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

[RUSSELLGMIRKIN]

Dear Stephen,   You wrote:   "...G. Athas, on detailed observation, declared that dalets were carved in a direction that, if true, falsifies the proposed scenario that a forger carved the arms of the dalet both toward the left and stopped before a stone break; further, Athas claimed that the dalet goes all the way to the break, that, if true, redundantly falsifies what you described. This is relevant here, because what constitutes falsification, and recognition of it, is at issue."   What are you suggesting is being falsified?  The direction of inscription of the arms of the anomalously shaped dalet?  On inspection, I agreed with George Athos on this, and said so on ANE.  I don't see the wider relevance, and in any case this discussion belongs on ANE if at all.   You wrote:   "For example, your canditate has been described as wicked; so has my candidate; yet, in your post, the former is credited as evidence, and the latter is not credited as evidence."   You unduly simplify matters here by focussing exclusively on the single adjective "wicked", as if all we had in the pesherim was a single phrase, "the Wicked Priest".  But the pesherim go on to describe in some details his wicked activities:  stealing public funds, performing repulsive acts that defiled the sanctuary, conspiring to assassinate the Teacher of Righteousness in exile, etc.  These must all be taken into account, not just the adjective "wicked". And as I posted, these systematically correspond to what is known about Menelaus, but not Jonathan, Simon, or Jannaeus.  This evidence from the pesherim, in conjunction with Maccabees (which is full of good Hebraisms that often match phraseology from the scrolls), is credible and relevant.   Conversely, it is true that I would not credit many of the details you bring up about your candidate.  For instance, you have in the past brought up Jannaeus's drinking (on evidence of Josephus), which you may find disreputable, but which the pesherim do not raise with respect to the Wicked Priest.  From Strabo's Geography you also bring up the (Posidonian) accusation that the priests succeeding Moses were "superstitious" as further evidence of Jannaeus as Wicked Priest.  But you failed to note that Strabo (Posidonius) described as superstitious the priests who ruled the Jews _before_ Jannaeus, or that this superstition took the form of circumcision and abstinence from certain (non-kosher) foods, i.e. standard expressions of Graeco-Roman anti-semitism that the scrolls sectarians would have scarcely criticized Jannaeus for.  From Strabo you bring up the accuastion that Jannaeus and his sons were tyrants as further evidence of his wickedness.  The term tyrant (i.e tyrranos and its variants), used five times in Strabo, Geography 16.2.37, 40 to describe Jannaeus and his sons, is a technical Greek political term designating one who has seized sole rule by force (as at 40 where it is said "Alexander was first to declare himself king instead of priest").  Again, the accusation that Jannaeus illegitimately took the title of king, which is found in Strabo and other Graeco-Roman sources (and was used by Pompey's camp as an excuse to abolish the Judean monarchy) hardly constitutes evidence of Jannaeus as Wicked Priest, since the pesherim never raise this same charge against the Wicked Priest (and indeed never refer to him as a king).  You wrote: "You state a candidate for, say, 'wicked priest,' and present that candidate as falsifiable. I state a candidate for 'wicked priest,' and--unless I read incorrectly--you implied that my canditate is not falsifiable."   Actually, you do read me incorrectly.  What I have stated specifically and with exactitude in each and every posting is that certain events you propose to have taken place, such as the emigration of Judah the Essene to Transjordan, and an attack on him there by Alexander Jannaeus, or indeed antagonism of Jannaeus to the Essenes, are uncorroborated in any historical source and are not falsifiable.   I have never commented specifically on whether Jannaeus as Wicked Priest is falsifiable, but since you raise the issue, I consider this possibility not only falsifiable but falsified.  Pesher Habakkuk is very precise in its political terminology, describing the Romans are led by "rulers [moshelim]" (1QpHab 4.5, 10) (i.e. Roman consuls) who mock "kings [malekim] and priests" (4.2-3).  Yet 1QpHab 8.9-10 descibes to the Wicked Priest's "rule" rather than "reign", using the root MSL not MLK.  This appears inconsistent with the fact that Jannaeus was king.  Jannaeus taking the title of king was the central criticism against him by a variety of groups, including the Greek sources behind Strabo and the Jewish sources behind Josephus.  This criticism is absent in 1QpHab and 4QpPs(a).  I consider this particular objection insurmountable, and Jannaeus as Wicked Priest falsified.    Best regards, Russell Gmirkin