It seems to me that your methodology is somewhat flawed, as you are on record as interpreting 4Q448 as (a) antagonistic toward Alexander Jannaeus, or (b) favorable towards Alexander Jannaeus, but written before this alleged Wicked Priest had fallen from favor with the sectarians. It appears evident that you are interpreting the evidence in light of your conclusions instead of the reverse.
On the matter of 4Q448, I think the reading "A Hymn for King Jonathan and all the Congregation of Your people Israel" is completely sensible (although I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if you have sound reasons). The alternative, "Rise up against King Jonathan and all the Congregation of Your people Israel" I find very dissonant: Jannaeus aside, why would the author of 4Q448 want God to rise up against his Congregation and chosen people Israel? Please address this point if you would.
Additionally, in good Hebrew-poetic tradition, this first line appears to parallel the thought in the line that follows, "who are in every direction under Heaven, may they all be well, Perfect before you, and a Commonwealth in Your Name." Does not Hebrew poetic parallelism argue that the first line is also in the form of a blessing on (Jonathan and) Israel? Please address this point as well.
On Jannaeus as first approved by the sectarians (i.e. Essenes according to your view), then condemned as Wicked Priest, there is no historical evidence that Jannaeus was ever aligned with the Essenes. Indeed, Ant. 13.288-296 appears to imply that Hyrkanus and his sons had problems with the Pharisees and the nation due to switching over to the Sadducees (not Essenes). Nor is there historical evidence that places Judah the Essene of earlier times anywhere other than in Jerusalem, teaching in the temple, much less Qumran. The historical evidence if anything thus rather counters the speculations that seeks to interpret Qumran as an Essene foundation in this time period. And I rather imagine that if Jannaeus, as Wicked Priest, had sought to attack the Teacher at Qumran (Pesher Habakkuk recording an attempt on the Teacher at his "house of exile"), that Qumran would have been flattened overnight. Would you not agree, given Jannaeus' military successes (as well as the proximity of Qumran to Jerusalem and Jericho)?
I look forward to any insights you may offer on 4Q448.
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin
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
