Re: orion-list [ANE] The Restructuring of ORION (offlist)
Dear Rochelle, You do seem to run a fairly tight ship at IOUDAIOS-L. Russell Gm. For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Re: [ANE] The Restructuring of ORION and a new Place to Discuss Qumran
George, Technically, the period when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written (i.e. 2nd and 1st century BCE) is later than ANE is intended for. Occasional postings on the scrolls used to be tolerated, though. My understanding is that past discussions of scrolls topics on ANE tended to violate the list's standards of courtesy, etc., so that the moderator finally asked that the subject be discussed elsewhere (at the time, Orion). Some of the more thoughtful, original scrolls scholars have basically given up on list discussions (including Orion) from being flamed or misrepresented a few times too often - sometimes by lurkers banned from Orion who do their flaming on other lists. This sort of censorship by discourtesy is unfortunate and has led to the demise of on-line scrolls discussion (IMO). For the moment there appears to be no list for scrolls scholars, now probably including Orion, which is a real pity. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin (P.S. Cross-posting on Orion.) Russell Gmirkin and Others, Russell recently wrote: This really isn't the proper forum for Qumran discussions... Today I just received word that Orion was no longer going to be supporting a discussion list. Other than this list [ANE], where would be a better place to discuss Qumran, Essene and related issues? George Brooks Tampa, FL USA For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Joe Zias, Thanks for your comments. I agree that Golb's idea of Qumran as fortress with military cemetery is dead, but I don't think Hirschfeld's analysis of the site of Qumran can be easily dismissed (although his proposal of Essenes above En Gedi appears incorrect). The lower Jordan valley and Dead Sea littoral was important in terms of palm plantations, balsam and other aromatics. Qumran appears connected to Ein Feshka which had palms, and there is evidence of palm products at Qumran. There is also the unexplained installations at Ein Feshka, doubtless agriculturally related. So I don't think there is a real problem in viewing Qumran as an agricultural site (where I am including date harvesting, balsam collection, etc., as agricultural enterprises). What slight evidence there is in Josephus on Essenes contemporary with Period I (i.e. the episode with Judah the Essene in 101 BCE) sees them comfortably ensconced in Jerusalem and teaching at the temple. My own interpretation of Qumran Period Ib is that it was one of the sites where (largely Sadducee) former partisans of Alexander Jannaeus went into exile when driven from Jerusalem by the Pharisees in the well-known episode in c. 76 BCE. The (much-debated) Hymn to King Jannaeus found at Qumran provides some support for this hypothesis IMO. Such a historical background for the expanded Period Ib site would adequately explains the mikvot at the site. Certainly these are exciting times in terms of Qumran archaeology. Hopefully a full publication of the archaeological data, seasoned with a little healthy debate, will serve to clarify many important issues regarding the site and its occupants. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Joe Zias, Not to be a bother, but I recently reread your article The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy in DSD 7, and I had some follow-up queries. First, if I understand the diagram in Figure 1 from Humbert and Chabon, and read de Vaux correctly, the graves in the southern cemetery are aligned north-south (with the exception of T4), excluding of course the southern extension. Yet if I read your article correctly, the excavated graves of the main southern cemetery are bedouin (as especially indicated by the grave goods in T1, i.e. jewelry, which I think are your best indicator of distinctive cultural background). May I then infer that bedouins used the same layout, etc., in the main southern cemetery as the Essene burials in the central and northern sections? Do you consider the southern cemetery to also include Essene graves? Also, the extensions to the north, central, and southern sections are mainly laid out north-south, though a little more casually (with notable exceptions of some east-west in the southern extension). Are these extensions also bedouin in your view? To what extent is it accurate to say that bedouin graves at Qumran share the north-south orientations of the Essene burials? Also, although you note that at least one of the southern burials is anomalously shallow, is it correct to say that the graves you label bedouin also share the shaft grave architecture of the others? Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Joe Zias, First, I think your observations on the apparent bedouin burials in the auxiliary cemetery (if I may call it that) is one of the more important recent contributions to Qumran archaeology, alongside Hirschfeld's identification of the remains as a fortified manor house based on comparison with architectural layouts of other sites. A couple questions. First, do I recall correctly that others have argued that more than one skeleton in the main cemetery were female or possibly female? Certainly spindle whorls and fabric fragments at Qumran show a female presence at the site. Second, are there other social contexts in which cemeteries are found that are predominantly male? It seems to me a sectarian interpretation of this datum is not the only possible one. For instance, a very basic question, what are the ratios of males to females in agricultural or industrial sites? This seems especially relevant since the fortified manor house layout suggests the site may have been more of an agricultural enterprise (perhaps associated with the palms of Ein Feshka) rather than a private domicile. Third, even if one granted a hypothesis that the site were sectarian, what sect is indicated by the archaeological data? The halachic texts have important affinities with Sadducee tenets, and indeed the only Qumran texts with significant parallels to Josephus' description of the Essenes are 1QS and certain portions of CD that display influence from 1QS. This had an undue influence on the earliest generation of scrolls scholars who hadn't seen 11QT, 4QMMT, etc. So one must ask, does the archaeology of the site better correlate with Essenes or Sadducees? Mikvaot were common to all the sects, I imagine. It seems to me the toilet found within the site of Qumran rather argues against an Essene identification. And what of the proximity of the cemetery to Qumran? It seems to me a sound archaeological approach would consider possible correlations with all three sects, not jump the gun and equate religious features at the site (e.g. the mikvaot) as pointing to the Essenes. Pliny is often prematurely invoked, but the religious architecture is primarily associated with Period Ib, while at best Pliny's testimony points to Essenes in Period II (and not necessarily as owners of the estate). I will be very interested in your insights. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Jürgen Zangenberg and Joe Zias, Thank you for your replies. I admire both of your contributions to the field and hoped you would respond. Joe, I will reread your article from DSD. On the relationship between Qumran and Ain el-Ghuweir, as I recall a recent article in IEJ on spectrographic analysis of the pottery clays showed no connection, and the stratigraphy shows the sites have different occupation histories, so the similarities in the cemeteries is somewhat of a puzzle. If I am to understand both your replies correctly, graves of the same architecture as Kenyon described have been found elsewhere in Judea (though not with the same orientation or grave goods). This is an interesting datum. I'm not sure characterizing the grave type as Essene (as Kenyon did) is particularly helpful. Qumran grave type might be a more objective description. The poverty of grave goods isn't as much of a signature of Qumran as it used to be, in light of the recently discovered mausoleum with zinc-lined coffin! It seems to me this find indicates a social stratification at Qumran between rich owners and relatively impoverished agricultural workers much as was undoubtedly the case in other estates in and around Jericho. The ostracon discovered at Qumran, which Yardeni's decipherment showed to be a simple agricultural deed of transfer, appears to document a fairly straight forward connection between Qumran and Jericho landowners IMO. As I recall there are also some parallels in the aqueducts of Qumran and the lower Jordan valley (and other sites). Perhaps Jürgen you could elaborate on archaeological links you see between Jericho and Qumran. It seems to me that regional archaeological patterns and connections have been historically somewhat neglected in favor of a sectarian interpretation of the Qumran site. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Qumran Hebrew
Before the publication of all the scrolls, the language of the scrolls was classified as Late Biblical Hebrew, largely based on the Isaiah scroll. More recently the terminology Qumran Hebrew has become current. Can anyone on the list refer me to recent bibliography on the relationship of Qumran Hebrew to Classical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, etc.? Thanks, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Qumran Hebrew
Before the publication of all the scrolls, the language of the scrolls was classified as Late Biblical Hebrew, largely based on the Isaiah scroll. More recently the terminology Qumran Hebrew has become current. Can anyone on the list refer me to recent bibliography on the relationship of Qumran Hebrew to Classical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, etc.? Thanks, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Qumran Hebrew
Before the publication of all the scrolls, the language of the scrolls was classified as Late Biblical Hebrew, largely based on the Isaiah scroll. More recently the terminology Qumran Hebrew has become current. Can anyone on the list refer me to recent bibliography on the relationship of Qumran Hebrew to Classical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, etc.? Thanks, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Rising Sun
You might try Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2. I think you're referring to Appian of Alexandria. From my reading of secondary literature, the only original classical sources on the Essenes are Josephus, Philo, Dio Chrysostom (and perhaps Hegesippus). Later sources depend on these, so I would assume Appian's reference derives from Josephus. I am looking for a reference to Appian claiming that Essenes worshipped the rising sun, I know Josephus hints that they made a supplication for its rising. Is the Appian claim based on the comments by Josephus? Phil Smith For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Rising Sun
Phil, Although I don't have Stern volume II in front of me -- only selective photocopies -- I note from the index listing under Essenes in vol. III that there is nothing in the page number range for Appian of Alexandria. So I am at a loss as to the source you are quoting. Is there really an Appian who was not a Graeco-Roman author who mentioned the Essenes? Also, I omitted Pliny from the list of primary sources on the Essenes, plus I miswrote Hippolytus for Heggesippus. So much for posting without sufficient caffiene. By the way, Epiphanius - who obviously must be used with great caution, writing late as he does - associates the Ossenes of Tranjordan (perhaps, but not certainly, related to the Essenes of earlier times) and Sampseans, the latter name probably deriving from Shamash. It has been suggested that the Sampseans were sun-worshippers (or perhaps accused of this by outsiders?), so there may be an Ossene-sun-worshipping connection. The Ossenes Epiphanius knew were somewhat syncretistic, and indeed he considers them to overlap with the Elchasites. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin I am looking for a reference to Appian claiming that Essenes worshipped the rising sun, I know Josephus hints that they made a supplication for its rising. Is the Appian claim based on the comments by Josephus? Phil Smith For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list V2002 #13 (Daniel / Ezekiel)
There is also, M. Noth, Noah, Daniel and Hiob in Ezechiel XVI, VT 1 (1951) 253-59. My own research indicates that Mesopotamian influences on the HB are much later than commonly imagined, and I suspect the same is true for Canaanite. On the other hand we see Dan'el as a Watcher in 1 En. as well as Jubilees, where he is a father-in-law to one of the pre-flood figures from Genesis, so the prophet Daniel is not the only potential source for a Daniel reference. I haven't seen a compelling case that the Watcher Dan'el connects up with the Canaanite figure. Do we have three distinct Daniels in the Biblical and para-Biblical literature? Best regards, Russell Gmikrin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Slain prophets
Thanks for the responses. Dwight, it is interesting that although the Prayer of Manasseh was found at Qumran, it contains no sectarian language, while the Martyrdom of Isaiah, absent at Qumran, does (mainly in its demonology). Hence my curiousity whether we see the general idea of slain prophets at Qumran (which is e.g. picked up in the NT). There are slight parallels with the attempts on the life of the TR. Additionally, the slain lamb (probably Onias III) that had been crying out to the blind sheep in the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch appears to be a slain prophet, and fragments of AA was found at Qumran. But I was hoping for something a little more unambiguous. There is an interesting discussion of Manasseh in G. Doudna's newly published book, _4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition_ (Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). He argues that the figure of Manasseh in 4QpNah iv was drawn from King Manasseh, convincingly IMO. I would note that in this column, Manasseh's kingdom falls and Manasseh and his wives and sons go into captivity, much as in the Martyrdom of Isaiah, where Manasseh is predicted to go into captivity, but there is no repentance as in Chronicles / Prayer of Manasseh. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin The only reference to King Manasseh, at a glance, is 4Q351 (Apocryphal Psalms), the Prayer of Manasseh, after his repentance. All other refs to Manasseh in the scrolls appear to be related to the tribe of Manasseh. There is no relation of Manasseh to Isaiah at all. It would seem the positive view of Manasseh, as in Chronicles, prevails. Dwight Swanson For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Boccaccini: Beyond Essene Hypothesis?
Hi Soren, I just read most of Boccaccini's book -- skipped over his discussion of the Essenes in classical sources. Boccaccini's thesis runs something like this. First, he distinguishes and contrasts between Enochian Judaism (i.e. that responsible for the Enoch literature) and Zadokite Judaism (by which he means that associated with the Zadokite high priesthood - the high priests of the second temple down to Onias III - which he associates with the Biblical texts and Mosaic Judaism). He considers the Enoch literature to be opposed to that of the temple, high priests, and Moses (who doesn't appear in the Enoch literature). Drawing somewhat on the ideas of Philip Davies' and F. Garcia Martinez, Boccaccini hypothesizes that the Essenes in post-Maccabean times, utilizing both Enochian and Zadokite literature, and that the Qumran sect was an offshoot of the Essenes c. 100 BCE. He then analyzes the Qumran texts and detects an alienation of the Qumran sect from Enochian Judaism. I hope my brief summary is reasonably accurate. If not, any inaccuracies are purely unintentional. On the opposition of Enochian and Zadokite Judaism, I think Boccaccini has gone beyond the evidence. He says the Enoch literature is opposed to Mosaic, Zadokite Judaism, and it is true that (a) Enoch rather than Moses is the central figure; (b) in the Animal Apocalypse the second temple is viewed unfavorably, its offerings impure even in the Persian Period. This is interesting, and it does tend to show opposition to the current priests and temple. But Boccaccini asserts that while the Zadokite texts view the temple and priests as the defenders of moral purity, the Enoch literature views the entire world hopelessly and universaly evil, corrupted by the Watchers and even after the flood by the demons that were the souls of the drowned giants. If I read Boccaccini right, Enoch was the last righteous man, translated to the angelic realm before the evil of the Watchers took over the earth. I just do not see this as an accurate take on the Enoch texts. Yes, evil is in the world, at least partially traceable to the Watchers in the Enoch literature (notably the Book of Watchers). But Mosaic, Zadokite Judaism also acknowledges the existence of evil. And the books of Enoch do not exclude the possibility of the righteous people as well. Indeed, in the Animal Apocalypse the Israelites go through different phases of good sheep (whose eyes are open) and blind sheep, etc. Additionally, Moses appears as a positive figure in the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks refers favorably to Noah, to Abraham as the planting of righteousness, to the Mosaic law at Sinai. Boccaccini overlooks these references. There just does not seem to be the conflict between Enochian literature and Zadokite / Mosaic literature as overstated in Boccaccini's scheme. IMO his view of Jubilees is symptomatic of his mistaken analysis. Acknowledging that Jubilees is in the Enochian tradition, he considers the positive treatment of Moses and the Zadokite outlook as an amazing innovation by the author of Jubilees, brilliantly reconciling the Enochian and Zadokite approaches. This interpretation is only valid if Boccaccini's questionable model of an anti-Zadokite Enoch tradition is already granted. Rather, IMO Jubilees merely shows that the Enoch literary tradition had no problem at all with Moses, Genesis / Exodus, or the whole Zadokite tradition. The Enoch texts were also popular at Qumran, which is full of Zadokite texts. Similarly among Christians. Where were Enoch texts used in another context in which the Biblical tradition was rejected?? Boccaccini acknowledges that the Enoch literature was not associated with a separate Jewish sect. I basically think Boccaccini's Enochian Judaism is a mirage, in the sense that there's no evidence they rejected Mosaic traditions or literature. That is not to say it wasn't popular with some specific subset of Judaism, just that whoever wrote the Enoch texts -- and this is an important unsolved problem -- also appear to have held Moses and the Torah in high esteem. Another problem in Boccaccini's scheme is his dating of texts, which is frequently wrong in my opinion. For instance, he dates Jubilees after the Maccabean Crisis, based on Jub. 4:19, And he [Enoch] saw what was and what will be in a vision of his sleep as it will happen among the children of men in their generations until the day of judgment. This he properly takes to be a reference to the Book of Dreams (1 En. 83-90). The second dream in this sub-document consists of the Animal Apocalypse, which was written in 163 BCE (it surveys Biblical history down to this date), so Boccaccini dates Jubilees to the post-Maccabean era (after 163 BCE). But Boccaccini fails to note that the Book of Dreams is comprised of two dreams, and that the Jubilees reference only refers to
Re: orion-list AOL access
In a message dated 2/18/2002 4:24:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear all Those of you who have been using AOL to post messages messages to the Orion List in text only mode, please write to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moderator. I have been using AOL 5.0 in preference to 6.0 or 7.0 since the latter versions have gone beyond the text-only format used for Orion. Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Hyrcanus II TOR; Copenhagen defense invitation
First, Greg, good luck on your upcoming defence of _4Q Pesher Nahum. A Critical Edition_. As Peter wrote, it does seem certain that the Oniads were considered Zadokites, (especially on evidence of ben Sirach), but - siding with Greg here - I don't see any evidence that the Hasmoneans weren't also considered to be legitimate Zadokite priests. The assertion that they weren't seems to have first surfaced in conjunction with the theory equating the Wicked Priest with the first of the Hasmonean high priests, i.e. Jonathan. It seems pure supposition to me. Note that the scrolls never level the charge that the WP was not Zadokite. On the other hand all historical evidence points to Hyrkanus firmly aligned with the Pharisees. Under Salome Alexandra, the Pharisee halakhah was reinstated that was earlier abrogated by Hyrkanus I, who had joined the Sadducees (Ant. XIII.296, 409). Sadducee halakhah prevailed under the latter reign of Hyrkanus and all of Alexander Jannaeus, but Salome Alexandra converted to the Pharisees. This is especially brought out in War I.108, 110-111: (108) For this frail woman firmly held the reins oif government, thanks to her reputation for piety. She was, indeed, the very strictest observer of the national traditions [patria] and would deprive of office any offenders against the sacred laws. (110) Besides Alexandra, and growing as she grew, arose the Pharisees, a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in the observances of religion, and as exact exponents of the laws. (111) To them, being herself intensely religious, she listened with too great deference; while they, gradually taking advantage of an ingenuous woman, became at length the real administrators of the state... Salome's piety, her religiousness, her strict observance of the national laws [patria] are all virtually equated with her deference to the Pharisees and their halakhah. The Pharisees were especially associated with the traditions of the fathers or patria (Ant. XIII. 297, 409), which is to say the Oral Torah (Ant. XIII.297); this was their main point of dispute with the Sadducees (Ant. XIII.297). The restoration of the ancestral laws or patria under Salome Alexandra is another way of saying Pharisee halakhah. Note that she would deprive of office any offenders against the sacred laws - i.e. the aforementioned [Pharisee] patria. This obviously included the high priest Hyrkanus, who would indeed have played a dominant role in the implementation of Pharisee halakhah. To understand what was meant by the national religious life conducted according to Pharisee halakhah, one may turn to the description of the Pharisees at Ant. XVIII.15: All prayers [vows] and sacred rites of divine worship are performed according to their exposition. Surely the implementation of Pharisee halakhah involved making sure that vows (performed at the temple) and sacred rites of divine worship (i.e. most importantly temple rites) were performed according to Pharisee interpretations. Clearly Hyrkanus implemented Pharisee halakhah in the temple. Is this consistent with Hyrkanus being the Teacher of Righteousness? Of Hyrkanus entering into legal disputes with his opponents? Of Hyrkanus risking his life on behalf of the law he promulgated? Hardly, unless one advocates identifying the yachad with the Pharisees! Again, Salome Alexandra was said to have turned the reigns of government over to Hyrkanus while she was still alive (War I.120). The co-rule with the Pharisees clearly continued during this period. In one episode this is explicit, when the elders of the Jews and Hyrkanus went to the queen and begged her to give them some counsel about the present situation [Aristobulus' revolt] (Ant. XIII.428). The term elders here indicates the gerousia. (Gerousia simply means council of elders; a comparison of Maccabees and Josephus shows that the terms elders and gerousia are interchangeable.) Salome Alexander told Hyrkanus and the elders of the gerousia to do whatever was expedient, since they commanded the nation, the army, and money in the various treasuries (Ant. XIII.429); clearly Hyrkanus and the gerousia are seen in joint rule over the nation, the same arrangement as under Salome. Hyrkanus is seen working hand in hand with the same Pharisee gerousia that virtually ran the government under Salome Alexandra; and indeed we know that the high priest was head of the gerousia (a term later equivalent with sanhedrin). [And we see Hyrkanus at the head of a predominantly Pharisee Sanhedrin as late as 42 BCE (Ant. XIV.168-177).] Is this consistent with Hyrkanus as Teacher of Righteousness? Not unless we equate the Pharisee gerousia with the council of the yachad! All these observations are further corroborated by a source analysis of Josephus, which indicates that Josephus drew on Nicolas of Damascus for the
Re: orion-list Introduction, and infantry in 1QM
Dear Luke Ueda-Sarson, Greetings and welcome to the group. At least a couple of us have keen interest in the military data in the Dead Sea Scrolls, notably 1QM. I have little to add on the questions you ask other than what I wrote in R. Gmirkin, The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered, DSD [Dead Sea Discoveries] 3 (1996) 89-129, but I'd be happy to repeat a couple points if you haven't read it; or contact me privately and I'll upload a copy for you. With respect to the War Scroll infantry shield, I've argued that the weapons, tactics and organization of 1QM are all patterned on the Roman legions of the republican era and predate the example from the 90s BCE that you mention. The shield of 1QM has approximately the same dimensions as the one in Polybius. According to my analysis, the War Scroll army consisted of 28,000 troops in seven legions of 4000 each, divided into four lines, comparable to the Roman legions of hastati, principii, triarii, plus skirmishers. In 1QM we see one line of skirmishers (of three different varieties) plus three lines of infantry (mentioned at 4QMa 1-3 i 11-12, 15-17), each line consisting of 1000 troops, in turn divided into centuries and maniples according to Roman organization. First there are the slingers who shoot and retreat, then there are the javelinemen, who shoot and retreat, and then the close-fighting infantry, who deliver the final blow. Actually, there is first a wave of slingers, then of javelin-throwers, then a third wave with spears and swords (1QM 6.5) - three waves of skirmishers - then the infantry charge. 1QM 5:11-6:5; 8:1-20. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Re: orion V2001 #67
Tom, On Christian sources (gradual) co-opting of Philo's Therapeutae as a description of Christian monastics, see generally D. Rudin's _Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey_ (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), as well as Rudin's _Philo and the Church Fathers_ (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1995). I don't know the MSS witnesses on Jeremiah - way out of my field - but Dierk is right on Hegesippus as an early CE witness on the Rechabites. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Re: Definition of Essenes (Suidas)
As a follow-up to my last posting, I did some research on-line and found a translation of John Cassian (http://www.osb.org/lectio/cassian/index.html). Much of the Institutes is obviously based on Philo's Therapeutae, but there is no mention of Rechabites, and Cassian only (incorrectly) traced Egyptian monasticism to Mark's church founded in Egypt. I note that in The Conferences 21.4 he extols the Rechabites as a group that went beyond the requirements of the law. So there was praise of the Rechabites among Christian ascetics of c. 400 CE. I suspect that some church father of the period 400-1000 CE made the full connection and claimed that Christian asceticism descended from the Rechabites by way of the therapeutae. But Patristic literature in not my forte, so I will end my imput on the Rechabites in the Suda with that suggestion. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Definition of Essenes
To Dierk and George Brooks: Let me cheerfully amend my definition to: Essenes: the historical group(s) referred to in Josephus, Philo and Pliny as the Essenes. This allows for the possibility that more than one group was referred to as Essene - that is, as Essaioi or Essenoi. ( I did mention the necessity for different applications of the term... to establish an evidentiary connection to the _group(s)_ referred to in Josephus, Philo or Pliny. ) George, as for the later references to Samaritan Essenes in Epiphanius or Rechabite Essenes in the Suidas, one would have to provide credible evidence that Epiphanius or the Suidas had accurate knowledge of the Essenes. Indeed, this is also a requirement for Josephus, Philo and Pliny (especially the last, whose idealized literary description is at distinct variance with the other two authors). Literary references may or may not have accurate content. That is why my working definition refers to the historical group(s) referred to in Josephus et al -- without necessarily assuming that these authors' description was accurate (something that has to be argued), but only that some historical Judean group existed which these authors attempted to describe. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Daniel, Ezra
David, Purvis' _The Samaritan Pentateuch_ is pretty good, although there are evidences the Jews and Samaritans had their differences for some time before Hyrkanus I. There appears to be anti-Samaritan polemics in the Book of Watchers (c. 225 BCE?), Testament of Levi (c. 200 BCE?), Jubilees (c. 175 BCE?), besides Sirach (c. 180), not to mention the denial of Jewish ancestry by the Sidonians of Shechem c. 166 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 12.257-261). I agree anti-Samaritan polemics are an important clue to dating Ezra-Nehemiah, but the anti-Tobiad polemics are even more telling date-wise IMO. As far as the source documents in Ezra-Nehemiah, I find the best analysis to be that of C. C. Torrey, _The composition and historical value of Ezra-Nehemiah_ (Giessen : J. Ricker, 1896) ; idem, _Ezra Studies_ (New York, C. Scribner's Sons, 1900 1983). There are older quasi-historical sub-documents in both Ezra and Nehemiah added to by the Chronicler, whose distinctive vocabulary and interests make it possible to weed out the source documents from the later Ezra additions. Torrey considers even the older materials in Ezra to be novelistic, comparable to the Daniel tales, but Neh. 1-6 to be old and authentic; I consider all this material late and novelistic. But all of this is slightly off-topic for Orion. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Daniel
David: I'm quite sympathetic towards your late dating of Ezra-Nehemiah, though I would date these to c. 180-175, and some of their older source material (based on Torrey's excellent analysis of sources) to 200-180 BCE. I would just point out that on evidence of Sirach 50:26 and Josephus, Ant. 12.156 the Samaritans were already a problem around the time of Simon the Just, c. 200-180 BCE. Walter: As David comments, the prophecy of Dan. 11 is extraordinarily detailed and accurate down to 165-163 BCE. At which point there is a detailed prophecy of Antiochus IV's conquest of Egypt and subsequent death in Judea in Dan. 11:40-45 that is patently false. The break point between fulfilled, ex eventu prophecy by hindsight and real, failed prophecy defines the date of composition. Additionally, there is evidence from chapter 12 that the very end of Daniel was being updated about three and a half years after Antiochus suspended the daily sacrifices. Dan. 12:11 makes an initial prediction that the end would come 1290 days after that event, then revises the end to 1335 days. Goldstein, _I Maccabees_, 43, calculating from a start date of December 6, 167, arrives at June 27 (1290 days) or August 12 (1335 days) in 163 as the expected date for the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. See J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1993) 400-1, on the successive revision of calculations of the end as the deadline passed without the fulfillment of the predictions. The final redactions of the Animal Apocalypse and the War Scroll are also to be dated to summer, 163 BCE, shortly before the anticipated showdown between Judas Maccabaeus and the Syrian general Lysias, based on similar breaks between fulfilled and real (i.e. failed) prophecy. Given the above, it seems more reasonable that Daniel was finalized in 163 BCE, and that its author had no real idea of the interval between Jerusalem's fall and his own day, than that the 490 years is accurate and Daniel was written in 97 BCE. I read a great article - and unfortunately lost the reference - documenting that no early Jewish historian got the dates right for Cyrus, the fall of Jerusalem, etc. (If anyone has bibliography on this point perhaps they could post me.) The inaccuracies, omissions, and transpositions in the sequence of Medo-Persian kings in Ezra (especially) and Daniel confirm the lack of accurate historical data on the Persian period by these authors. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list 1QSb and 1QSa (and Daniel)
David, 1QS 9:11 refers to the time when there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. The Messiah figure or figures we are discussing are thus distinguished from the coming Prophet. J. Collons, _The Scepter and the Star_ (1995) has a chapter devoted to the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel (p. 74ff) that is fairly exhaustive in its use of secondary literature and basically considers the title to refer to eschatological high priestly and royal figures. My impression is that of Aaron and of Israel has been _implicitly_ interpreted to refer to either descent (i.e. an Aaronic and a lay figure) or scope of Messianic authority or mission (one over the sons of Aaron, the other over all Israel), though I haven't seen the phrases explicitly parsed out for meaning. There have been various theories on phases in the 'Qumran community' in which they successively expected one or two messiahs. Starky's theory proposed a belief in two Messiahs during the Hasmonean period (ironically, at a time when you point out that the royal and priestly functions were fulfilled in a single individual). I don't think that the example of John Hyrkanus has been brought up, but my reading has not been exhaustive. On Daniel, there does appear to be a chronological scheme of 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and a final 1 week, much as you outline. Daniel 9:26 indicates that the Messiah would be cut off at the start of the final week, and 9:27 says the daily sacrifice would be halted with a desolating sacrilege in the midst of the final week, i.e. 69 1/2 weeks through the 70 week period. This last event would be the conversion of the Jewish temple to a cult of Dionysus (or his Syrian counterpart) in December, 166 BCE (on Kislev 15, per 1 Macc. 1:54, which mentions the Danielic sacrilege). Going back three and a half years from that event, which provides the key chronological peg, the Messiah the Prince will have been cut off in July 170 BCE, which is when Onias III was assassinated in exile at Antioch (2 Macc. 4:34; on the date, see Jonathan Goldstein's commentary on 2 Macc.). For this reason, it seems likely to me that Onias III is the referent of Dan. 9:25-26. (The end of the 70th week, BTW, calculates to summer 163 BCE, which is consistent with other indications of Daniel's final composition.) Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Daniel
David, On 164/163 BCE as a land sabbath year, see 1 Macc. 6:28-54; 2 Macc. 13:1-22. 2 Macc. 13:1 dates this to 163, and 1 Macc. 6:48-54 indicates the reduction of Beth-Zur and Jerusalem were concluded before the expiration of the land sabbath. On the weeks of Daniel as land sabbath cycles, see B. Wacholder, Essays on Jewish Chronology and Chronography (KTAV Publishing House, Inc.: New York, 1976) 240-57; J. Goldstein, II Maccabees (Anchor Bible vol. 41A; Doubleday and Company, Inc.: Garden City, New York, 1983) 461; D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC - AD 100 (Westminster Press: Philadelphia, 1964) 196. I think Collins also talks about land sabbath cycles in passing in one of his many articles or books, but I can't track down the reference. Daniel's Darius the Mede is of course problematic historically and should be taken into account in evaluating Daniel's historical accuracy; as well as the transference of certain legends regarding Nabonidus (and his period of abdication of Babylonian rule) to Nebuchadnezzar. I don't really have a handle on Daniel's historical knowledge or premises - who does? - but it's an important problem. The Qumran Danielic texts are relevant to the evolving corpus of Daniel stories, but haven't led to a convincing solution. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list 1QSb and 1QSa
I agree with Ian and Greg that there is no real basis for interpreting 1QSb as addressed to the high priest. On Greg's comments on 1QSa, I think there's a pretty good case to be made that both priestly and lay messiahs are referred to, as conventionally interpreted. Most superficially, other Serekh texts distinguish the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. But also, the (priestly) Messiah seems particularly associated with the [sons] of Aaron, the priests at 1QSa ii 11-13, while the [Me]ssiah of Israel is especially associated with the chiefs [of the clans of Israel]... in their camps and in their marches. This latter figure appears to be a military messiah; the camps here are the mobile camps of the deployed legions -- I don't think the term royal messiah can be justified by the context. Military matters of course figure large in 1QSa, especially throughout column i. The relevant comparison to the two Messiahs in 1QSa appears to be 1QM ii-ix, wherein the high priest serves in the temple (ii 1-3) and the prince of the congregation commands the army in the field (v 1). One could of course argue that in 1QM xiii-xix the high priest also serves as commander-in-chief. But in this primitive early section of 1QM one lacks the advanced serekh terminology or military organization seen throughout 1QSa. 1QSa appears contemporary with the tactica of 1QM ii-ix, where priestly and military leaders appear separately. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin On a separate matter, it has been held unanimously (so far as I know) in all discussions that 1QSa refers to two figures, a high priest and a royal messiah. I have also studied this point and have wondered if this too is a mistaken reading of that text, and there is no royal messiah in 1QSa at all. 1QSa may refer simply to the entrance of the high priest, who sits, blesses, etc. followed by others who sit after him. The 'anointed one of Israel' has been assumed to be the 'royal messiah', a figure distinct from the high priest, but I think that is textually very questionable. The 'anointed one of Israel' appears to me to read better as simply the high priest himself, and there is no second personal figure. For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
Taking head in hand, it seems to me Dr. Altman's thesis that Kittim was a universally pejorative term involves some circularity in argument, since a fair reading of Ant. 1.128 shows no insulting content, unless one approaches this passage with a prior thesis that all references to Kittim _must_ be negative. Chetimos held the island of Chetima - the modern Cyprus - whence the name Chetim given by the Hebrews to all islands and to most maritime countries. Where is the insult here? Josephus was not that subtle. The idea that this contains a negative reference to the Sea Peoples (i.e. the late Bronze Age invasions? - the Greeks did not consider all thassalocracies bad) is a forced reading in my opinion. Dierk is clearly correct that the Kittim have military-mercenary associations in Jubilees as elsewhere. Indeed, the Kittim appear to almost everywhere have a military connotation, except Josephus, where no such association is apparent. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
Dierk, I find no reference to Pompey acquiring new auxiliaries in Cappadocia, Iberia, Albania, etc., in the literary accounts. Is there hard evidence for this or is this based on general Roman practices? Very informative posting. Russell Gm. Pompeius started his Pontus campaign with Lucullus' legions already stationed in Galatia, strengthened by called veterans of Fimbria's legions and supported by levied auxiliaries from the Asiatic clients (Asia, Galatia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, the Lycanians, Pisidians and the western Bythinians). Mommsen assumes 40-50.000 foot (ie 12 weak legions) excl. auxiliary cavalry and levied specialists, whereas Mithridates' total strength was roughly 30.000 foot and 3.000 cavalry (App. Mithr. 15.97), ie a military ratio of 2:1 in favor of the Romans. In the following course of the campaign the Roman losses (by the majority auxiliaries) became compensated by levies from new conquered regions Cappadocia, Iberia, Albania, Colchis, Little Armenia and Commagene. For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Biblio question Cicero and Pliny
I came across an unfootnoted comment that Pliny NH 5.73 (the passage on the Essenes) has rhetorical flourishes reminiscent of Cicero, specifically in its fourfold description of the Essenes (avoiding women, or any sexual urges, without money, having only palmtrees for company [in Greek, by the way, kindred of the phoenix]). Could anyone point me to some bibliography on this point, or on the high literary content of this passage generally? Thanks, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Head of the kings of Yavan
Dear Greg, I personally can think of no instances when the name Javan was applied to the Romans (as opposed to Kittim, which was). I'd be very interested if such examples could be supplied. 4QpNahum seems clear enough in distinguishing Yavan from the Kittim. In this passage there is no trace of an idea of Kittim as offspring of Yavan. Rather, Kittim and Yavan are simply two contemporary political designations (as they are in many other texts). I doubt Gen. 10 had much relevance to Jewish use of these terms in the period you are considering. It is helpful to realize that Javan is simply the transliteration into Hebrew of the Greek word Ionia, which was very well understood as the Greeks of the Aegean islands and coasts of Asia Minor (as opposed to the more obscure Kittim and some of the other entries in Gen. 10). I think Jubilees 9.10 illustrates this familiarity when it assigns to Javan every island and the islands which are towards the side of Lud [i.e. Lydia in Asia Minor]. No classical source ever called the Romans Ionians - the Jews would not have made so egregious an error either. Jub. 9.12, incidentally, assigns to the mysterious Meshech the more distant European lands as far as Gadir [i.e. Spanish Gadeira at the Gibraltar straits], a description that includes Italy. I think Rabinowitz's interpretation of the head of the kings of Javan has far more common sense to it than Dupont-Sommer's strained theory. Dupont-Sommer cites a great deal of irrelevant, anachronistic data. First, please note that Asia [= Asia Minor] was a Roman province with a Roman governor at the time we speak. Pompey did preside over a council of kings in Asia Minor, but the occasion was his partitioning of Mithridates' dissolved kingdom of Pontus at Amisus in 62 BCE, after the Jewish War. Dupont-Sommer also makes a big deal of Pompey assembling kings of the east for the battle of Pharsalus -- but of what possible relevance are events of 46 BCE to events of 63 BCE? Your idea that the Law of Manilius made Pompey head of the kings of the east and suggest that he used troops from the eastern kingdoms in his Judean campaign of 63 BCE. In my extensive reading of Pompey's campaigns (in both primary and secondary literature) I find no support for either idea. When you say that Pompey was in fact the leader, formally, of all of the eastern kings of Yavan, by the Decree of Manilius of 66, perhaps you could clarify that remarkable statement by listing to which kings of Yavan you refer. Again, when you suggest that Pompey picked up mercenaries from these subordinate kings in his eastern campaign and would literally be the head of armies with contributions from subordinate kings of Yavan, a listing would be helpful. Pompey's campaign is well-documented. Mostly he used legionary forces, basically the same standing army assembled from the Roman provinces for the war against the pirates in 67 BCE. To my knowledge he didn't rely on conscripting new troops in the lands he campaigned in. Perhaps Dierk could shed additional light on the composition of Pompey's army. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list RE: Are Essens JewishÅ
It seems to me that Josephus' statement that the Essenes are Jewish simply indicates that he lifted his material on the Essenes from a source intended for a non-Jewish audience, one for which it would be necessary to explain that Essenes are a branch of Jews. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Pliny's Esseni
Philo and Josephus are remarkably similar in content in their description of the Essenes / Therapeutae. See for instance G. Vermes, Essenes-Therapeutae-Qumran, Durham University Journal 59 (1960) 97-115 or his book on the Essenes in classical sources. B. Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962) 71-72 argues that both Philo and Josephus accounts were based on Nicolaus. He points out that Philo compares the communal, moneyless life of the Therapeutae with the Iliad's idealized description of the Galactophagi, a Scythian tribe. Philo's interpretation, which diverges from a straight reading of Homer, is shared by Nicolaus in the entry on the Galactophagi in his _Collection of Remarkable Customs_. Josephus' description of the Dacian Ctistae, another Scythian tribe whom he compares with the Essenes, likewise sound like the Galactophagi described in Nicolaus. Wacholder believes Josephus draws on Nicolaus about the Ctistae compared to the Essenes. (Nicolas in turn appears to draw on a passage of Posidonius discussing Homeric problems - also quoted at Strabo 7.3.3 - that mentions the Galactophagi, Ctistae and others. Unlike Nicolaus, Posidonius had no knowledge of the Essenes, as discussed extensively in Orion archives.) Philo also characterizes the Essenes as favored by kings which appears to refer to their being patronized by Herod the Great. This fact could be learned from Nicolaus' writings. Nicolaus', as Herod's propagandist, also promoted the Herod's favored sect, the Essenes. It should not be surprising that literary accounts of the Essenes largely trace back to Nicolaus of Damascus. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin I never thought Philo lifted stuff from nick of damascus or any one. What evidence do we have he did such things. Philo sounds like philo throughout. Is this a guess, wishful thinking, or solid fact? Herb basser, For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Pliny's Esseni
Dear Greg, First off, you are correct that in Philo the Essenes are Jews par excellance, i.e., exemplars of Jewish virtues, as is well known in the secondary literature. Many of the virtues Philo attributed to the Essenes and/or Therapeutae he elsewhere attributes to the Jews. I also agree that in Pliny the Essenes occupy a similar role as typifying the Jews as a whole in their best light. You are also correct in your comments that Pliny's Essenes as true Jews could almost be taken out of Philo. There is a reason for this, one might say a mechanism, namely, that Philo (like Josephus) in all probability drew largely on Nicolas of Damascus, Pliny's source by way of Juba. Just as Nicolas of Damascus portrayed the Essenes (Herod's favored sect) as the best of the Jews, so likewise Philo, following Nicolas. (And similarly note how huge Josephus' description of the Essenes is compared to the Sadducees and Pharisees.) That is, sources literarily dependent on Nicolas of Damascus exaggerated the importance and virtue of the Essenes in line with Herodian propaganda, in which the Essenes were (as you say) practically were the only Jews worth speaking of. Incidentally, Philo's description of the Essenes and Therapeutae in many ways echo the legend of Sodom's destruction which also influences Pliny's source. Philo's virtuous Jews flee the vices of the city (including money and sex), much as Lot (or Pliny's Essenes) did the same. Philo's condemnation of homosexual banquets in The Contemplative Life 62 (the literary opposite of the sober Therapeutae gatherings) as a pestilential sickness that desolates cities, leading to barrenness and sterility very closely echoes his comments on Sodom in _On Abraham_ 133-36. That is, the retiring order of Therapeutae in essence fled the wickedness of Sodom. Another very interesting parallel between Pliny and Philo is the emphasis that the place of refuge was elevated and with wholesome air. This common denominator probably derives from Nicolas of Damascus. Note that Nicolas may have emphasized the elevation of the Essenes due to the Biblical imagery of Lot's refuge in the mountains away from the wicked cities of the plain. There seems to be something deliberate in the Essenes of Pliny escaping the harmful [fumes], with the word fumes or exhalations omitted, though obviously alluded to (see Diodorus, etc.). This may be because in this highly literary image, the deadliness that the Essenes fled was the company of women, indeed all sexual urges [the implication here being homosexuality], and money. That is, the Essenes (like Lot) fled the deadly [nocent] vices of Sodom - Nicolas implying a comparison between such vices and the noxious, hellish fumes from Dead Sea. Finally. the description of the Essenes as the most remarkable of all the tribes in the world was intended to promote the Jews -- specifically the Essenes -- in an ethnological treatise intended for extra-Jewish publication (namely Nicolas' _Collection of Remarkable Customs_, which gathers together ethnological marvels much as you describe, though with more of a focus on bizarre socio-political institutions). Hope you find these musings useful. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list Pliny's map, dating issues, Qumran, Phoenix bird
Dear Bob Kraft et al, (1) The description of the Dead Sea environs appears to reflect the very end of Herod the Great's reign, before Archaelaus was confirmed in Rome as tetrarch. Masada was repaired by Herod; Machereus was rebuilt by Herod (after having been destroyed by Gabinius); Herod tried for a cure at Callirhoe's medicine baths in 4BC; En Gedi (like Qumran) was likely in ruins throughout Herod's reign, and only restored (like Qumran) later under Archelaus. En Gedi is described with the following words: Lying below the Essenes was formerly the town of Engeda, second only to Jerusalem (sic! -- Jericho!) in the fertility of its land and in its groves of palm-trees, but now likewise [my translation] a heap of ashes. After Archelaus left for Rome to ask for the kingdom, Jericho's palace and other nearby royal estates were burned and looted. The report of Jericho and En Gedi both in ashes will have referred to this precise historical juncture - I can find no other such historical occasion. News of the burning of Jericho's palace reached Archaelaus and Nicolaus at Rome, according to Josephus (probably drawing on Nicolas). Archelaus later rebuilt the palace, but Nicolaus remained at Rome, and the picture of Jericho burned is the one he conveyed soon afterwards to Juba II of Mauretania, Pliny's source. Arabia of the Nomads comes from Juba of Mauretainia's work on Arabia, completed c. 1 BCE/CE. (I believe that Vitruvius' location of a bitumen-producing lake in Arabia around this same time derives from Juba, one of Vitruvius' favorite sources.) (2) Qumran and En Gedi have parallel archaelogies. Reading de Vaux and Mazar on these respective sites it seems highly that both were abandoned for the same reasons and during the same period (as well as Ein Feshka). Given that Pliny's source (Nicolaus of Damascus by way of Juba) wrote when En Gedi was an ash heap, it follows that Qumran was as well, and the Essenes of Pliny (Nicolas) will therefore not have been living at Qumran. The same picture is seen in Strabo (who drew on and probably personally knew Nicolaus), with only Masada occupied west of the Dead Sea - no En Gedi, no Qumran, only occasional ruined settlements. (3) Very interesting article by Martine Dulaey, La notice de Pline sur les esseniens (HN 5, 17, 73), Helmantica 38 (1987) 283-93. He notes the paradoxical, marvellous, and literary/rhetorical flourishes in Pliny, and brings out one very fascinating point (following Hubaux), that the description of the Essenes in part resembles the mythical Phoenix, who also procreated without sex, yet lived forever. Yet Dulaey misses some important details about the Phoenix myth. (1) Occasionally a phoenix bird would be seen immolating itself in a fire, and a new phoenix would arise from the ashes. Dulaey doesn't make anything of this detail. (2) Also, he doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that a famous variety of date-palm in the Jericho valley was named the Phonicon, after the phoenix (from the ability of this tree to come back to life after seemingly dying). (See Strabo, Pliny.) Why are these details important? Because Pliny's Greek source is making a very sophisticated literary play on words. Probably Pliny's Latin socia palmarum, in the company of palm-trees, referred specifically to the Phoenix in the Greek source. This source refers to En Gedi and Jericho, famous for their palm-trees (Phoenicons) being heaps of ashes. The source specifically is trying to get across the very poetic idea of the Essenes being the phoenix of En Gedi rising from the ashes. This image makes no sense unless the Essenes are the survivors of En Gedi's destruction. Geographically, this puts the Essenes near En Gedi and its (phoenix) palm groves - not way up the coast at Qumran. I therefore wholly concur with Bob Kraft's assessment: Thus I would say that Pliny's account is basically irrelevant for arguments about Qumran's possible Essene connections. Qumran may have housed Essenes at some point, or not, but Pliny is of no help for the arguments. (Whether his blurred sources could have been of help is quite another question, but I'm even sceptical about that.) If one is to establish a connection between Qumran and Essenes, one should do it without Pliny, because (a) Qumran was a ruin when Pliny's source wrote, and (b) he put the phoenix-like Essenes in proximity with the palm groves of En Gedi. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Pharisaic texts
Interesting point, Herbert. Ephron has I think convincingly demonstrated that the Talmudic passage on the dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees under Hyrkanus I to which you refer is not an independent tradition but derives from Josephus. (His argument, as I recall, hinges on the fact that the Talmudic passage presumes facts only present in Josephus, indicating awareness of the latter.)This leaves only the Megillat Ta'anit, which Zeitlin dates to the Jewish War, c. 70 CE, i.e., after the time of the scrolls. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin P.S. And don't leave zoos out of your penguin analysis. :) the only written text sof pharisees I know of is a list of dates called megillat ta'anit and one historical source shared by josephus and the talmud talking about the silence of the pharisees against a slander of the hasmoneans at a banquet. the talmudic text has a waw conversive, the only one in all of rabbinic literature, save for maybe one in the liturgy-- indicating a written source. For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Pliny's source on Essene: not Juba; M. Agrippa
First, thanks to Ian for his bibliographical reference and comments on En Gedi. Responding to Stephen's posting piecemeal (with advance apologies for the length): Though we disagree on Pliny's source on Essenes, let me begin by noting that we have (at least in the past) agreed that that source was from the time of Herod the Great, and that the mentioned destruction of Ein Gedi (singular--no other place specified) was from the c.40 BCE war, and that Yizhar Hirschfeld's proposed site dates too late to fit it. I agree on Hirschfeld. I await your comments on En Gedi's proposed date of destruction c. 40 BCE, archaeological and literary-historical evidence. In other words, we recognize that Pliny's source, using present tense, was written well before 70 CE. I would add that Essenes were seen to have been there a while, as Joseph Baumgarten and Joseph Amussin indicate with Qumran mss parallels cited in the orion Pliny paper. As I have previously posted, Thus through thousands of ages (incredible to relate) a race in which no one is born lives on forever is a typical paradoxographical statement. It bears no relation whatever to the Qumran passages the above authors adduce (which, please note, have nothing to do with propagation by adoption). You have presented a rather complex scenario that Juba used Nicolaus of Damascus on Essenes. But that elaborate story encounters many difficulties. The account in Pliny differs, in geographic range (north-west Dead Sea shore), from the Philo and Josephus accounts of Essenes. N. of Damascus cannot be the sole source for all three--if he is a source on Essenes at all; in any case, Josephus had more than one relevant source; maybe Philo too. It is likely that Nicolas' history was utilized by Josephus, as opposed to the paradoxographical work on Remarkable Customs used by Juba which found its way into Pliny. This accounts for the differences in geographical range. Additionally, in the Pliny passage, IMO the Essenes have been located by the Dead Sea primarily to contrast with Sodom, i.e., for literary purposes. The distributed communities in Philo and Josephus present matters more factually. Previously, you asserted Isogonus was the tradent for ND. Isogonus, you wrote, appeared to be only known paradoxographer between ND and Pliny (5 Sept 99); you concluded, So Isigonus as an intermediary between Nicolaus of Damascus and Pliny seems very likely. You defended Isigonus in other posts as well. But Isogonus was not listed by Pliny as a source for Book 5. No. Actually, Pliny can be demonstrated to have read Isigonus by way of a Greek compilation of paradoxographical passages summarized by Aulus Gellius in Attic Nights 9.4.1-16, which contains many of the same materials in the same order as Pliny. That document was quite good about listing sources, so it is likely that Pliny would have been aware of Nicolas as an authority had he gotten the passage on the Essenes from that source. I no longer hold Isogonus as the intermediary source. Juba, unlike Isigonus of Nicaea, is listed (and quite prominently) as a source for book 5. Juba's work on Arabia is characterized as a compilation of other sources in Pauly's Real-Encyclopadie and elsewhere. Plus, Pliny's source is probably not a parodoxographer, nor an Aristotelian (such as ND--also not listed by Pliny for Bk. 5), nor a Greek writer (such as Juba); but a Stoic, Latin writer, as M. Dulaey presented. Please cite M. Dulaey again if you would, as I managed to lose the reference earlier before I could track it down. However, even without having read Dulaey, I can assure you that author's analysis is wrong on genre (if that topic is even addressed) and philosophical orientation. The advocacy of poverty implicit in the moneyless Essene society is not a monopoly of Stoicism. For instance, in Nicolas' autobiography he writes, Herod again having given up his enthusiasm for philosophy, as it commonly happens with people in authority because of the abundance of goods that distract them... And clearly the source is paradoxographical, which implies Aristotelean (Peripatetic). M. Agrippa was in Judaea in 15 BCE; his writings surely include ethnographic interests (as gone over before); he was cordial with the Jewish people; as governor of Syria, he would know the toparchies of Judah (not then including the destroyed Ein Gedi; but including the non-destroyed Jerusalem); Pliny greatly admired M. Agrippa, his first listed source. Agrippa was Pliny's first listed Roman source; Juba was his first listed foreign (Greek) source. Pliny also has good things to say about Juba. Both Nicolas and Agrippa would have known Judea's toparchies, although the source on the toparchies is a separate issue. As discussed on Orion, Agrippa's autobiography was written before his trip to Judea, while his map
Re: orion-list re: dating the hebrew texts
Philip Davies extensively discusses the issues you raise in a section called 'Biblical Hebrew' at _In Search of Ancient Israel_ (JSOT 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd,, 1992) 102-5. Lemche touches on language dating issues at The Old Testament - A Hellenistic Book? SJOT 7 (1993) 188-89, questioning whether such [language] differences should be explained as a result of differences in time or of milieu (or of place). C.C. Torrey discusses the late (2nd-3rd century BCE) date of the Aramaic of Ezra and Daniel as compared with the Elephantine Papyri in _Ezra Studies_ (various editions) 161-66. There does appear to be some overlap between the latest Biblical materials and the earliest texts at Qumran (some of which are pre-sectarian). Of particular relevance is the fact that the Animal Apocalypse, CD and other Qumran texts do not know of any return from exile, which is an idea found mainly in Ezra-Nehemiah, which may in turn date as late as the early second century BCE. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin Perhaps this is not the bets place for this, but perhaps those who have expertise in Hebrew can give me their two cents worth on something. I am one of those who is sympathetic to the viewpoint of Phillip Davies and numerous others (e.g. Nodet, Lemche, Thompson) that the Hebrew Bible and the religious views it promotes are post-exilic, i.e. Persian or even hellensitic in some cases and is closer to thew world of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the intertestimental literature than to the social-religious environment of the pre-exilic world. I have seen the same sort of view expressed by some on this list (e.g. that the later chapters of Ezekiel that refer to the Zadokites might be this late, or that Nehemiah might be 2nd century). Though I can find many reasons to agree with this view the one big thorn for me in this line of thinking is the continued insistence of many scholars that the Hebrew of the biblical texts excludes this possibility because it is demonstrably more ancient (i.e. pre-exilic or exilic at the latest). I have not been able to find much in way of critical commentary on this point and would appreciate the input of those on this list. Bruce Wildish Mississauga, Ontario For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list re: dating the hebrew texts
I forgot to mention, Anchor Bible Commentary on Ezra draws exactly the opposite conclusion from the Elephantine data, that Ezra reflects the Aramaic of c. 400 BCE. (Torrey's alleged Greek loan words in Daniel hasn't stood up, or his theory of Aramaic sources behind the gospels, so his linguistic conclusions should perhaps be used cautiously. He's quite excellent on source criticism on Ezra-Nehemiah, however.) R. Gm. C.C. Torrey discusses the late (2nd-3rd century BCE) date of the Aramaic of Ezra and Daniel as compared with the Elephantine Papyri in _Ezra Studies_ (various editions) 161-66. For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Pliny - thousands of ages
Dear George Brooks, I wrote: It is quite possible that Pliny's source _believed_ the Essenes practiced adoption ... Whether Pliny's source had accurate information or not is another question; whether he was even concerned with accuracy is yet another; his presentation is more literary and paradoxical than factual. You replied: Do you **really** intend to dismiss out of hand the historicity of Essenes adopting ANY children? ... I can understand your belief that a kernel of a story became a myth for complete celibacy. But now you are saying oh, by the way, there is no kernel either. There may be a case that the Essenes practiced celibacy and/or adoption. If so, it would come out of Josephus and Philo. My main point above was that the passage in Pliny was of questionable accuracy due to its literary genre (paradoxography) and its tendency to model the Essenes as the mirror opposite of Biblical Sodom. By questioning its accuracy, I did not mean to definitely assert its inaccuracy on the point of adoption: I was raising questions, not asserting answers. Speaking briefly on Josephus and Philo, Josephus' source seems to rely on 1QS, but 1QS (and the scrolls generally) do not refer to the practice of adoption, and 1QSa, obviously from the same group as 1QS, is explicit on the age a young man could get married, the role of women judicially, etc. So there is room to suggest perhaps Josephus' source misunderstood 1QS. If Philo, Josephus, Pliny all trace back to Nicolas of Damascus' writings on the Essenes, as seems likely, then Nicolas' error could have affected all these sources. So it is possible that all three sources may assert something in common and yet be in error, as the three sources may not be independent, but potentially copying from the same incorrect tradition. So it is possible that, yes, all three may be incorrect with respect to Essene celibacy (and hence adoption). The authors of the Serekh texts 1QS, 1QSa weren't celibate (except when going out to war - see 1QM). On the other hand, the Essenes of Herod's day (Nicolas wrote after 16 BCE or so) lived a long time after the authors of 1QS, so their practices may have been different. So I am on the fence on the accuracy of late descriptions of Essenes, at least for now. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Sodom and the Essenes
Thank you Ian for your comments on En Gedi. By Herodian remains, did the excavators include the period of Herod the Great, or are we speaking later Herodian? A question that had been raised some time ago on Orion is that, if Nicolas of Damascus was the source for Pliny's excursus on the Essenes (as seems certain from its paradoxographical genre), why isn't he listed as an authority for Book 5? I consider that question now fully resolved. The foremost Greek authority for both books 5 and 6 is listed as Juba, i.e. King Juba II of Mauretania (c. 37 BCE? - c. 23 CE). Juba was educated at Rome and was famous for his great learning and wrote a number of books, all now perished. He had some interesting contacts with Nicolas by was of his wives. Juba's first wife was a Cleopatra Selene, daughter of Anthony and Cleopatra, and Nicolas had tutored the couple's children before entering service under Herod the Great. Juba's second wife was Glaphyra, daughter of King Archelaus of Cappadocia (also an author). Glaphyra had first been married to Alexander, Herod the Great's son, and as such had substantial contact with Nicolas. (Nicolas may have indeed had a role in arranging that marriage, and may have tutored her in Judea.) After Herod executed Alexander, Glaphyra went back to her father and then was married to Juba. Both of Juba's highly educated wives undoubtedly recommended Nicolas to King Juba, not that he wouldn't have read his works anyway. One of Juba's books was on Arabia, and Pliny uses it extensively in book 5 and especially book 6. It gave an account of all of Arabia, from the Mesopotamia skenitae (tent-dwellers) to the Arabian coasts around the Red Sea and of course to Arabia's border region abutting Syria. It contained both geographical and ethnographical material (unlike Agrippa's commentarii) which Pliny frequently utilized. That Juba's work also dealt with the Dead Sea is made probable by the statement at Pliny, NH 5.72, On the east it is faced by Arabia of the Nomads. This unusual description specifically points to Juba's work on Arabia as the immediate source of Pliny's description of the Dead Sea; Juba in turn utilized Nicolas' colorful description of the Essenes. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list Sodom and the Essenes
Pliny puts the Essenes and the town of Ein Gedi near Masada. Dio Chrysostom locates the blessed city of the Essenes near Sodom. These descriptions are not necessarily mutually exclusive since Strabo 16.2.44 locates Masada near Sodom: Many other evidences are produced to show that the country [near the Dead Sea] is fiery; for near Mousada [Masada] are to be seen rugged rocks that have been scorched, as also, in many places, fissures and ashy soil, and drops of pitch dripping from smooth cliffs, and boiling rivers* that emit foul odors to a great distance, and ruined settlements here and there; and therefore people believe the oft-repeated assertions of local inhabitants, that there were once thirteen inhabited cities in that region of which Sodom was the metropolis, but that [only cities outside] a circuit of sixty stadia of that city escaped unharmed; and that by reason of earthquakes and of eruptions of fire and of hot waters containing asphalt and sulphur, the lake burst its bounds, and rocks were enveloped with fire; and as for cities, some were swallowed up and others were abandoned by such as were able to escape... * Other ancient writers (following Hieronymus of Cardia) it is the Dead Sea (not a river) that is boiling with bubbles [of hydrogen sulfide] and emits foul odors to a great distance. Strabo's account of the region near the Dead Sea showing evidence of the destruction of Sodom and its cities is extremely similar to passages in Philo and Josephus where the scorched and sterile state of the mountains west of the Dead Sea were said to prove the Biblical account. Strabo obviously drew on a source intimately familiar with Jewish lore, who could scarcely be other than Nicolas of Damascus. There are two important points here. First, Strabo (and his Jewish source) associate the Dead Sea's emission of asphalt and noxious hydrogen sulfide fume with the fiery vicinity of Sodom. Second, Strabo only knows of Masada near Sodom on the Dead Sea coast. Earlier he mentioned Jericho and its palm groves and abundant springs. He totally omits Ein Gedi, which is inexplicable if it was still standing with its royal palm groves. Third, Strabo knows of ruined settlements here and there - this will have included Ein Gedi - which provided further evidence of the destruction of Sodom and its towns. Fourth, Strabo knows of local inhabitants in this area who associated its desolation with Sodom's destruction. Given that Strabo knows about Sodom, it is unnecessary to suppose that the reference to Sodom in Dio is a later addition, i.e., by Synesius. Rather, the location of the Essenes near Sodom goes back to Strabo's source on local Jewish traditions, i.e., Nicolas. Turning to Pliny, we may note the following geographical clues. (1) He starts out by saying that the Essenes lived on the west coast of the Dead Sea, but out of range of the noxious [exhalations] of the coast. Strabo associated the noxious fumes with the region near Sodom (as did Philo and Josephus). One can assume from this snippet in Pliny that Pliny's source did too - no writer familiar with Jewish traditions who mentioned the Dead Sea fumes failed to associate them with Sodom. (2) Pliny also has a destroyed Ein Gedi: Lying below the Essenes was formerly the town of Engeda, second only to Jerusalem [Jericho] in the fertility of its land and its groves of palm trees, but now, like Jerusalem, a geap of ashes. Next comes Massada, a fortress on a rock, itself also not far from the Dead Sea. This is the limit of Judea. Like Strabo, Pliny only knows of Masada currently occupied, and Ein Gedi a heap of ashes, like the ruined settlements of Strabo. This also points to a common source (and even suggests that the local inhabitants - who Pliny labeled Essenes - might have pointed to Ein Gedi's ashes as another proof of the destruction of Sodom's cities). From all this we may conclude that Pliny's source put the Essenes in the vicinity of Sodom, far enough from the fiery coast to escape the noxious hellish fumes periodically emitted with the ejection of asphalt. Considering that Sodom and the Essenes are physically juxtaposed in Pliny's source, one may point out their intellectual juxtaposition as well. Both Philo (especially) and Josephus emphasize the incredible fertility of Sodom (like that of Jericho, which escaped the destruction in Philo's book on Abraham), its wealth (as evidenced by Gen. 14) and the resulting moral degeneracy of its inhabitants, including lust after both women and men. Pliny gives an exactly opposite portrait of the solitary tribe of the Essenes, which has no women and has renounced all sexual desire, has no money, and has only palm trees for company. This idealized, one might say fictionalized description of the Essenes owes much to the description of the residents of Sodom, to whom they form a contrived contrast. Sodom is
Re: orion-list Pliny - thousands of ages
Dear George Brooks, About all one can conclude from from Pliny is that Pliny's source thought the Essenes practices adoption. First, this was likely a misunderstanding. One of the duties of the Mebaqqer of certain scrolls was the instruction of youths entering the yachad. He was to be to them as a father to his children (CD 13.9) and even addressed them as his sons (CD 2.14). This sounds like adoption, though of course it isn't. Add the fact that the organization was run by males (1QS lacks a role for females), an outsider might conclude that the Essenes (who followed 1QS or a text like it) were an all-male society (although the Essenes Josephus' source knew married - which led the source to believe there were two types of Essenes). The idea that a society perpetuated itself by adoption lent itself to paradox: theoretically, by replacing lost members by adoption, a society could perpetuate itself forever, generation after generation, for thousands of ages, without sex or birth. This precisely the sort of novel social institution paradoxographers loved. The celibate Essenes probably never existed, but the paradoxographer liked to think _could_ exist; hence the colorful little semi-imaginary idealized group portrait in Pliny. Additionally, Pliny's portrait is influenced by Biblical materials. See my posting on Sodom. Note the giveaway incredible to relate in the Pliny passage. Thus through thousands of ages (incredible to relate) a race in which no one is born lives on forever. The reference to incredible matters is practically stock phraseology in paradoxography (and in others describing doubtful assertions by paradoxographers). Also, please observe that the reference to thousands of ages in Pliny does not mean the Essenes historically had a long past, though some have interpreted it this way. It could be equally interpreted to mean Pliny's source thought they would have a long future. With this adoption thing, they could go on forever! Best regards, Russell Gmirkin Why is it that you think this reference is of no historical value? Do you mean historical in some special or technical way? Or do you not think it really applies to our Essenes? For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Sodom and the Essenes
By way of footnoting my previous posting, see Strabo 16.2.42 for the Dead Sea emergence of asphalt being accompanied by bubbles like boiling water (cf. his boiling rivers of 16.2.44). See Philo, On Abraham 141; Josephus, Jewish War (=BJ) 4.483 on the still-visible signs of Sodom's destruction; Philo mentions the fire of Sodom's destruction still burning underground, producing smoke (i.e., outbursts of hydrogen sulfide fumes) and picth. As a result of Sodom's destruction, the formerly fertile valley and mountains became permanently barren and sterile (Philo, Abraham 140; Josephus, BJ 4.452-53, 474; Antiquities 1.195). Jose[hus locates the region [chora] of Sodom in the sterile, uninhabited mountains west of the Dead Sea and south of Jericho (BJ 4.543). Philo appears to imply that fertile Jericho escaped the fate of the rest of Sodom's cities in the valley (Abraham 141). Both Philo (On Abraham 141)and Josephus (BJ 4.483) describe the territory of Sodom as blessed [eudaimos] before God destroyed it. This is relevant to Dio, who locates the very blessed city [polin olan eudaimona] of the Essenes in the vicinity of Sodom. Paradoxically, the voluntarily impoverished, celibate Essenes have replaced wealthy, self-indulgent Sodom as the blessed city of the region. Finally, note that neither Pliny nor Strabo knew of an actual city west of the Dead Sea other than (Herod's) Masada. Both knew only of ruined settlements, Pliny mentionign En Gedi as a heap of ashes. The Essenes apparently lived near En Gedi, tending to what remained of its famous palm grove, but Pliny mentions no town, and Dio's city [polis] cannot be taken literally. De Vaux's book mentions no destruction layer for En Gedi - perhaps someone on the list could comment on En Gedi's archaeology - but Qumran is thought to have remained unoccupied for a while under Herod the Great. It seems to me that in both Pliny and Strabo, Masada is the only occupied settlement west of the Dead Sea. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Pliny - thousands of ages
Dear George, It is quite possible that Pliny's source _believed_ the Essenes practiced adoption, and also that they lived without money. (Some scrolls and some classical sources describe turning funds over to a treasurer for the community - but other scrolls of course document private ownership.) Whether Pliny's source had accurate information or not is another question; whether he was even concerned with accuracy is yet another; his presentation is more literary and paradoxical than factual. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin Would you be willing to tone down your skepticism by allowing for the Essenes being KNOWN for adopting young children, without necessarily SUBSISTING on such adoptions? For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Sirach
Greg, The idea that those of a later period anachronistically wished an eternal priesthood on Simon and his descendants sounds like special pleading to me, especially in absence of other indications of late date. Dierk's point that, unlike Sirach, the scrolls avoid reference to the covenant of Phineas is probably relevant in dating Sirach to a different period (or, less likely, group) than the scrolls authors. In your system, with 1QS composed 'early', you don't dispute that the copies at Qumran are later, including with the variants between 'sons of Zadok' and without. Do you have some theory to account for this? In my opinion all the Serekh literature (1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb, 1QM, portions of CD) derive from the Hasidim who were the mainstay of the Maccabean army. I think the promotion of the sons of Zadok in later variants of 1QS and in 1QSa reflect the period after the restoration of the temple in Dec. 164 BCE, when a high priest favorable to the Maccabees and a new order of blameless priests devoted to the law were set in charge of the temple (1 Macc. 4:42). In 1QM we also see a transition after this event from the high priest as field commander of the Maccabean army (in 1QM 13-19) to high priest presiding over the temple (in 1QM 2) and a secular prince of the entire congregation over the army. I can't really comment on developments in textual transmission after c. 160 BCE. I will only note that all documents dated to the first century BCE (by mention of historical figures of that era, e.g. Jannaeus, Salome, Peitholaus) form a distinct cluster of Qumran texts notable for its lack of any sectarian vocabulary. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Dio (trans. Kamesar) on Qumran Essene polis; gens; etc.
Kamesar's review is consistent with my own understanding of the political vocabulary underlying Dio (which is also present in Pliny's passage on the Essenes), and Dio Chrysostom's political interests. However, I fail to see how this tends towards a Stoic view of the Qumran Jewish Essenes. Rather, this is more in the Aristotlean / Peripatetic tradition, in which political institutions and ideas of various obscure groups around the world were collected for what insight they might provide. As such this tends to confirm some relation with Nicolas of Damascus, who was an Aristotelean (see his autobiography and comments by Wacholder), wrote a paradoxographical collection of strange customs for Herod (largely dealing with political institutions around the world), and of course wrote on the Essenes. I have already commented on Orion on the paradoxographical vocabulary prominent in Pliny's description of the Essenes. Thus for instance, Pliny's commentary on perpetuation of a community by adoption of others - Thus through thousands of ages (incredible to relate) a race in which no one is born lives on forever - is a typical Aristotelean / paradoxical theoretical formulation of no historical value, but expresses (in typical purple prose) interest in unique/bizarre political institutions of others. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin I happened upon the review by Adam Kamesar of Vermes and Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources, which offers some comments relevant to recent threads here (JAOS 111 [1991] 134-5). ...Synesius, Dio 3.2, where the Essenes are described as a 'polis hole eudaimon'...This phrase is translated with the words 'an entire and prosperous city'Yet it must be remembered that Dio is a Stoic of sorts, and he regards a polis not so much as a place of habitation, but as a 'group of people living under the rule of law in the same place' (Oratio 36.20; cf. 36.29 and H. von Arnim, Stoicum veterum fragmenta, III:80-81). Indeed, that in this passage polis should be translated and understood with reference to this definition (cf. the rendering Gemeinwesen' in Adam and Burchard, 39) may be confirmed by the fact that it is employed [/p.135] in apposition to the word 'Essenes.' Accordingly, we should be wary of pressing the distinction between the description of the Essenes as a 'polis' in Dio/Synesius and as a 'gens sola' in PlinyFor the latter phrase should probably be rendered 'a people living on its own,' and not as Goodman translates, 'a people unique of its kind'Likewise, 'eudaimon' should not be translated by an adjective with material connotations such as 'prosperous,' for the author is clearly thinking of that sort of eudaimonia which accrues to a city as a result of the virtue and concord of its inhabitants (see von Arnim, SVF, 1:61). In fact, in the immediately preceding sentence (omitted by Goodman), Synesius had mentioned Dio's description of the 'bios eudaimonikos' of an individual, a Euboaean hunter who lived a highly austere life in the wilderness but nevertheless achieved an outstanding degree of happiness (Oratio 7). Therefore, in all probability Synesius is referring to a description of the Essenes in which the latter are praised for a similar accomplishment in a group setting. Such description accords with a Stoic view of the Qumran Jewish Essenes, 'ose hatorah, the yahad (Gemeinwesen, community) on the north-west Dead Sea shore. For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list Re: Sirach
Dear Greg, The translation by Jesus b. Sirach is dated to 132 BCE; he says it was written by his grandfather Sirach (pappos normally means grandfather, although Aristotle uses it in the sense of ancestor) which is consistent with a date in earlier decades; all the internal evidence is consistent with a date of 180-175 BCE, shortly after the death of Simon the Just; there are no allusions to later historical figures or events. The burden of proof is on someone arguing a later date. The clincher, which your posting did not comment on - perhaps you didn't fully understand this point - is that Sirach prays for a descendant of Simon to always occupy the office of high priest, according to the covenant of Phineas. This makes no sense after the end of the Oniad priesthood in the 170s BCE (and was indeed omitted in the Greek translation of 132). Your proposal that the Maccabees / Hasmoneans extolling Simon the Just doesn't take into account the fact that they would be wishing an eternal high priesthood on a family not their own. If one accepts a relation between the terms Zadok and Sadducee, it is still difficult to maintain that Simon the Just was a Sadducee, despite being a Zadokite, since the Pharisees claimed him as founder of their sect. The Sadducees likely had not yet come into existence as a sect that early. If there is a relationship between the Zadok terminology in Sirach and 1QS, this argues for an early date for 1QS, not a late date for Sirach. Vermes' comparison of the contents of 1QS with what we know of the Hasidim of the Maccabean period stands up pretty well and still has relevance for situating 1QS chronologically. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Sirach on Zadok-ites c.180-175
Dear Greg, Russ Gmirkin: What makes you so sure Ben Sira, and therefore the Zadokite hymn assuming it is part of Ben Sira, are dated so early, to c. 180-175 BCE? Apart from this being the unanimous consensus of secondary literature, is there any actually good reason for believing this? In my opinion, the standard reasons are overwhelmingly convincing - and I'm not one to blindly accept the current consensus view. First, on the dates. The grandson wrote in the 38th year of Ptolemy Euergetes, who ruled from 170 (joint rule) or 145 (sole rule) to 116 BCE, if I have my facts straight. If the date was from sole rule, the 38th year would be 107 BCE, after the end of Ptolemy's rule. So the 38th year will have been calculated from 170 BCE, arriving at a date of translation of 132 BCE. From all the fatherly advice in b. Sirach, including marriage and career (i.e., it's better to get an education and become a scribe), I would assume he wrote it when he had a son aged 10-15. This is just my guess. So however old Jesus Sirach was, his son was about 10-15 in c.180 BCE by the traditional dates. Meanwhile, if we assume the grandson was about 25-30 when he did his translation, the grandson was born in 157-162 BCE, when the son was 33-43 years old. So I don't really see a chronological problem here. Perhaps one might have been justified in saying that the translation of his grandfather's book was just a literary device when we only possessed a Greek version -- and indeed Thomas Thompson still claims this in The Mythic Past, as Sirach's early date is inconvenient for Thompson's dates for the HB -- but now that we have most of the Hebrew version among the Dead Sea Scrolls and at Masada, there is verification that this is indeed a translation. The book of Sirach has Simon the son of Onias (i.e. Simon the Just) the pinnacle of the high priests. The description of his glory serving on the day of Atonement appears to be eyewitness. Commentaries such as AB point out that while Sirach's other historical material is all drawn from Biblical sources, but the description of Simon isn't, and this (as well as its vividness) is the main argument for first-hand description, (not e.g. verb tenses). Moreover, the description of his architectural achievements, building Jerusalem's walls, digging a water cistern, fortifying Jerusalem against seige (Sir. 50.1-4) -- such contemporary details would hardly be remembered, much less considered important enough to record, decades later. Again, as you mention, there is zero awareness of the Hellenistic Crisis, the Maccabean War, the Hasmonean high priests. Why would someone record the glories of the Oniad priestly line in the Hasmonean period? There is zero polemics against the Hasmonean high priests, and indeed no thought that the Oniad priestly line would ever be supplanted. What I consider the clincher is Sir. 50.24, only present in the Hebrew: May his [God's] kindness toward Simon be lasting; may he fulfill for him the covenant with Phineas So that it may not be abrogated for him or for his descendants, while the heavens last. This wishes on Simon and his descendants the office of high priest (as promised to Phineas) forever. Such a sentiment would not have been voiced after his son Onias III was deprived of the office of high priest in 175 BCE. Sirach was written after Simon's death (Sir. 50:1, in his lifetime) in c. 180. Hence a date of composition of 180-175 appears secure. I agree with you that Sirach's praise of the sons of Zadok belongs in the literary context of the Qumran texts's Zadokites, especially since Sirach was found at Qumran. But given Sirach's secure dating to c. 180-175 BCE, this rather undermines your theory linking the Zadokites with the Sadducees of the late 2nd/early 1st BCE. There is no text, no inscription, that has the Oniads as Zadokites, for example, although it can be reasoned they were by descent, but there is no text or testimony which has the Oniads called Zadokites or has them claiming they were. Of course one can trace the high priests from Zadok (in the time of David) to the fall of Jerusalem, and then down to c. 400 BCE, from the Chronicler -- for what that's worth; and from Josephus, down to Onias -- for what that's worth. So the Oniads probably claimed a descent from Zadok, as you note. But as for a text that calls the Oniads Zadokites, I would say Sirach, with its high praise of Simon the son of Onias, and similar praise for the sons of Zadok, comes pretty close to what you ask. Finally, (1) there is no evidence that the yachad as a whole was called Zadokite (i.e., Sadducee per your interpretation). In 1QS [but not in some 4QS parallels] the priests _only_ are called sons of Zadok, not the group as a whole. (2) One must also note that 1QS, which has Zadok terminology, has Essene affinities,
Re: orion-list Sirach on Zadok-ites c.180-175
Dear Bruce Wildish, Thanks for your well-considered comments. With respect to the power struggle described in Josephus between the Joseph the Tobiad and Onias II over the collection of Ptolemaic taxes in Syria, I'm not sure it's correct to characterize this as a conflict between hellenists and Oniads. The material in Josephus doesn't suggest a religious dimension to this rivalry. Note also that the Tobiads and Oniads intermarried, Hyrkanus being related to the Oniads. Further, Onias III got into trouble for his close relations with Hyrkanus - specifically, allowing Hyrkanus to bank his monies in the temple. So there doesn't appear to be evidence of a schism between the Oniads and Tobiads. Indeed, the scandal that lost Onias his high priesthood also appears to have sent Hyrkanus into exile into Ammonite Jordan. Jason (Onias III's brother) later took refuge with Hykranus the Tobiad in Ammon, showing continued good relations between Oniads and Tobiads. As for the earlier conflicts between Nehemiah and the Tobiah and Samaritans of that day, you grant greater historical credibility to the Nehemiah account than I do. Nehemiah is first mentioned by Sirach in 180-175 BCE, and in my opinion the book of Nehemiah was in fact written in 180-175 BCE and reflects (among other things) the scandal over Tobiad funds being stored in the temple, which was the cause of Onias III's downfall. My point with respect to Sirach was not only his praise of Simon the Just but also the noticable lack of sectarian polemics against other groups. Sirach rails against the Samaritans; one also sees anti-Samaritan polemics in the Testament of Levi, Jubilees, the Book of Watchers (IMO), etc., from this same general period; but until the Hellenistic Crisis I don't find evidence of internal polemics of one Jewish group against another. Your references to Jerusalem power struggles evidenced in the prophets are intriguing, but I'm personally hesitant to draw historical conclusions from the Ezekiel or Malachi, since I don't consider the prophets in general to have been convincingly dated. The first datable reference to the prophets is, again, Sirach. The prophetic texts may contain old materials, or then again same may have been written as late as 180 BCE. We simply don't know. If Ezekiel documents a conflict between those promoting the Zadokite priesthood and other groups, when did this conflict take place, and does it say anything about the emergence of the Sadducees as a Jewish sect? In summary I'd say, sure, there have been power struggles of varying kinds down through time, many doubtless unrecorded anywhere, but do these struggles necessarily imply sectarianism or relate specifically to the origins of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes? What is the earliest evidence for these sects? When does a sect become a sect? Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list Dead Sea exhalations
In a recent posting I pointed out that Pliny's description of the Dead Sea likely comes from Diodorus Siculus (one of his listed sources), which in turn comes from Hieronymus of Cardia. The relevant passage at Diodorus Siculus19.98 reads, in part, Its water is very bitter and of exceedingly foul odour, so that it can support neither fish nor any of the other creatures usually found in water... On every side about the sea for a distance of many stades the odour of the asphalt spreads with a noisome exhalation, and all the silver, gold, and bronze in the region lose their proper colours. These, however, are restored as soon as all the asphalt has been ejected; but the neighboring region is very torrid and ill smelling, which makes the inhabitants sickly in body and exceedingly short-lived. While doing some unrelated research, I was recently reading Jane Hornblower's book, _Hieronymus of Cardia_ (Oxford University Press, 1981), and came upon an interesting discussion of the above passage. (Diodorus Siculus books 18-20 consist for the most part of extracts from Hieronymus of Cardia.) She writes at pp. 149-49 that the emergence of asphalt and noxious fumes from the Dead Sea is paralleled in modern times in locations in Mexico and South America (citing R. J. Forbes, _Bitumen and Petroleum in Antiquity_ [Lieden, 1936] 16-18), and that the effects of the gas (hydrogen sulfide) emitted by the pitch are said to be those described in Diodorus. I'm quite familiar with hydrogen sulfide and its properties, being the chief component of rotten eggs. In high school advanced chemistry we used to produce hydrogen sulfide by (a) locking a fellow student in the supply room; (b) lining the bottom of the door with egg shells, and (c) adding sulfuris acid. Technically speaking, step (a) was unnecessary, but this was high school. I can attest to the appropriateness of the description of the result in Diodorus Siculus as producing noxious fumes. These can induce faintness, which might also explain the flying birds falling into the Dead Sea in the late tradition mentioned by Stephen Goranson. If the periodic fumes near the Dead Sea were of sufficient strength to discolor metal, they would likely also have had a corrosive effect on the lungs of those living nearby, so that the shortened lifespan is also believable. The Dead Sea does not produce as much floating bitumen now as in antiquity, but lumps of 100 lbs. have been documented in recent times. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin ] For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Bibliography request (Essa)
Dear Greg, I would imagine Stephen G. has an extensive biblio on the subject. The citation is of course Ant. 13.393, Thereupon Alexander... led his army against Essa, where Zenon's most valuable possessions were, and surrounded the place with three walls; and after taking the city without a battle... Compare Wars 1.104, Alexander... proceeded against Gerasa, hankering once more after the treasures of Theodorus [son of Zenon - see 1.86]. Having blockaded the garrison with a triple line of walls, he conquered the place without a battle. Clearly Essa, unknown elsewhere, is a corruption of the well-known major city Gerasa in Transjordan. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin This is a request for bibliography in any language for the proposal that the toponym 'Essa' (Ant. 15.393) is the source of the name of the 'Essenes'. Thank you, Greg Doudna For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Jeroboam/ CD 7 (Jubilees)
Dierk, A few comments on your analysis of Jub. 34:4 (which VanderKam translates, based on extensive textual analysis: And there came the kings of Tafu and the kings of Aresa and the kings of Seragan and the kings of Selo and the kings of Ga'as and the kings of Betoron and the kings of Ma'ansakir...): Just for your info, VanderKam's identifications (Textual Studies, 219ff) are as follows: Tafu = Tappuah (Josh. 16:8); Aresa, usually identified with Hasor, he considers a corruption of Adesa = Adasa; Seragan (related texts have Srtn) he identifies with Piraton, but as reviewers pointed out this site is better identified with Biblical Zaratan (Josh. 3:16); Selo is Shiloh; Ga'as is Biblical Ga'as (Josh. 24:30); Betoron is Beth Horon; Ma'ansakir is Mahanayim (per VanderKam perhaps not the Transjordanian site, but another near Shechem, near modern Khirbet Mahneh - he cites Wright, Shechem 12-13, 245) and Sychar. Ma'ansakir of Jub. 34:4 is often taken to be a combination of the names of two cities, Ma'an and Sakir. Not really, for Ma'anisakir is to be identified as Hirbat al-Mahana al-Foqa (Hirbat an-Nabi, Nabi Isma'il), ca. 4 km ssw of Sechem (Tal Balata) and 4.5 km s of Nablus. Sakir indeed refers to Sychar (Joh 4.5) = 'En Swkr (Mishna Menahot 10.2), a location ~1 km nw Sechem and 2 km wnw Nablus. The southern plain of Ma'an / al-Mahna isn't meant here, for acc. to TestJud 6.3 and Midrash 693 the village is located on top of a mountain (as I've mentioned already ealier). I'm a little confused, as there is no independent mention of Sakir alongside Ma'ansakir in Jub. 34:4 in the textual traditions I'm aware of, only Ma'ansakir by itself (or variants), or Shabir king of Mahanayim, which reflects Ma'an and Sakir as originally distinct cities. The destruction of Shechem indeed ignores the general conditions of the Maccabean military scenario, nevertheless it fits perfectly into to the local geography and the military spirit of the narration and was, thus, important enough to be added (as an anti-Samaritan anecdote? cf. Ant XIII 275) in a later stage of political redaction, that is, in the end phase of the 'true' Jewish military epoch 110 -76 BC. I agree that Jubilees underwent a considerable textual evolution. (The earliest, pre-Maccabean edition appears to have concerned itself mainly with polemics against Pseudo-Eupolemus along with alleged patriarchal practice of Mosaic legislation.) I wouldn't exclude the possibility of further developments as late as you suggest, if the evidence warrants it. A problem I have in dating this passage by the presence of Sychar rather than Shechem is that we don't really know why the author collected these placenames. VanderKam noted that some of these were fortresses built by Bacchides (and hence though Jubilees dated c. 161 BCE), but this conclusion was based on some of his site identifications which seemed forced, such as Pirathon. Is this, instead, a reminiscence of locations in a historical military campaign or campaigns (perhaps Maccabean)? If so, then one can conceive of a guerilla battle fought at Sychar rather than at the larger city of Shechem, and Shechem's absence loses its significance. Unless one understands the background of the list as a whole -- an unsolved and perhaps unsolvable problem -- one cannot draw firm conclusions from this passage IMO. Also, while Shechem was captured by Hyrkanus (Ant. 13.255), it was not said to have been leveled like Samaria, and Josephus refers to Demetrius's army in his campaign against Jannaeus in 88 BCE as encamped near the city of Shechem (Ant. 13.377). This is in the period when you have suggested Sychar had superceded a destroyed Shechem, if I understand you correctly. I have not read Wright's _Shechem_ -- is your reconstruction of Shehem's history based on his archaeological conclusions? And how do you interpret the data from Antiquities? PS. What's up with your legionaries in 1QM? Enough panis militaris left for a decisive breakthrough this year? Between campaigns at the moment. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: QUM: Re: orion-list Further on Pliny, Essenes, Judaism
On 5/5 Stephen Goranson wrote From discussion, notably with Jay Treat, as well as Bob, Sigrid Peterson and others, the noxious element was plainly shown to be, not earth nor air, but water in the Dead Sea. Pliny narrates that the good water of the helpful, meandering Jordan remaining after serving to benefit humans to the north ends up in the bad sea. The Loeb translation was wrong to add exhalations (and alo in error elsewhere). That error may have been influenced by a mistaken story (perhaps from a medieval pilgrim) that a bird attempting to fly over this salt lake would perish. So Essenes merely needed to avoid that water and supply their own with the aqueduct and cisterns, water also available for agriculture. While I agree that exhalations is not in the original text, I can understand why H. Rackham, the Loeb translator, understood Pliny to refer to noxious fumes from the Dead Sea. The earlier discussion on Orion ignored relevant data from earlier sources. Diodorus Siculus19.98 reads, in part, Its water is very bitter and of exceedingly foul odour, so that it can support neither fish nor any of the other creatures usually found in water... On every side about the sea for a distance of many stades the odour of the asphalt spreads with a noisome exhalation, and all the silver, gold, and bronze in the region lose their proper colours. These, however, are restored as soon as all the asphalt has been ejected; but the neighboring region is very torrid and ill smelling, which makes the inhabitants sickly in body and exceedingly short-lived. Yet the land is good for raising palm trees in whatever part it is crossed by serviceable rivers or is supplied with springs that can irrigate it. The passage is almost identical with Diodorus Siculus 2.48.6-9, which says in part, The region round about, by reason of its being exposed to fire and to the evil odours, renders the bodies of the inhabitants susceptible to disease and makes the people very short-lived. That Pliny depends on Diodorus here is probable, since both call the Dead Sea Lake Asphaltus. A comparison of Diodorus and Pliny also reveals a number of other parallels which we need not enter into here. The dependence of Pliny on Diodorus of Sicily here is also confirmed by Pliny listing Diodorus of Syracuse [in Sicily] as one of his sources for book 5. Diodorus, meanwhile, puts the Dead Sea in the country of the Nabateans, a tradition shared only with Hieronymous of Cardia, the historian of the wars of the Diadochi c. 300 BCE. For Diodorus' use of Hieronymous, see M. Stern, _Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism_ 1.167-68 and elsewhere. I suspect that Rackham lifted the phrase noisome exhalations out of Diodorus by way of clarifying the difficult text - and, given the relationship between Pliny and Diodorus, this was probably a good decision, though a footnote would have been appropriate. I hope this is helpful. Pliny's use of Diodorus, incidentally, shows that he did not rely on Roman sources for his discussion of Judea, at least not exclusively. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Chronicles and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Dear Walter, Evidently your site still has problems with this article -- doesn't appear in the menu with AOL = Netscape browser. By the way, I have a pretty good original argument that the Chronicler (the author of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah) wrote c. 180-175 BCE. Sirach (Ecclestiasticus), writing about this time, is the first reference to Nehemiah (and omits Ezra), as many have noted. Nehemiah's accomplishments mirror those of Simon the Just (c. 200-180), who is also praised in Sirach. The smoking gun in my opinion is that the polemics against the Tobiads in Nehemiah exactly match opposition to the Tobiads in c. 180-175 BCE, including their having their wealth stored in the temple. (Read 2 Macc. on this [Hyrkanus the Tobiad also appears in Josephus]). Thought you might find this interesting. A couple dissonant points are that 1 Chr. appears to put the priestly clan of the Maccabees in first position, which suggests a slightly later date (after 165 BCE); and that Ezra is really unknown until the first century BCE. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin Available at my website is an article titled Dating 1 2 Chronicles via Archaeological Anomalies and Anachronisms (Click on the below url in my signature if interested), which concludes that the work may have been composed in the 2d or 1st century BCE, nearly contemporary with some of the works found in the famous Dead Sea Scrolls caches. All the best, Walter For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Chronicles and the Dead Sea Scrolls
My apologies to Orion - my reply to Walter's posting on Orion was intended to be private. Russell Gm. For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Question on Jeroboam
Greg Doudna asks, Can anyone show from texts either found or reliably reconstructed at Qumran anything referring to Jeroboam negatively? Anything that condemns the northern kingdom of Israel from seceding from Judah? While the following is by no means exhaustive, and perhaps not exactly on point per your specifications, here are perhaps a few indications of Qumran's attitude towards the secession of the northern kingdom. The Qumran texts include b. Sirach, which, though not a sectarian text, was valued at Qumran. b. Sirach condemns Shechem as a foolish people. In rewrites of Gen. 34 (the slaughter of Shechem and Hamor), Shechem is also violently condemned in the Testament of Levi and Jubilees (as I recall), in excess of Gen. 34 itself. (These texts, like b. Sirach, may not be sectarian, though they are found at Qurman). 1 Kings is a text found at Qumran, and 1 Ki. 12 is unambiguous in its condemnation of Jeroboam and the inception of the northern kingdom. 1QpMicah 10 3-4 interprets Samaria and the high places of Judah as the Spreader of Lies who misdirected simpletons. In CD 7.11-13 there is a reference to the day Ephraim departed [sur, turned aside] from Judah in a context that appears to identify Ephraim with renegades who are delivered up to the sword (cf. 8.1). In CD 16.9 the same word is used with reference to those who turn away from the law; in CD 1.15-16 in departing from the paths of righteousness. The term has overall negative connotations I believe. A different word is used for the penitents of Israel who departed [yatsa, go out] from the land of Judah at CD 4.2-3; 6.5. Certainly Josephus is negative towards the Samaritans, and I can't recall any Talmudic traditions favorable towards Jeroboam or the northern kingdom. If CD contains such a tradition, I think it would be unique. Some of the prophets, however, are neutral towards Ephraim. Jeroboam the son of Nebat is not mentioned in the prophets. However, Hos 8.5-6; 13.2 condemn the calf of Samaria (a molten calf of gold or silver per 8:4, 13.2, in which Ephraim offends in Baal per 113:1). This is a fairly clear condemnation of the golden calf of Dan and Bethel (1 Ki. 12.29). In Amos 8.14 the sin of Samaria is put in parallel with the god of Dan [i.e. the golden calf]. Amos condemns the altars and cult at Bethel. If one could successfully detach Jeroboam from the golden calf, perhaps by positing that the cult of Dan and Bethel was a post-Jeroboam development, then perhaps one could imagine a view of Jeroboam and the departure of Israel from Judah in a positive light, but surely the authors of CD were familiar with the tradition in 1 Ki. 12 associating Jeroboam and the golden calf, were they not? Good luck with your research. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list diverse responses and suggestions offered (Essenes; sources; e...
A quick comment on one paragraph from Stephen's over-all helpful and informative posting. It does appear relevant that doing the law is represented in 4QMMT, a document with Sadducee affinities (along with 11QT and the halachic materials in CD) but not in 1QS, the sole Qumran document probably known to the Essenes, in which the expression doers of the law nowhere appears, only an isolated reference to those who do mishpat [justice] at 8.3. (Note that J. Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees, 76-81, identifies the seekers of righteousness and justice at 1 Macc. 2:29 as Dead Sea Scrolls sectarians based on the importance of the terms sadduk and mishpat at Qumran.) Russell Gm. MMT is relevant, 'asah in title. Qimron and/or Strugnell as cited before (DJD-MMT and Qumran Hebrew book [and cf Appendix 138 on chosen/essen]) note use of 'asah by itself as observing torah in MMT. At Qumran ma'ase hatorah (or a word play on torah, todah) are described as offeredwho does that? How shall we translate 1QS 8.3 (published versions vary; cf DSS After 50)? For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Doing the law/Essenes
Stephen,
Your attempt to correlate NT language about "doers of the law" with your
theories on Essene deriving from 'oseh ha-torah is probably more nuanced than
my posting suggested. In the interests of accuracy I will certanly read the
materials you cited. For now, I will simply state that I don't find the
language of Torah observance in Epiphanius or the NT particularly striking.
Perhaps if you explained, in answer to Greg's query, exactly how the
materials you've collected differ remarkably from similar language applied to
Pharisees, etc., it would help. Does it all hinge on the noun form "doers"
as opposed to "doing"? Have you been as exhaustive in scouring all languages
and literature through the centuries for similar phrasing applied to
Pharisees, e.g., as Essenes? If you have, that would be of interest.
My own doubts as to your etymology center first of all on the Qumran
evidence, where in most cases the phrase 'oseh ha-torah is in an adjective
phrase ("the community council who do the law", "the simple of Judah who do
the law", etc.) and are not a primary designation for the elect. One
exception, 1QpHab 8.1, "all who do the law in the House of Judah", just seems
like another one of these endless permutations.
What I find most significant is the formula does not appear in 1QS, which
is the only Qumran text with significant correlations with the Essenes of
Josephus (apart from 4QS parallels and certain sections of CD which show
knowledge of 1QS). Rather, 1QS prefers the phrasing, "volunteers for the
law" (also seen at 1 Macc. 2:42 describing the Hasidim). It seems to me that
an argument on the etymology of Essene should rest on the one Qumran text
with Essene affinities.
Rather, most (all?) occurrences of the phrase "doers of the law" come out
the pesherim, which mention the Teacher of Righteousness (and other figures
unknown to 1QS). The Teacher of Righteousness in turn has certain halachahic
materials promulgated in his name in CD 20.27-34, which Schiffman especially
has been shown to have Sadducee affinities (along with other halachic Qumran
texts). So your data appears to come out of Qumran materials with Sadducee
rather than Essene affinities. To me this rules out the etymology; but
perhaps you are of the old school that still views the Qumran corpus as one
homogenous whole.
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin
For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list replies
Al Baumgarten writes: This is the heart of my communication. I agree that Pliny's account of the Essene city refers to Qumran, but it is so full of misinformation and in need of special pleading to sustain that conclusion that I cannot follow Pliny in concluding that Qumran was Essene. What I find disingenuous about the use of Pliny in arguing that the scrolls were Essene is the huge disparity in the dates of the sources. The latest historical references in the scrolls are to Gabinius and Peitholas, c. 55 BCE. So one would hope to find evidence of Essenes at Qumran by mid-first century BCE, hopefully considerably earlier. But Pliny writes in the late first century CE about Essenes west of the Dead Sea, probably drawing on Nicolas of Damascus' work "Collection of Remarkable Customs", which brings us only as far back as late as c. 20 BCE. It is well known that Herod the Great had agricultural interests (palms, aromatics) in Jericho, En Gedi, and thereabouts. The ostracon inscription supports a connection of Qumran with agricultural holdings in Jericho, and one may note that the name Josephus [Joseph] on a seal-ring at Qumran was a name common among Herod's relatives and officials. It is also known that Herod patronized the Essenes. I think it quite likely that Herod brought Essenes to the area to work the royal agricultural estates. But what evidence is there of Essenes near the Dead Sea prior to the date of Nicolas and Herod the Great? It is special pleading, in my opinion, to use Pliny to project an Essene presence near the Dead Sea to the time the scrolls were written (certainly there is none, including the Copper Scroll, which can be demonstrated to be of the Herodian period or later; I think we can agree Cross' paleographical dating doesn't constitute proof). Again, it is special pleading to interpret e.g. the miqvot built during Qumran 1b as specifically Essene. Why not e.g. Sadducee, given the apparent Sadducee halakhot in 4QMMT, 11QT, and the halachic (not the later serekh) legal materials in CD? Ex-partisans of Alexander Jannaeus, probably predominantly Sadducee, were exiled to various fortified wilderness locations in c. 76 BCE by their Pharisee opponents, and there is a contemporary Hymn to King Jonathan that surely argues the Qumran residents to have been Jannaeus supporters. My own opinion is that Sadducee supporters of Jannaeus and Aristobulus occupied Qumran from 76 to c. 55 BCE, when Gabinius finally cracked down on Aristobulus in a series of actions near the Dead Sea (one against Peitholaus, note). I think the Pliny reference to Essenes by the Dead Sea has been anachronistically imposed on earlier periods, and that sectarian indications of earlier periods have been assumed to indicate "Essene" when no such inference is possible from strictly archaeological evidence. We should be open to other interpretations of the site, paying due attention to such anomalies as pointed out by Al. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Essenes at Qumran: A Reality Check
With out entering into the merits of the current debate, I would simply point out significantly lower estimates of Qumran's population in J. Patrich, "Did Extra-Mural Dwelling Quarters Exist at Qumran?" in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: 1947-1997, 720-727. He notes Humbert estimated 10-15 residents at Qumran and Patrich himself, based on estimates of available living quarters, puts an upper limit of a few dozen. The estimates of 150-200 or higher by others would require the majority to live outside Qumran itself in caves, tents and huts. He very persuasively argues that there are no remains of tent dwellings (which archaeologists can easily identify) and the limestone caves do not resemble other caves adapted to human living as e.g. in hermitages in the Judean wilderness. The marl caves were probably inhabited, which adds 3-6 to the population. So there were perhaps 10-40 people at Qumran. Whether they were Essenes I leave to others to argue. Best, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
