As previously noted, Daniel Harrington, John Strugnell, Emmanuelle Main, Andre Lemaire, Geert Lorein, and I have argued that the 4Q448 columns B and C text speaks against King Jonathan. And I added that he, Alexander Jannaeus, was the Qumran Wicked Priest as well as the pesher Nahum Lion. Now I can add another scholar to that list. Ken Penner in 2000 wrote a paper on 4Q448 that I've now read (thanks Ken). His paper makes several good observations, in my view, and he concluded (p. 13) that this text "is antagonistic toward 'King Jonathan'; it is not a prayer for his welfare."
Proponents of the view that 4Q448 favours Jonathan have not adequately addressed the arguments that the text condemns Jonathan. For example, in the Eshel, Eshel, and Yardeni IEJ 42 (1992) publication, page 208, they recognize the materially possible reading ayin-waw-resh...ayin-lamed, but state that "the common biblical meaning...'rise against'...does not fit the context." Such could be seen as circular reasoning or begging the question, as the context is itself in question here. Again in the Eshel and Eshel JBL 119 (2000) article, the versus Jonathan arguments are dismissed in one footnote 23, pages 654-5. Though the Eshels correct one statement by Main, it is merely a minor side issue, and the rest of the argument there I find too general and hypothetical, e.g., how a writer would have phrased something, if written according to their expectations. It is finally becoming clear that the Qumran "Wicked Priest" is Alexander Jannaeus, and that his contemporary, Judah the Essene, is the Qumran "Teacher of Righteousness." best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
