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

[RUSSELLGMIRKIN]

Dear Stephen,   You wrote: "I see no logical requirement that the root MLK must be used in the surviving fragments of 1QpHab that you select or else Jannaeus is called, by you, falsified."   The essence of scientific method (which includes history - if properly practiced as a true discipline) is the testing of hypotheses.  The pesherim provide ample material for testing hypotheses regarding the historical identity of the Wicked Priest or other figures from the scrolls.  The hypothesis of Alexander Jannaeus as Wicked Priest is not corroborated by the numerous details provided about the Wicked Priest in the pesherim, and indeed here you seek to discount the serious inconsistencies between Jannaeus as king and the figure the pesherim describe as a Wicked Priest. You wrote: "And, as you know but did not mention, in my view, 4Q448, refers to King (MLK) Jonathan in a dualistic war setting manner I (and others) consider quite negative."   Whether 4Q448 displays a positive or negative attitude to Jannaeus is debatable, and more to the point 4Q448 is not sectarian, so its relevance is moot.  But if it were a sectarian text, this would be even more problematic for your hypothesis, as it would demonstrate that the sectarians knew of Jannaeus as king, whereas the pesherim do not know of the Wicked Priest as king. You wrote: "And King Jonathan is Wicked Priest, I say, so even in the case that you chose, MLK does indeed appear in my proposal. No falsification there."   To state the obvious, King Jonathan is not labeled the Wicked Priest in 4Q448, which undermines the logic of the above statement.  The issue is not whether MLK is found in 4Q448, or in your proposal, but whether it is found in the pesherim with respect to the Wicked Priest. You wrote: "(And you did not respond on chronology, sectarian development, and lack of Hellenizing crisis in the Qumran mss.)"   Briefly, the early Hellenistic Crisis is well documented in 1QpHab, and the later Hellenistic Crisis and Maccabean War are documented in 4QpNah and 1QM.  CD spans the two, and contains much of interest with respect to sectarian developments in both Judea and Transjordan in this period, but you will have to await a couple articles in preparation for full details. You wrote: "(Were "king" the main complaint about him, "wicked king" might be in the pesharim.)"   Exactly.  The figure if 1QpHab was not called a king, or "wicked king", but Wicked Priest, and his term of office (as priest and governor but not king) was accurately described using the root MSL, not MLK. You wrote: "For now I'll state that my J. of Jewish Studies 45 (1994) 295f article plus many additions online over the years give reasons that Posidonius, Strabo, and M. Agrippa were sources on Essenes to several of the classical sources on Essenes."   The material in Strabo, Geography 16.2 (which we agree was taken from Posidonius) ultimately derives from the Pharisee delegation at Damascus in 63 BCE, via Theophanes, Pompey's biographer, as I've discussed elsewhere.  But if it did reflect Essene ideas as you propose, this would further argue against Jannaeus as Wicked Priest, since the pesherim do not describe the Wicked Priest as a king, as Jannaeus is described in Strabo/Posidonius.   Given that all available sources on Alexander Jannaeus describe - and often criticize - him as king, including Josephus, Strabo (Posidonius), and 4Q448, while the 1QpHab uses the root for ruler rather than king, and fails to criticise him as malek, this more than suffices to falsify the hypothesis of Jannaeus as Wicked Priest. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin