Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.

[RUSSELLGMIRKIN]

Stephen,   In your recent posting inviting discussion on methodology, falsification, Popper, etc., you write the following:   < But, to try 3 specific ane cases, perhaps falsifiable claims. 1) In some Qumran texts, the "wicked priest" is Alexander Jannaeus. 2) In some Qumran texts, the "teacher of righteousness" is Judah the Essene (the first Essene attested in Josephus, War and Ant., as alive and teaching in Jerusalem just before Jannaeus took power.) >   In the anecdote in Josephus, Judah the Essene is ensconced in the temple precincts teaching his disciples in the time of Aristobulus I (c. 103 BCE).  There is no recorded interaction of Judah the Essene with Alexander Jannaeus, and there is no way of telling how long he lived into the latter's reign, if at all.  In your imaginary history of the Essenes, you have some sort of conflict between Judah and Alexander Jannaeus which causes Judah to emigrate from Jerusalem to the Transjordan.  There you have him attacked by Alexander Jannaeus.  There is no historical record for any of these events, or indeed for antagonism of Alexander Jannaeus for the Essenes.  It is here that the question of falsifiability arises with respect to historical methodology.  At issue is whether proper historical methodology allows the construction of an imaginary history that is wholly uncorroborated in conventional historical sources (or in the case of Judah the Essene's place of residence and teaching, contradicted by historical sources).   I don't mean to particularly single you out here, since (1) you invited discussion of these two cases (I will leave aside the third); and (2) the Qumran field as a whole is rife with comparable examples of imaginary histories constructed out of some scholar's subjective ideas of when the scrolls were written.  One could cite here Allegro's suggestion that the Teacher of Righteousness was crucified by Alexander Jannaeus, or imaginary assaults against the Teacher by Jonathan or Simon (or Jannaeus, as you assert).  One can also point to the imaginative idea - uncorroborated by archaeological or textual evidence - that the Teacher of Righteousness founded Qumran, which has been an argument by many prominent scholars to place the Teacher of Righteousness within the time frame of the site of Qumran.  The Qumran field is rampant with such ad hoc, unfalsifiable, speculative historical scenarios and always has been.  There is simply no conception of genuine historical discipline in this area of study.  I could discuss the proper methodological approach to historical research in the scrolls, but the current comments sufficiently address the issues you raise.   Best regards, Russell Gmirkin