Qumran was primarily a factory for exporting pottery. The Brown University Qumran Conference volume chapter that makes this claim, in my view, is one of the chapters that is not reliable and may well be read with caution. Some of the other chapters are more helpful. best Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Hasmoneans, control and not
Quoting David Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [] (Hasmoneans would not have tolerated any sort of 'independent' Qumran not under its control). [] Statements such as the above are not rare. But, I suggest, such statements may be more asserted than demonstrated. Hasmoneans did not prevent, among other things, sectarianism. Various realities existed without Hasmoneans necessarily wishing for such realities. Saying that Jannaeus could have attacked them there is not equivalent to saying that he did so. And his wife and successor: is there good reason to assert that during her rule independent communities (of any sort) cannot have existed? And some of this calculus depends, doesn't it, on the date the Hellenistic period settlement began? That a community of Essenes lived on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, I suggest, was not among the greatest of the Hasmoneans' (nor Herod's) worries. Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery-the skeletons
Jack, I suggest that it is less accurate to describe Qumran as \located smack-dab in the middle of \Balsam country.\\ than to describe it as located between (and distinct from) two known centers of balsam production, both of which had more plentiful water. If I am located, say, between two automobile factories, it does not follow that my location is an automobile factory. Though I don\'t object to tests I don\'t see why you would guess the table would have been used for balsam. Glass is multifunctional and not greatly rare. I know no special relationship between Qumran and Yizhar\'s Ein Gedi site. Qumran lacks royal evidence. Finally, perhaps you would be interested in reading Ehud Netzer\'s article, \Did Any Perfume Industry Exist at \'Ein Feshkha?\ IEJ 55 (3005) 97-100. To oversimplify and paraphrase his answer: no. Perfume production there was much less probable than date production. Further, please note, during this season of claiming Jericho parallels for many, conflicting, theoretical proposals, that Ehud Netzer argues his case largely based on the archaeology of Jericho, where for many many years he has been and still is, after all, the principal archaeologist. best, Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery-the skeletons
1. Several papers read at the Brown conference, which I attended, made unreliable assertions. Several papers in the Brown volume make uneliable assertions. Some of the papers contradict one another. Nothing from the Brown conference and volume seriously refuted Essene presence at Qumran. 2. There is no evidence of balsam production at Qumran. 3. Hirschfeld's proposed Essene site is not accepted by other archaeologists including Y. Magen and Y Peleg in their Brown paper. It is too late, too small, and wrong type. 4. For evidence that Cross did not suggest zealots briefly held Qumran in 68, see his Ancient Library of Qumran. If Romans defeated zealots there, they may well not have buried any of them they killed. 5. Russell wrote that Dio Chrysostom's city can only be Jericho. Not so. Further, in the analysis of Adam Kamesar (JAOS 111 [1991] 134-5), the Stoic Dio presented Essenes as a polis in the sense of a group of people living under a rule of law in the same place. 6. Pliny's main source for Judaea and his source for Essenes was Marcus Agrippa, circa 15 BCE. Essenes did not just then arrive, nor just then come into being. Rereading Pliny on the Essenes: Some Bibliographic Notes: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/programs/Goranson98.shtml Judah the Essene lived long before Russell's c. 4 BCE date. Pliny and Philo and Josephus all had earlier sources. Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf 7. Qumran texts differ with Sadducee views. How many Sadducee-accepted books were there, anyway, besides Torah? Would Sadducees have copies of Daniel, with resurrection and named angels? 8. There is no aristocratic second temple period burial known at Qumran. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] two notes
1. Russell proposed than Dio meant Jericho as the Essene place. But Pliny writes separately of Jericho and the Essene area. Isn't is simpler to consider that Dio, Pliny, and Solinus all refered to the same Essene place? (I.e. Qumran/Feshkha.) 2. Robert Feather was at the Brown conference, but did not read a paper there. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Bio and Material Cultures at Qumran
Forthcoming: Bio and Material Cultures at Qumran edited by Jan Gunneweg, Charles Greenblatt and Annemie Adriaens publisher: European Union http://publications.eu.int/index_en.html Abstracts of the 22-23 May 2005 Qumran Meeting in Jerusalem http://micro5.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msjan/abstracts.html In response to a question about the much-discussed reported single Jericho cylindrical scroll jar Jan Gunneweg mentioned (and OKed quoting): The Provenance of Qumran Pottery by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis * *Jan Gunneweg^ and Marta Balla ?Furthermore, the enigmatic ?scroll jar? found at Jericho is first of all no scroll jar as we know from Qumran and also chemically is a local product of the Jericho kiln.?, a quote from the ?conclusions? in Qumran Proceedings p. 105-107 Also the Brown Qumran conference volume is now out (many of its chapters contradict one another); and the Humbert/Gunneweg volume is in print. best, Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: history analysis (was Re: [Megillot] SV: osey hattora)
Russell Gmirkin wrote (28 April): Thank you, Jack, for your comments on the utility of the term halachah. Everyone in the field knows that the term is anachronistic, but everyone knows what it means, and consequently most everyone uses the term (with suitable disclaimers) for the reasons you note. One problem is that we do not know what term the authors of the halachic texts used for this genre of legal writing, or if they even had a special term for it. Goranson has been advocating the use of a more neutral generic name, which I am open to, but I have yet to hear what this name would be. The phrase Qumran legal materials fails to distinguish the halachic materials from the Serekh legal materials that have to do with social organizational matters, and the descriptor Qumran is far from neutral, since both the Serekh and halachic materials likely predate Qumran. Perhaps one could say the legal materials that looks like later halachah and use the same methods of legal exegesis, but which we cannot call halachah for fear of offending members of a Jewish sect who have been dead for over 2000 years. In any case, this terminological dispute has nothing to do with history or source criticism. Also, a minor point of fact, the characterization of the legal content of the halachic texts as Sadducees owes nothing to Josephus, but is based on later rabbinic references to Sadducee legal tenets. The Talmud presents the rabbinic (i.e. Pharisee) side and such Qumran scrolls as 11QT, 4QMMT present the Sadducee side of the same legal controversies. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin I (Stephen Goranson) respond: In my reading, Jack Kilmon's recent views appeared relatively more in agreement with my recent writing than yours. You can hear many neutral, generic terms: legal determinations, laws, decisions, judgements, opinions, rulings, tenets (to borrow a term you used), for example. The words are not far to seek. As for Sadducees: what evidence do we have that they had any books outside of TaNaK (if indeed that whole canon; e.g., including Daniel, with named angels and resurrection?). Some suggest a Book of Decrees. Decrees, there is another usable word. An agreement on streams of liquid does not mean two groups are identical. Pharisees and Essenes, unlike Sadducees, reportedly both believed in some kind of resurrection, but that agreement does not make the groups identical. Dismissing Josephus is not good methodological practice. Sadducees in Rabbinic literature undergoes a broadening process, which to some extent resembles the broadening process of a different term, Minim, as decribed by Reuven Kimelman. Retrojecting later usage of terms is not good methodological practice, and doing such, in my view, presents missteps that leave source criticism dependent on such missteps less than persuasive. best, Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Re: James Tabor's new book: two notes
I (SG) forward Prof. Tabor's reply, at his request: Dear Stephen and all (please post if appropriate on the lists), Thanks so much for your correction here, mea culpa! As always you prove yourself a sharp eyed and perceptive reader. It is so hard to successfully proofread and fact check a book and we will surely correct this error in subsequent printings/editions. There have been a few other errors called to my attention as well. On the Tale of Two Tombs, you are right, I am convinced that the James ossuary is genuine, meaning the entire inscription, or maybe I should say, to be more accurate, I am not convinced by the arguments of the IAA that the phrase brother of Jesus was forged by Golan. I don't lay out all the pros and cons in the book as they have been so extensively discussed and are quite complex and technical, as you know, but there is additional evidence that will gradually come out that I think will support the authenticity case. As for the provenance and history of Oded's ossuary I am simply not sure, much depends on when he acquired it. In the book I discuss both tombs as possibilities and yes, you are right, if it is from one the argument for the other is surely undercut. I think this might be resolved if we could do mDNA on the bone material from the James ossuary, or at least if there is no maternal match in either tomb we could conclude the evidence one or the other is the source of the ossuary remains unresolved. What I really wanted to do in that chapter, as I indicate at the end, is not to say definitively that one or the other IS the tomb from which the James ossuary came as to pull readers into the context of late 2nd Temple burials of this type, perhaps similar to the way in which the Jesus family would have been buried--you know, forgotten in history as a family, but together in both life and death--somewhere, perhaps, in Jerusalem. These two tombs are fascinating for what they contain and serve to represent this central idea--and if one of them indeed does turn out to be the tomb from which the James ossuary came (whether genuine in whole or part), then all the more interesting for us to study the evidence in each and see what can be determined of this particular James and who he might have been. I of course realize that Jodi Magness and others have argued that the Jesus family was too poor for such burial but I am not convinced by that argument. Thanks again, respectfully, James D. Tabor Dr. James D. Tabor Chair, Dept. of Religious Studies UNC Charlotte Charlotte, NC 28223 704-687-2783 704-687-3002 ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Jozef Mikik (1922-2006)
An obituary: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article341010.ece Previously (noted on ane and paleojudaica), with Joseph spelling: http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],0.html RIP Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Old Young Caves?; Jannaeus; Jannes
1) Daniel, your paper Old Caves and Young Caves: Two Qumran Collections? raises interesting questions. Since no one else commented, I'll give a few preliminary comments, for starters, though I haven't had time to follow up all your suggestions. The title is OK, though at first glance I thought you meant generally geologically old caves versus generally man-made or enlarged (mostly marl) caves, whereas you mean earlier and later cave deposits. It may be worth noting that, if accepted, your proposal would not only differ from the 68 CE deposit view, but even more strongly the 68 CE scrolls all from Jerusalem proposal. P. 3 on deposits with regard to age--this would be a factor if a genizah, yes? Another cave option is overflow off-site library storage for less often used texts. And p.4, you don't consider all the permutations of your categories (GL, LE, GE). Paleography dating by different scholars may be a bigger issue than you allow. n.7 steering factor could be clearer (=selection by discernable type?). While 4 BCE is possible as you use it, was 4 CE the end of that possible range? (No book at hand.) Did the whole settlement burn? P. 4 Reference or examples for rolled up wrongly and how does that sit with p. 5 mutilated by attackers? What about the possibility that some scrolls were taken away--and selectively-- say before the zealots arrived, as Essenes went to Transjordan (where attested later); or as medieval finds (cf. the Timotheus I letter) might affect the deposits? p. 6 written =penned? Bedside table...which caves were inhabited or inhabitable? n.13 add the *first* fire. Cave and Test are in caps when proper nouns. Jody--Jodi. 3QCu late and perhaps expired listing. Documentation in n11 is inadequate; perhaps directly ask experts: such as Andrea Berlin, Jodi Magness, Rachel Bar-Natan (the latter's book is interpreted unreliably in my view in the ref., and there was only 1 (or one portion of one scroll/cylinder) jar, strictly defined, in Jericho. Maybe discuss the Cave 4 mss you consider late additions. Maybe sort out the Yardeni/H. Eshel difference on some internally 4Q or not Q mss. P.4 clothes-- cloths or pieces of cloth. n 5 a so--also. Perhaps consider which mss were repaired, e.g., had a replacement first sheet. Perhaps mention C14. Perhaps check scribal practices distributions. Perhaps consider cave distances from the Khirbeh (and what was found on which paths), and natural vs, man-made or -modified caves. Cf. J. Patrich's survey and Broshi/Eshel findings. Interesting paper. 2. Michael O. Wise has an article in the latest Dead Sea Discoveries 12.3 (2005) 313-62: 4Q245 (psDan' ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus Here's a link for those with institutional subscriptions: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://brill/dsd/2005/0012/0003/art5 I've only had time to quicky scan it, but, provisionally, if his reconstruction, restoration, and arguments (if if if...) hold up, this may provide yet more indication--though I do not recall him writing this--that Alexander Jannaeus is the Qumran Wicked Priest rather than anyone earlier or later. The latter was advocated in the first edition of the Wise Abegg Cook DSS translation. (I haven't yet seen their new second edition to see if they revised their proposal.) 3. I have started to revise my article Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene at http://www.duke.edu/~goranson So far I've mostly corrected typos and the like, but I'll mention that I added reference to a book that should have noted before, Albert Pietersma, The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians (Leiden, 1994). This is important because I argue, with help from L. Ginzberg (writing before WWI on CD), that Damascus Document's wicked Jannes refers to Jannaeus, as the opponent of the Righteous Teacher (Judah). Pietersma argues, inter alia, that the name (and his brother) demands a historical explanation. And, without implying that he now endorses my proposal, I can quote (with permission) from his email comment on my article: Though I opt there for Jonathan and Simon (p. 20ff) as historical referents, you make a good case for Jannaeus and Absalom. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[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 paper, I see I was saying the second (the shotgun blast analogy applied to the subset). Is it possible you are referring to some other statement of me and have gotten the wrong footnote cited?? And you write (continuing your attribution to me): It is misleading to presume regarding circa 900 Qumran manuscripts (surfaces prepared when written on) plus their subsequent deposits
[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] 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] 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] 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
[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] 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
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] 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.
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
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] 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
[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] 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
[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=linkerreqidx=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=linkerreqidx=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=linkerreqidx=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=linkerreqidx=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=linkerreqidx=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=linkerreqidx=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=linkerreqidx=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=linkerreqidx=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] 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] 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] 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
[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
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_Type1c=Articlecid=1108595411286call_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
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
[Megillot] copper scroll copy question
According to Jerusalem Post 17 Feb. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFullcid=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
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] 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] 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] 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
[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
[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] 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] 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
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
Re: [Megillot] Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits
Dear list readers, If I may respond on the subject in the heading; I suggest that response to Goranson is an unfortunate ad hominem change of the subject line. Of course I address the list including Greg Doudna and Dierk van den Berg, though I confess I do not understand the latter's text. Doudna's response to me misses the main points. As I wrote, this is not the first time. Previous discussions--for instance, explicitly on the locus 2 jar!- -are indeed relevant. As are previous inkwell discussions, and previous pointings out that Doudna (and e.g. in this case N. Golb and Y. Hirschfeld) require different levels of evidence for Qumran and Jerusalem text production. It is fair for people (including de Vaux) to change their minds, but to quickly disown an elaborate years-long series of self-contradictory attempts, by hook or crook, to redate the scrolls to exclude any in first century (an arbitrary cutoff?) is to exclude from our perview a subject that Copenhagen Dr. Doudna himself raised in his online text: psychology. (Or we might say epistemology or methodology.) Indeed part of the history of scholarship concerns what they, de Vaux et al., thought. That is why, for instance, the 33 AD + or - C14 linen date certainly matters: to them surely a first century indication (however we might see it now). And there were many such evidence indications. The article confuses one jar as the basis of a dating with the decades of evidence as the dating basis. It is to de Vaux's credit that he reevaluated. And de Vaux's dates have been effectively revised; that revision makes the Period II continuity even more ineluctable. Yet even still now, Doudna did not respond to de Vaux on the continuity of usage in Period II, rather wrongly dismissing this weighty matter as merely irrelevant. The audience is misled by omitting evidence. Changing a mind is one thing. But to seek to forget years of self- contradictory determination to redate mss and misrepresent so as to exclude any in first century is to miss something. Repeating, by itself, without disowning the past, of course, is something I do myself. (Essenes, via one of the many Greek spellings, came from the Hebrew root 'asah, as is increasingly realised--do spread the word :) ) Here is another example of heedlessness to evidence which does not fit a preconceived conviction. Doudna asserted that no one had challenged Avigad's work on Alexander Jannaeus bronze coin dating. I offered to provide the reference to a basic work that Doudna should have consulted before making such a bold sweeping declaration, a work which precisely dismissed one of Avigad's two dates. But no interest was manifested. Ya'akov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, v.1 p.80. I can understand why Dr. Doudna wishes to prevent me (he has attempted to silence me before) from noting past discussions and publications. I could provide other data and bibliography (on misrepresenting Essenes, on dating, and so on), but what's the point if there is no interest in unwelcome information? Many respondents and reviewers---not just me--have been disregarded. The one generation hypothesis is quite unscientific as applied by Doudna to the C14 data, omitting evidence, misleading. I understand that Doudna wishes me to disregard previous discussions (even while presenting an article on previous discussions!). Not only I pointed out Doudna's unscientific dismissal of C14 evidence, but so did, for example--despite repeated denials and obliviousness--the Radiocarbon expert Dr. Jull. Not to end on a negative note, I have read over the years some observations by Geg Doudna that I found worthwhile. And, in my opinion, we all have opportunity to research Qumran history further than has been so far realised. Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Secaca Qumran question
Here is a very tentative question: Is there a relationship of definitions as well possibly as of geography in the place names Secaca and Qumran? Here is some background on the question that I consider tentative (unlike, e.g., the relationship of the Greek name Ossaioi with the Hebrew root 'asah that I consider ineluctable). Joan E. Taylor contributed a very interesting article, Khirbet Qumran in the Nineteenth Century and the Name of the Site, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 134 (2002) 144-164. I reread it lately, in part because the review of J. Magness' Qumran archaeology book by Y. Hirschfeld (J. Roman Archaeology 2003) dismissed too quickly--among other things--the possible ancient name for Qumran, Secacah, found in the 3QCopper Scroll (presumably one of the first century CE Qumran Essene mss). The Arabic name Khirbet Qumran (and Wadi Qumran) has been idenified as, or suggested as, the same place as Kh. and Wadi Secaca by various scholars (cf. J. Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, p. 183-4, and add Hanan Eshel in IEJ--more bibliography on request). Briefly--though her article deserves to be read in full--Taylor suggests the meaning, from Aramaic, for Qumran, of belt. She argues that the Khirbet name followed the Wadi name; but I think that is not certain, but based on one interpretation of F. de Sauly's somewhat mixed-up search for a large size Gomorrah (plus, his original French edition Atlas with a pays des Esseniens located [according to E. Puech in BASOR] might be worth considering--Duke's copy is lost). And why would belt apply to that wadi more than others? Briefly, again, might the two terms overlap somewhat along the lines of belt, girdle, hedge, enclosure (Succah), cloister? Might the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language (which I don't have electronic access to) have any relevant information? Has a possible relationship between the placename meanings been discussed before? Are there other Syriac uses of the nearby archaeologically-connected place name (Kh. and Ras) Fashkha in addition to (i.e., since) Payne-Smith 1903, 467 on something torn off that can refer to (Taylor p. 162) even a sect? thanks, best wishes, Stephen Goranson Durham NC ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Deut 5,33
Hello Soren, According to Julie Ann Duncan in DJD XIV on 4QDeut(j) page 84, note to 5:33, (BHS note 33a-a errs). best, Stephen goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] 2 new Qumran archaeology books
The message below is forwarded from ane-list. For description of the second book, Stephen Pfann's English presentation of R. de Vaux's dig notes, click on the URL below. Stephen Goranson Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:38:31 -0600 From: Jack Sasson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ANE] BOOKS: Qumran, via scientific analysis To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From Jean-Michel de Tarragon [EMAIL PROTECTED] comes this notice: = HUMBERT Jean-Baptiste Jan GUNNEWEG (Eds.), Khirbet Qumran et Ain Feshkha, II. Etudes d'anthropologie, de physique et de chimie.[Studies of Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry.] With: Marta Balla, Mireille Belis, Alain Chambon, Christa Clamer, Katharina Galor, Jan Gunneweg, Tom Higham, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Nol Lacoudre, Andre Lemaire, Jacek Michniewicz, Martin Muller, Jonathan Norton, Emmanuel Pantos, Kaare L. Rasmussen, Susan Guise Sheridan, Aryeh Shimron, Joan Taylor, Johannes van der Plicht, et al. (NTOA.SA 3). 24 x 32,2 cm ; xxv-482 pp. illustr. (color/ BW). Fribourg (Suisse), Academic Press / editions Saint-Paul Goettingen, Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 2003. Hardcover Euro 153,00 (ISBN 3-7278-1452-7 / 3-525-53973-8). Notice by Jerry Murphy OConnor: Volume I (= Photos of Qumran dig) provided a report of the archaeological excavation and a list of the finds at Khirbet Qumran. (See http://ebaf.op.org/nouveau/en/2003q1b.htm.) This volume (II) seeks to analyze and explain these finds by applying the latest scientific technologies. Specialists from diverse interdisciplinary fields pool their knowledge to establish the provenance of Qumran's pottery and to establish the range of contact beyond Qumran. A classification of the textile remains and an examination of their craftsmanship inform about the communitarian and/or religious background of the people at Qumran. The decipherment of Qumran's graffiti, the majority of which is local in origin, is essential for comparing their writing to that found in the parchment and papyrus scrolls. Carbon dating of wood from a coffin and a date kernel establishes the period in which the alleged Essenes may have lived and died U--the latter once a source of contradiction. The burial beads do not fit in the Essene context. The study of the metal objects provides background for research on Roman metallurgy in this part of the world. Finally, the analysis of the mortar used for the water cisterns opens a new dimension on the study of the domestic activities at Qumran. It is hoped, furthermore, that after new hypotheses based on the archaeology of Qumran are formulated, the exegesis of the Dead Sea scrolls will profit from these scientific results, thus shedding new light on the interpretation of the texts. ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] Radiocarbon article
A significant article that has been little-noted in online Qumran discussion: Israel Carmi, Are the 14C Dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls Affected by Castor Oil Contamination? Radiocarbon 44 (2002) 213-216. Carmi presents a four-point critique of K.L. Rasmussen et al., The Effects of Possible Contamination on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1: Castor Oil, Radiocarbon 43 (2001) 127-32. Prof. Carmi's Conclusions: 1. The extant corpus of dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls is robust and does not indicate a problem with castor oil contamination. 2. The experiment of Rassmussen et al. (2001) has no relevance to the extant dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls. best, Stephen Goranson Durham NC ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
[Megillot] new journal Megillot?
The 17 Nov. Orion Center Current Bibliography lists a new publication, twlygm, vol. 1 (2003). Perhaps someone on the list could tell us more about it, such as its scope, publisher, editors, ISSN. Thanks. http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/bib/current.shtml Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
