Re: orion-list Goranson on Pliny
Response to Prof Kraft: Pliny's text merely uses west to indicate he will describe that side of the Dead Sea. Pliny (his source) does not say Essenes are high (supra), merely that they avoid the bad water (as Qumranites did, with their water system), which is unlike Jordan's good water, flowing south. No fumes, exhalations, Sodom, or the like are in Pliny on the Judaea side of the Dead Sea. These sites, Essene place, Ein Gedi, Masada, moving South/downsteam/further along, are all within Judaea, as the boundry is yet another step South/downstream/further along. Infra here is a usage within Judaea, and has no reference to Judaea vis-a-vis Samaria or other lands. Infra here is used as elsewhere in Pliny, including sections which mention the source Marcus Agrippa. Pliny does not specify Essenes as having a land, else he might need to say this was other than Judaea. It would be a peculiar way of locating a settlement, Ein Gedi, to say it was (had been, before c.40 BCE destruction) lower (altitudewise) than a non-mentioned land, rather than below (South, downstream, next in order) from the Essene locus. And Masada is still anomolously high for your proposal. Again, Ginsburg, de Saulcy, and Strack read it they way I read it, before Qumran discoveries. The Loeb translation is merely amphibolous with below. Again, Qumran archaeologically fits, in time, in place, in usage; Yizhar's site does not. By the way, on Machaerus. It was destroyed by Gabinius (57 BC?) and rebuilt by Herod the Great (but when in that long reign?). Machaerus, I think, has not yet been excavated sufficiently to determine the date Herod rebuilt it. It is possible that it being destroyed is another indication that Pliny in this case is using an old source. Certainly most of his sources, and probably much of his research, date before the war with Rome. One cannot properly assume Pliny was up to date an rerecorded on all this as the Vesuvius fumes overtook him. Nor is it proper--as Cornell professors evidently decided--to insist on single generation of the texts, mostly the moment before a dramatic last moment, with up-to-date details, suddenly sealed--hypothesis become fixation. Response to Ian H.: I have already responded to many of your subjects. For explanation and supporting evidence for Essenes from 'asah, see orion archives and DSS: A Comprehensive Account vol. 2 and Jim VanderKam's Introduction to Early Judaism; etc. On Gezer paleography. Again, their date(s) is disputed. Three IEJ articles take three different views. The excavators of Gezer, in fact, date these bedrock inscriptions in the final excavation volumes (citing potery) in accord with Cross; in Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (Oxford, 2000) vol. 2, page 400 Dever dates these to the early-mid-Roman period. It is one thing to refuse an Essene association with Qumran, but why write that I have not given my reasons for accepting historicity of Essenes at Qumran and elsewhere? Here is a quotation from an abstract by Ian H, scheduled to speak at SBL Rome meeting (due to invitation by Philip Davies) to present the 63 BCE depositation proposal, though it has not appeared in peer-reviewed publication, and, as far as I know, no scholar supports it. For the full text (and full meeting schedule) see http://www.sbl-site.org and click on Congresses, International, etc. Ian H. wrote, for example, mimicing N. Golb, of Qumran: ...nor any trace of a scribal school. Again, what is the evidence. The locus 30 designation as scriptorium has been challenged, Yet the triclinium alternate proposal has been widely rejected. While all to my knowledge agree that some mss came from elsewhere (plural elsewheres, if I may), some apparently were written or copied at Qumran. Indications of a scribal school include repeated hands, including in sectarian texts, texts which match the archaeology (frequent use of miqvaot, for example). As repeatedly pointed out, Qumran has a greater concentration of inkwells--tools of the trade of scribes--than any other site in the area of comparable size--an extraordinary evidence of scribal activity in this place, where an extrordinary manuscript find offers important history of these Essenes. Last but not least, please see the numerous careful, well-informed publications of Emanuel Tov, which give multiple indications or traces of a Qumran scribal school, for example: Tov, Scribal Practices and Physical Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls in The Bible as Book: The Manuscript Tradition (1988, John Sharpe, ed.), pages 9-33. best, Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list 63 BCE deposit proposal: comment and a question
A question about the Doudna/Hutchesson 63 BCE Qumran ms deposit proposal, after a few comments. In my view, this 63 proposal (as written in Qumran Chronicle and orion) has been disproven multiple times by several confluent streams of evidence. Briefly, these include archaeology, C14, paleography, and history, as well as the extreme lengths pursued to exclude Essenes from the Qumran site and mss. For example, the C14 data have been read by Doudna as a single shotgun blast pattern, but that requires really one moment of generation of the mss (appropriate really only for one sample, e.g., one piece of skin, not many mss)--a hypothesis (or series of hypotheses) not only unproven but, in my view, exceedingly improbable--in order to exclude late date ranges as outliers. Later paleographic dates have not been better explained as pre-63. Most of the Qumran pottery is later, etc. Historically, Essenes were on the north-west Dead Sea shore in Herod the Great's time, while non-toparchy Ein Gedi was destroyed, etc. Now, for the question. Greg D. and Ian H. have asked for explicit securely dated internal text references later than 63, for falsification purposes. I noted that the Qumran mss were rather poor in that respect, if we limit to clear, plainly datable references. Greg wrote that these internal datable references flourish up to c. 63 BCE but then stop. The end of internal references after 63 BCE is total and permanent, without exception. QC 8 [1999] 88. That, except for the c. is quite emphatic. Similarly, GD wrote: It is rather like a water spigot had been permanently shut off on a certain date [p. 26]. (All this assumes a sudden end to text production, a hypothesis; GD also hypothesized most production just before the end.) I offered numerous proposed later text references, but they were rejected as insufficiently explicit, secure, certain, or the like. So I ask: how many explicit internal date references that occured before 63--and necessarily also asserted as written before or in 63--do Ian H. and Greg D. agree on and will explicitly present to the list? In other words, in order to evaluate on a level playing field proposed post 63 dates, one could compare with their list of pre 63 dated (and pre 63 copied) items and their reasoning for those being secure. What constitutes that claimed stream of references? Hyrcanus (if Hyrcanus II) lived for many years after 63. Aemilius (if Scaurus) was Governor of Syria afterward; when he killed is not clear to me. Queen Sholomzion died before 63, but when was the text copied? I take the pNahum crucifixions as 88 BC, as have most who date them; but GD has a later date. If I read correctly, IH and GD differ by as much as a century on dating some events in the Qumran pesharim. But perhaps they can clarify. In any case, Ian Hutchesson and Gregory Doudna, will you present to orion list a list of precisely which, numbered, explicitly datable secure internal Qumran text references which you both affirm occured and were written in ink on Qumran mss in particular years before 63 BCE? best, Stephen Goranson For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Pharisaic texts
Looking for previously known texts (e.g. 1, 2 Maccabees) which are missing at Qumran is only one, incomplete, way to characterize what the collection has and does not have. Looking at the previously unknown texts (and looking at all the texts anew), one can ask whether any particular Qumran text is characterized by Pharisaic traditional teaching and practices and terminology. Further, one can ask whether any Qumran texts (such as some pesharim) speak against Pharisees and their teaching. With the longer list of questions, I would say absence of Pharisee texts at Qumran is remarkable--and that Qumran does not represent the full range of viewpoints within late Second Temple Judaism. For a good discussion and bibliography, I recommend Pharisees by Al Baumgarten in Encyclopedia of the DSS (Oxford, 2000). best, Stephen Goranson Dear All, A frequent statement in the literature is that it is significant that there are no texts from the Pharisees among the Qumran scrolls. However, I don't recall seeing a discussion of which actual texts are missing (and for that matter, why we think they are Pharisaic). I would appreciate any suggestions or references on this topic. Ian Young Sydney University For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list Dio (trans. Kamesar) on Qumran Essene polis; gens; etc.
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. best, Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Identity of sect of the Qumran texts
MWRH HCDQ is not properly rendered or paraphrased as The Sadducee Teacher or the teacher of Sadduceeism, as G. Dudna wrote. HCDQ is not necessarily from zedek. Josephus does not present Sadducees as righteous ones--neither literally nor in their conduct. According to G. Porten in Anchor Bible Dictionary Sadducees: Some of the Church Fathers... thought that the term was derived from the adjective righteous, saddiq, However, modern scholarship connects it with the name Zadok, sadoq... Qumran texts do not match the descriptions of Sadducees in Josephus and NT (predestination, for example). Would Sadducees be buried at Qumran rather than Jerusalem? The Rabbinic use of the term is different than that in Josephus and NT and need not be retrojected back to second tmple time. Menachem Kister, a scholar cited by G. Doudna, in an article on MMT in Tarbiz 68.3 (1999) 317-71 prsents observations which favor MMT as Essene rather than Sadducee. M. Kister in Biblical Phrases and Hidden Interpretations in Pesharim, in DSS; Fourty Years of Research, ed. D. Dimant U. Rappaport (1992) 27-39 added support to the identification of Essenes as Judah, Pharisees as Ephraim, and Manasseh as Sadducees. The Wicked Priest is not presented as a member of the yahad, nor is any explusion from the yahad mentioned. best, Stephen Goranson For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list difference of opinion on paleographic dating and 63 BCE
In response to the complaint by Greg Doudna about a sentence I wrote, I will try to clarify what I see as our different views on Qumran paleographic dating and 63 BCE. I wrote: G. Doudna has proposed that the dates given by A. Yardeni are too late (up to 130-some years). While I don't claim the sentence is perfect, it is a legitimate and fair sentence: I meant what I wrote, and I will clarify and expand upon what I meant here. First of all, I am referring primarily to Qumran manuscripts. Not all Qumran manuscripts, but those which Yardeni (and others) date later than 63 BCE, the latest date of Qumran manuscripts according to Greg Doudna, as repeatedly stated here and elsewhere as a proposal (e.g. in Qumran Chronicle). The issue of documentary and related texts vs. others is a red herring (neither of us has seen the textbook mentioned in the sentence before the quoted one), as documentary texts are present at Qumran (see Hanan Eshel's article in the current JJS), and, in any case, paleographic hands are a separate issue from genre. So, in this sense, rejecting Yardeni's Roman/Herodian Qumran dates would also address the non-Qumran mss dated by the same methods. (Plus, Qumran Greek post-63 paleographic dates.) I cited the Yardeni book as I just learned it is now in print and includes Roman period Herodian hands discussion, evidently. I certainly did not intend to say, nor did I, that Greg had read and negatively reviewed that specific book; I regret if he somehow got that idea; I merely suggest he might review it, because it bears on proposed Roman/Herodian dates. On the up to 130-some years. There are 132 years between 63 BCE and 70 CE. So the dates G. Doudna proposes for Qumran mss are up to 130 or so years earlier than date ranges given by Yardeni (and Cross and Puech et al.) *plus* however many years before 63 BCE G. Doudna would place some of them, on the assumption that G.D. does not propose *all* the mss dated post-63 actually date to exactly the year 63 BCE. G.D. has written that most (not all) Qumran manuscripts were written in one generation (a view I dispute), which he defined on orion as about 50 years. So some of these texts might by implication be, on his view, up to 180 years earlier than the paleographic estimates of A. Yardeni and others. Now paleographic date ranges are not precise (certainly not claimed to be 7 year precision as Cross DJD III pages 217-221 was misrepresnted on orion by G.D. this month). But the difference in dates Doudna proposed is big. His difference with Yardeni's dates is big. It is not unfair to say so. I consider the 63 BCE poposal to require denial of evidence (paleographic, C14, archaeological, etc.) and to require acceptance of mistaken proposals. One being the shotgun (Greg's word) view of dating; the problem being that the re;evant pattern that is analogous here is *not* from *one* shotgun blast, but numerous ones. Second being the proposal (by Ian H.) that one mishmarot text serves as a newspaper-like dater, as if Qumran were like Pompeii with a clear 63 BCE destruction layer (though, e.g., Hyrcanus lived for decades later and there are precious few plainly datable internal text references--the IMO perhaps clearest one being the 88 BCE crucifixions, which Greg interprets differently). So, Greg Doudna, if you got the idea that I misrepresented your view, I am sorry that may have happened. I assure you, I wish precisely to present your view on 63 BCE deposit proposal, our topic of dispute, because I think that view, seen plainly, is a mistaken proposal. No doubt we agree on much else. Overall, in my view, the Qumran discoveries offer us both, and everyone, great opportunity to understand some important history better. Though I defend the sentence quoted here, I recognize that exchanges between us have gotten heated at times. Some of my other sentences don't hold up so well. I have been sometimes impatient, harsh, and occasionally more critical than... strictly necessary :-). But I have no wish at all to misrepresent your views. I agree that documentation matters. I work in Duke library and as an editor (some writers invite my comments). If I can help, for example, with bibliography, let me know. I hope we can get back to more constructive threads on orion. best, Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Jeroboam/ CD 7 -- and names
As noted before, wilderness of Damascus is an interesting collocation, though Qumran halakhah is a misnomer, whichs helps obscure the groups of three which are present in some--not all--Qumran texts (some pesharim, MMT...), and in Josephus, perhaps Strabo (as Sigrid noted)... Russell Gm. wrote of [] the scroll field's simplistic view of Ephraim and Manasseh as bad (supposedly representing the sect's opponents) and Judah as good (supposedly representing the sect of the Essenes) First, the scroll field is not one entity, reified and personified, speaking with one voice, even though the recognition of three sects--in some not all texts--is indeed very widely recognized for good and sufficient reasons. In Qumran scrolls, there are indeed claims about who is the true Judah (those who observe the law in the house of Judah), who the true Israel, who the remnant. Simplistic view here is not valid history of scholarship. I don't have a copy at hand, but didn't Maurya Horgan select precisely Judah as an example (in a CBQ review of a B. Thiering book) of a term which has various uses in Qumran mss? Are not discussions of, say, D, Schwartz and A.I. Baumgarten and others somewhat more nuanced and careful (agree or not) that simplistic view? Names can matter. E.g. Esau is spelled differently at Qumran, in Jubilees (considered Essene by some pre 1948, with Enoch, Test. 12 Patr [cf Flusser as cited by Qimron and/or Strugnell]) where associated with yetser ra, and in par Gen, where 'asah is used in creation beyond MT. By the way, late daters of HB move some of the text contemporary with the Historical Dictionary database. Echo: Cf. John 3 do truth addressee. Why some rejected Essene from 'asah pre 1948?--the supposition that late second temple Jews did not speak Hebrew. Concerning care and respect for names: to my knowledge, it has not been pointed out before on this list than when a poster (not RGm, but Ian H.) came on list with the false name of John J. Hays (orion archives 2 Jan 1998ff), that name is similar to the name of a real scholar of Hebrew Bible and ancient history, John H. Hayes, who deserves an apology. And in the next instance of this poster using a false name, Ann L. Kraemer (3 Jan 1999ff), that name is similar to the name of a real scholar of history of Judaism and the status of women, Ross S. Kraemer, who deserves an apology. Names can matter. I'm all for more commentary on CD and other texts, but, please, represent past scholarship more carefully than simplistic view. best, Stephen Goranson For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: QUM: Re: orion-list Further on Pliny, Essenes, Judaism
According to M. Stern (Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism I, 495) N.H.13, 46 contains Pliny's one reference to Jews or Judaism that has an undisputedly anti-Semitic ring. Stern indicates that this account begins with a passage from a survey of countries in which palm trees grow (494), in other words, from a source. This source's complaint was that Jews (a gens) have contempt for the divine powers [plural] in contrast to the writer's people who offer a type of dates to the honor of the gods [plural]. So Jews were criticized for not being polytheists. Evidently, the source on dates is not Marcus Agrippa, the source for Pliny on Essenes. The latter source, to use Al Baumgarten's phrase, presents Jews or a group par excellence. And, no one here, I trust, will argue that Essenes were polytheist. 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. As to city or region. Pliny is non-committal. Region wouldn't fit in Yizhar Hirschfeld's small, late site, which has been excluded, anyway, by D. Amit and J. Magness in Cathedra and Tel Aviv articles, on archaeological grouds. Healer isn't in Essenes, nor even, finally, in Philo's context, in Therapeutae, which means servants/worshippers (as it does in Quod Omnis 75), (cf avodah; shamash). Robert Kraft wrote: I'd like it to be an old name, the origins of which are lost in antiquity! The name is indeed old (consensus maybe!). Prof. Kraft has made many fine contributions to scholarship, including on Jewish and Christian history and literature and on computers (and e-lists), for which I say thank you, but, concerning merely the second portion of the sentence, to quote the Rolling Stones, this is not one of those. Incidentally, since it was brough up by Greg Doudna, who usually shuns Epiphanius vis-a-vis DSS, Simon C. Mimouni has announced (in Le Monde de la Bible) an article, Qui sont les jesseens dans la notice 29 du Panarion d'Epiphane de Salamine? cited as Novum Testamentum 43 (2001) 1-35, though, in fact, it isn't in issue one--presumably it will come later. Greg offered a shuah etymology, which he wrote parallels (key word in Dr. Davila's class) arguments for 'asah. But it is not a parallel case. For allowing Epiphanius here but not there, For failing to cite DSS relevant self-identifications and outsider descriptions. For using the biform shuah, avoiding the yod of the root yod-shin-ayin, which becomes iota (for Jesse and for Jesus). For dismissing the at least occasional usefulness of history of scholarship. For avoiding the choice: ones saved or ones saving. And for other reasons. Thanks for the discussion. best, Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list P.S.
Description turned name--happens every day. Crazy Horse. Pee-Wee. Joe Isuzu (sp?). Red. best S. Craft Goranson For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Essenes
Russell, you are right that I didn't word my question accurately. My apologies. Nonetheless I meant to refer to the following statement by you, as you were able to recognize: ...1QS, the sole Qumran document probably known to the Essenes... That seems to me an extraordinary underestimation. Because, in my view, Essenes wrote and copied and stored it. modified and used it. Because many Qumran texts, with good probability, were known by Essenes and others, Ben Sira, for example. Daniel, e.g., I would think probably known in some form by various Essenes and Pharisees, and perhaps known by some Sadducees, even if they wouldn't agree with all its content (parallels is not the only issue here, nor only indicator). On the other hand some Qumran texts were presumably for members only. Qumran, IMO, was neither a Sadducee nor Pharisee collection, and there are confluent Essene indications, and no other Jewish movement then was large enough. Perhaps we should agree to disagree. Dierk, thanks for your comments. I do not know much about military history. So far, it seems to me that Josephus noting something about grain exports and Agrippa II (if I remember that correctly; and there was some article questioning the amount or scope I happened to see listed in an annotated bibliography; if you're interested I can try to find it) doesn't suffice to indicate a library of Agrippa II used for Essene sources by Josephus, Philo, and Pliny. And, as I wrote, I think Agrippa II is too late. best wishes, Stephen Goranson For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list proposed etymology
I attempt here to respond to the last post from Ian H. Ian, I think it would only be fair if you would read my presentation of the case for the etymology before offering to analyse my proposal. You have misdescribed my proposal. Also it might be helpful to have a look at Yakov Malkiel's books Etymological Dictionaries (1976) and Etymology (1993). Etymology, I suggest, is not merely a matter of numbers. You have mentioned 2 texts, both pesharim, and excluded or ignored the other, additional, also important evidence I have offered. You have said 2 of the former aren't enough, but did not say how many such in your view are enough, nor where you got such a notion. But, briefly, heuristically, for conversation's sake, let's consider your distorted, reductionistic parody of my presentation, mimicing scholarship. You say 2 is not enough, these several instances in two extant ancient texts, not counting all other cognate evidence. These 2 in texts considered by most scholars who read Hebrew to be 2 Essene texts, on other, confluent grounds. Now, from the earliest times of the Hebrew language, including all texts before Qumran mss, all texts contemporary, and all texts extant later up to c. 300, how many uses of 'osey hatorah in non-Essene Qumran texts have you? Zero. Zero. If you don't think that's a significant database, spend time with a concordance of TaNaK and sit and please (with a translator) view microfiches numbers 14874 t0 14902 (the relevant subset of 'asah, Qal PTC) and then see what you think, having looked at the data. MMT, miqsat ma'aseh hatorah, surely related to doers of torah, has 'asah by itself as meaning doing torah, according to Qimron and/or Strugnell, as I noted. Have you considered that? And Avodah? And ...hatorah 'osey yahad...--why does a text with those three words (including yahad!) not count nor find mention in your analysis of my view!? And heresy/minut calculus of change? The publication Ha'arets, the land. Is that an agricultural publication? A geological journal? Or is there a special meaning assumed? I have already typed evidence of special use of 'asah at Qumran. I won't retype on that again here. The proposal was not first made 20 years ago, but at least as early as 1532, which you must have read--without any Qumran mss available. And in each century after. And by Wm. Brownlee, with only cave one texts available. Then more caves and more other research addred more indications. Finally, Ian, you wrote that you haven't seen the proposal mentioned in the literature of the last twenty years. Do you read my posts? James VanderKam in DSS After 50 Years vol. 2 argues at length in favor. It's mentioned in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Encyclopedia of the DSS, Eerdman's Dic. of the Bible. Oxford Enc of Archaeology in the NE, etc. and others, including fine scholars (they can speak for themselves), have told me they find it either persuasive or the best of the available proposals. Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list Essenes
Jurgen Zangenberg made an interesting comment weeks ago--along the lines of why reject *all* possible Qumran ms code use of Ephraim, a comment which raised the possibility of seeing Qumran study as monolithic (an iffy idea) and being (in my word choice, not his) reactionary against it, though in revolutionary language. Russell Gmirkin wrote that S was the only Qumran text Essenes could have known. Could they have known Isaiah? Jubilees? Enoch? 1QSa? 1QSb? 4QpNah? 4Q477? Could have known is a low threshhold. Russell, did you wish to rephrase? Ian H. misconstrued what I wrote, again, for example, by representing that I had changed my view that the pesher texts provided important evidence for the etymology of Essenes. I have been pretty well consistent for years in saying I do find that evidence -- and other (growing) evidence -- quite important. It is OK with me if any individual wishes to declare that Essenes from 'asah is impossible. I am confident about it; increasingly, other scholars who see it are confirming. But misrepresenting what I write is not fair play, not good faith. The grab-bag of recently offered ad hoc rules for denial of the etymology from 'asah, when put together, were they valid, I suppose, would exclude lots and lots of history.why? The book by Bergmeier did indeed get largely favorable reviews, as I wrote. By J.J. Collins, by J. VanderKam and others (references available on request). I myself would criticize various aspects of the book and appreciate others, but I agree with Bergmeier that Josephus employed more than one source on Essenes. The paper by Steve Mason takes several differing tacks in its winding course. I criticized that paper on ioudaios, for, for example, asserting that it was not going to deal with the historicity of marrying Essenes and then proceeding to zero in on that precise matter itself, and non-persuasively, in my view. I suggest one looks carefully at that paper and ask: does Steve Mason explictly state that Josephus did not use sources on Essenes? Or, if Steve Mason (certainly a quite learned Josephus specialist) would care to write on orion, he can be invited to say whether he denies that Josephus used written sources on Essenes. sincerely, best, Stephen Goranson For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list diverse responses and suggestions offered(Essenes; sources; e...
Russell Gm., thanks for your comments. Dierk, if you wish to offer reasons for your Agrippa II role proposal, I will consider them. Herb, but we now do have insider Essene texts with interpretations for initiates. If someone calls Elvis The King, you do not need to recognize Elvis as your King in order to see that some do indeed call Elvis The King. Similarly, in current jargon, you need not valorize Essenes as the true doers of torah in order to see that surely Essenes claimed to be precisely that. Some outsider texts--understandably so, mostly at first favorable in tone--go along. Many details remain to be sorted out, but that Essenes came from Hebrew 'asah is, in my view, ineluctable. Ian, you misconstrued what I wrote. The Essene pesharim are indeed central and quite striking in this self-definition case. But there is more, as well. Such as 'asah in MMT by itself, according to Qimron and/or Strugnell, meaning doing torah. Compare Avodah--work, and temple service. Such as many other things I typed which you ignored. By the way, in 4QpPs 'ose has dropped out in v. 10 pesher, Gaster noted; concerning the wicked. Such as C.D. Ginsburg from 1862 ff seeing Rabbinic wordplay against the self-proclaimed doers par excellence. If the etymology were impossible, how then did numerous pre 1948 scholars see it, then have it confirmed, as if on a rare silver platter, repeatedly, in the ancient tattered remains at Qumran? How many times need one suggest that common words can obtain special specific meanings? Amoraim (from a common verb)--the only ones who speak? Amidah--something about standing? The Wall? Haredim, in awe generally, or of...HaShem/Adonai? Kabbalists, Karaites. Halakha--walking? Gnostics, Taoists, Sons of Light, Cathari. Koran--recitation in general? Muslims--submitters in general? Friends--all friends? Mandaean Natsrayya, observants. Shomerim as keepers of torah in truth. Sampsaeans. Yahad, Essene community (from the Hebrew for the number one), and ... hatorah 'osey hayahad best, Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list diverse responses and suggestions offered (Essenes; sources; etc.)
The proposal has been raised that sources on Essenes came from a library of Agrippa II. What evidence supports it? It encounters difficulties. Agrippa II (50 CE ff) is too late for Pliny's source from the time of Herod the Great, at which time Essenes had been near the Dead Sea between Jericho and Ein Gedi for a long time, and probably too late for Philo of Alexandria. Pliny carefully listed sources; Pliny did not list Agrippa II; Pliny did list in first place for book 5 his main source, Marcus V. Agrippa. Pliny was never in Judaea (see orion paper). Pliny's source was Latin (Dulaey, Helmantica 1987). Josephus probably used a library in Rome of his patron Epaphroditus. The book by R. Bergmeier (not Bergemeier) got largely favorable reviews. It can be criticized (it ignores my JJS article on Posidonius Strabo and Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as Sources for Essenes and some other literature), and the sources may not parse the way he offers, but one of the book's main points is well acccepted: Josephus had more than one source on Essenes. Agrippa II library does not fit Bergemeier's (nor my somewhat different) analysis. I am not aware that Bergmeier backed off the view that Josephus had more than one source. Why should he? Pliny's Essenes by Dead Sea (c. 15 BC) is a different perspective than Josephus and Philo (who did share at least one source; see DSS after 50y v2) with Essene groups throughout Judaea/Palestine Syria. What Bergmeier did back off of--as numerous other scholars have also done; just as numerous scholars are now taking seriously Hebrew 'asah--is the proposal that Essenes came from the Aramaic cognate of Hebrew Hasidim. He made this change in his later ZDPV article (see orion bibliography). I do not base Essene etymology on merely two texts, important as those two are, defining themselves vis-a-vis other Jews. Please see DSS After 50 yrs for citations. But my question was not merely rhetorical: How many extant ancient texts does one require with explicit self-identifications in plainly Essene texts to acknowledge the name source? Ayin and he don't convey. What documentation have we of the origin of the name Shakespeare (to pick one of about twenty spellings)? As Al Baumgarten has written, ancient groups did claim in self-identifications to be the such-and-such par excellence. (Cf. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel.) Yes, edat haebionim appears at Qumran, midway from Psalms generic use to Irenaeus specific heresiology--but Ebionim cannot be the source of Essenes, whereas Essenes, living bios praktikos, as seen by philologians pre 1948, did come from 'asah. The origin of the name Essenes (in its multiple spellings and sources) helps explain why some outsiders did not accept that name, and many eventually forgot its origin. Rabbis would not concede that those others were the true observant Jews, but offered wordplay against that name as arrogant and misled, as Essenes caricatured Pharisees teaching wrong torah interpretation. A side issue, made so much of by Larry Schiffman, has muddied the water, despite his other insights; LS wants to show Pharisee halakha is older than eg Neusner allows; cf eg Schwartz in Reading 4QMM). In the process he feels more comfortable retrojecting anachronistic Mishnaic usage of Sadducees--though in fact this label is a separate issue to his first claim; nonetheless such misuse of Sadducee (never a self-designation in Qumran mss; Sons of Zadok, with varying role, are a subset of the group) has been influential, though already critiqued by, among others, Joseph Baumgarten, the most experienced expert on Qumran vis-a-vis the halakha Essenes opposed. The origin of Essenes from 'asah also coheres with what we can know of NT and Christian origins. The name Christian appears only 3 times in NT, and chronology is not the strong suit of Luke/Acts. Even before 1948 scholars recognized that some Essenes probably became Christians -- Nazarenes, more properly -- and among those at least closer to Essenes than Pharisees (like Paul) or Sadducees (not likely recruits) are John Baptist, Epistle of James writer, and John (prophet not apostle), author of Apocalypse. Apocalypse barely made it into NT canon. Difficulty in placing John Baptist vis-a-vis Jesus has been noted in NT (cf, eg. B. Ehrman). The Pauline view does not match James. The Gospel of Matthew (with more than one layer cf Flusser?) has more content favorable to torah observance than does Luke. 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)? How shall we translate 4Q177 5-7 18 [(C]T HTWRH (WY HYXD ? Best wishes, Stephen Goranson For private
Re: orion-list Doing the law/Essenes (fwd)
First, let me correct myself. Series I, a large microfiche set (now available, I think, on CD) from The Academy of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem, 1988) is 200 B.C.E. - 300 C.E. Apologies for my slip on the date range. This includes Ben Sira, Mishna, Tosefta, early midrashim, inscriptions, coins, etc.--a big database. For detailed listing of sources, see the guide book, pp. 149ff. Also, the collocation is absent in Hebrew Bible. Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...again, in Materials for the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language till c.200 CE, 'osey hatorah appears nowhere else (zero times) but in Qumran mss, and there as self-designation... best, Stephen Goranson What Hebrew sources do we have for this period apart from the Qumran scrolls? Thus, the phrase is going to appear there in Hebrew, or nowhere. Ian Young Sydney University For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Scroll jars
Perhaps it may be that by the time the bedouin found Cave Eleven people like Kando knew they could sell not only scrolls but also "scroll jars." Stephen Goranson For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
Re: orion-list Essenes at Qumran: A Reality Check
I find myself in the unusual circumstance of having promised (don't tell her, it's a surprise) to write a sestina for a scrapbook for my Mother's birthday. It is due soon, so I will be brief now. Rochelle Altman mentioned vehemence, "Fictional Documents and linguistic impossibilities," and, primarily, water, in an argument about 4000 people, an argument already recognized, in effect, as a straw man argument before I opened my mail. Furthermore, if Qumran could not have 4000 people, how could Yizhar Hirschfeld's smaller site, which, in any case, was not inhabited until later? The area has been well surveyed. Check, is there any real alternative site? I already responded to Rochelle's 5 criteria for "tags," and provided examples which show otherwise, examples which support the etymology from 'asah. I did not originate that etymology. If it were impossible, Melanchthon, Kochafe, Flacius, Cooper, Althofer, Boetticher, Jost, Landsberg, Oppenheim, Lightfoot, Ginsburg, Brownlee, and VanderKam probably wouldn't have pursued it. And the self-designation is in the ancient scrolls. What I suggest we consider, when there is occasion, is the history of scholarship, because that may help to explain some declarations of "impossibility." best, Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site and at http://www.mail-archive.com/orion%40panda.mscc.huji.ac.il/. For more information on the Orion Center, visit our web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
orion-list R. Altman: Essenes _could not_ have been at Qumran (was: GuiltyCorpses, etc.)
Dear Dr. Altman and list,
Rochelle, you do make bold claims, as in your paragraph below. As you know,
we disagree on Essenes vis-a-vis Qumran. For any readers interested, some
context of this difference appears in recent posts on ioudaios-list
available via
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioudaios (click on recent messages)
There, Dr. Altman gave 5 criteria for "tags," and concluded only one Hebrew
word, "hoseh" (to seek refuge), qualified; then, RA proposed Essenes might
be non-Jewish Buddhists. I wrote that Essenes were Jews, that ancient
namers knew not RA's 5 rules, or didn't always follow them (e.g.
"amoraim"--common Hebrew verb, and transitive, as is 'asah, from which, in
my view, "Essenes" comes), that RA's analysis of Qumran archaeology was
mistaken, and so on.
I have two suggestions. First, Dr. Altman, if you are so inclined, could
you provide for orion readers your reasons for the assertions in the quoted
paragraph?
Second, perhaps this exchange could serve a broader purpose if we take into
account some history of scholarship, including pre-1948 scholarship. For
instance, del Medico's Essene myth proposal; Eusebius' mistaken assertion
that Therapeutae were Christian monks and the debates about that by
16th-century Catholics and Protestants; the reintroduction of Philo and
Josephus in Jewish scholarship (e.g., Azariah dei Rossi); and some aspects
of Qumran study up to the reactions to two books in last Saturday's NY
Times {"Proposing a Messiah Before Jesus" by Emily Eakin).
In other words, for instance, in my view some Qumran texts are ineluctably
Essene, and carry not only such beliefs and practices, but also the source
of the name. (A Hebrew name whose recognition was obscured by two Aramaic
proposals of 16th-century origin.) There is plenty more to learn about
Essenes and Qumran; perhaps we can agree on that. It may be useful to learn
some of the sources of support for the assertion that Essenes "_could not_
have been at Qumran."
best,
Stephen Goranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[excerpt from Rochelle Altman post:]
Further, we do not know that we are dealing with a cult. Does the "Essene"
cult hypothesis hold up under reality checks? If the Essenes did exist as
an identifiable, taggable people, they were not at Khirbet Qumran. A very
simple physical and physiological reality check immediately eliminates
Qumran as an "Essene" site. As the "Essenes" were not, and _could not_,
have been at Qumran, classing those documents as "Essene" becomes extremely
doubtful.
For private reply, e-mail to Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site
and at http://www.mail-archive.com/orion%40panda.mscc.huji.ac.il/. For
more information on the Orion Center, visit our web site,
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
