Russell,
First of all: many thx for the important bibliographical references. I
always need some input :-)
>Ma'ansakir of Jub. 34:4 is often taken to be a combination of the names of
two cities, Ma'an and Sakir.<
Not really, for Ma'anisakir is to be identified as Hirbat al-Mahana al-Foqa
(Hirbat an-Nabi, Nabi Isma'il), ca. 4 km ssw of Sechem (Tal Balata) and 4.5
km s of Nablus.
Sakir indeed refers to Sychar (Joh 4.5) = 'En Swkr (Mishna Menahot 10.2), a
location ~1 km nw Sechem and 2 km wnw Nablus. The southern plain of Ma'an /
al-Mahna isn't meant here, for acc. to TestJud 6.3 and Midrash 693 the
village is located on top of a mountain (as I've mentioned already ealier).
>Jub. 34:4 also refers to other locations near Shechem. <
'Aresa (Jub) = 3.1 Asour; 4.3 Chebron (TestJud) = Hsr (Midrash) = Hsr (Sefer
ha-Yasar) = Hsd (Yalkut) is to be identified as Hirbat al-Tall near Haris,
17 km sw Nablus.
Seragan (Jub) = Aretan (TestJud) = Srtn (Midrash) is to be identified as
Sarta, 5 km wsw Haris.
Tafu (Jub) = Tarphoue etc. (TestJud) = Tpwh (Midrash) = Tpwh (Sefer
ha-Yasar) is to be identified as Tall She Abu Zarad, 8 km ese Haris.
Selo (Jub) = Silom (TestJud) = Sylw (Midrash) = Sylw (Sefer ha-Yasar), that
is Hirbat Selun, 8 km sw Tappuah.
Tamnatares (Jub) = Thamna (TestJud) = Tmnh (Midrash) is Hirbat Tibna, 18 km
wsw Silo.
Ga'as (Jub) = Gaas (TestJud) = G's (Midrash) = G's (Sefer ha-Yasar) is
eventually equivalent to Bet Illu, ~3 km sse Timna, i.e. ~18.5 km sw Silo.
Robel (Jub) = 6.1 Iobel; 7.9 Rhabael etc. (TestJud) = `rb'; rhb'l, zb'l
(Midrash) = 'rbl (Sefer ha-Yasar), not neccesarily the Galilaean Arbel /
Arbela (vdKam), i.e. Hirbat Irbid, but eventually (see Klein_ZDPV 1934,
15f.) a corruption of 'Aqrebet /'Aqraba. But there is no variation of 'qrbh;
moreover, Arbela is mentioned in 1Macc 9.2.
>While your argument (or is it Schmitt's?)<
I am merely the egg, not the hen. ;-)
>that this
presupposes the destruction of Shechem is interesting and worth considering,
it seems less than conclusive and ignores some of the other data in Jubilees
pertinent to dating.<
The destruction of Shechem indeed ignores the general conditions of the
Maccabean military scenario, nevertheless it fits perfectly into to the
local geography and the military spirit of the narration and was, thus,
important enough to be added (as an anti-Samaritan anecdote? cf. Ant XIII
275) in a later stage of political redaction, that is, in the end phase of
the 'true' Jewish military epoch 110 -76 BC. Now compare that with Cross'
palaeographical (whatever it is good for) dating of the fragments of
Jubilees.
Of course, that doesn't undermine an earlier origin of the tradition (163
BC: legalization of earlier traditions by A. IV, or 145/0 BC: death of
Ptolemy VI Phil. and fall of the Akra), but it logically excludes an earlier
origin of the Book of Jubilees (as we know it).
nihil novi,
Dierk
PS. What's up with your legionaries in 1QM? Enough panis militaris left for
a decisive breakthrough this year?
My Hellenistic phalangites are still busy with silly locked/unlocked shields
opening gambits of the front formation...
For private reply, e-mail to "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
