Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
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,thesesystematically 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 campas 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 specificallyand with exactitudein 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 considerthis possibilitynot 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
Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
Dear Stephen, Some selective responses. (On the Tel Dan Inscription, your comments are both incorrect and out of place on Megillot, and will therefore be ignored.) You wrote: "Russell, your misrepresentation included declaring that there was no evidence other that what you mentioned" Au contraire, you here misrepresent me. I made two very specific declarations in my posting, neither of which conform to your statement: (1) "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." (2) "In yourreconstructed 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." Do you agree? If not, where is the historical record for contact between Judah and Jannaeus, for a hypotheticalemigration of Judah the Essene to Transjordan, or an attack on Judah by Alexander Jannaeus, or antagonism of Alexander Jannaeus for the Essenes? You continued: "whereas you know I that draw on other evidence." I do know that you have advanced certain IMO faulty arguments from Strabo the geographer for Alexander Jannaeus as Wicked Priest that you have declined to discuss on this list. But I don't see how those arguments relate to the specific questions posed above regarding historical sources on an alleged assault on Judah the Essene by Alexander Jannaeus. You wrote: "Local and some foreign groups of every stripe had cause for worry during Jannaeus' long time." Again, I see no basis for this broad assertion in the historical sources. And specifically, no basis in historical sources for a proposed antagonism of Jannaeus and the Essenes. You wrote:"Some things are more readily falsified or more completely falsified than others. Falsification may not be our only tool. Another observation or invitation was to consider the most probable (tentative) reconstruction of history, the confluence of evidence." The basic methodological question as I see it is whether one should insist on systematic historical corroboration from ancient sources for one's proposals, or whether it is acceptable to advancehistorical proposals lacking historical corroboration, or even the possibility of falsification in the sources. If you can't falsify a scientific hypothesis through experimentation or observation, you aren't doing science.If you can't falsify ahistorical hypothesis through reading the sources - the historical analog to observation in the hard sciences - you aren't doing history, IMO. As an example of how this is done, take my historical hypothesis that the scrolls date to the Hellenistic Crisis and Maccabean War. I have already demonstrated the Maccabean backgroundof the War Scroll in articles in DSD, so let us instead here take on the Wicked Priest. During the Hellenistic Crisis we have Onias III, whom II Macc. 3.1; 4.2, 35characterize as a very righteous high priest; Simon the temple captain, his opponent, whom 2 Macc. 3.4-6, 11; 4.1-3 designates as a liar, plotter, and murderer; and Menelaus, whom 2 Macc. 4.23-25, 50 describes as exceedingly wicked - and qualifies as the most wicked high priest of the second temple period. These three make obvious candidates for the Teacher of Righteousness, the Man of Lies, and the Wicked Priest of the scrolls. Focussing exclusively on the hypothesis that Menelaus was the Wicked Priest, we may corroborate the following details: that he "ruled" Israel (with the root moshel=ruler, not malek=king, in 1QpHab 8.9-10); that he "stole" and "seized public money" (2 Macc. 4.32, 39; cf. 1QpHab 8.11-12); that he conspired to assassinate the Teacher of Righteousness in exile (and eventually succeeded, 2 Macc. 4.33-34; cf. 1QpHab 11.4-8; 4QpPs[a] 4.8); that he performed repulsive acts and defiled the sanctuary (the looting and desecration of the temple in 167-164 BCE in 2 Macc. 4.39; 5.15, 21, etc.; cf. 1QpHab 12.8-9); that he "betrayed the law for the sake of riches" (2 Macc. 5.15; cf. 1QpHab 8.10); that he was eventually turned over to the dreadful nations who cruelly executed him (2 Macc. 13.3-8 by suffocation in hot ashes; cf. 1QpHab 9.10; 10.5 by "sulferous fire"). All these historical events described in the scrolls are directly corroborated in conventional historical sources. None of these same events are corroborated for Jonathan, Simon, Alexander Jannaeus, or other Hasmonean Era candidates for Wicked Priest. One could go through the same procedure of testing against the historical data for Onias III as Teacher of Righteousness or Simon as Man of Lies, with similar results. But the basic point is I think amply illustrated: the historical content of the scrolls can and should be systematically tested against the sources, and
Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
Russell Gmirkin, In response: I do not agree with many of your recent statements. I'll mention some and try to look for a more productive way forward than the recent exchange. Briefly, as you called my comments incorrect, 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. Back to Qumran. You wrote of Strabo the geographer. Strabo, of course, also wrote History. The History, using Posidonios, and used by Josephus and others, is the text that I have presented much information about, again too long to repeat here. (The Histories of Posidonius and Strabo, both beginning in 146 BCE--the date Josephus borrowed to introduce Essenes and others--were once quite influential, in the time many extant Essene classical sources, many of the Stoics, got their information, but the histories fell out of favor, for reasons discussed in the literature.) Strabo's History in many ways is a more important and more ambitious work than his Geography, and it included much not in the Geography, so calling him Strabo the geographer will not do. Anyone is free to disagree with a history reconstruction. I have presented historical corroboration. You state that I have not, and you state that you have. In my view, it has not been demonstrated that the Hellenizing crisis or Maccabee proposed dating fits the evidence, though that was once a popular view. I suggest it is too early for the events named, and that it lacks corroborating Hellenistic crisis focus in the Qumran mss, and that it fails to account for the sectarian texts of Qumran. I could present these in more detail. But I wonder whether that is worthwhile at this point. In part, because I see differing levels of evidence required by you for your reconstruction than for mine. 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 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. I could go on in response, but perhaps this much suffices for now. On one thing, at least, I think we partly agree, so I'll end with that. You wrote that these events did not happen in a corner. I partly agree. I do not think everything mentioned in the Qumran mss was necessarily public and well known, in part because Essenes and Qumran writers had some secret and/or sectarian writings. But I agree that the character they called wicked priest would be an individual known to history. One way to determine which well-known candidate fits is to pay more attention to chronology and to sectarian developments. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
P.S. Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
P.S. I could address further claims in R. Gmirkin's latest post, and will, if seems useful. And corroboration and coherence and chronological-suitability, for instance, are all among important aspects of worthy proposals. But I would like to state more clearly than I did before that the Qumran mss also offer some new information on history, including information not available already in, say, Josephus, and the other currently available sources--some things not previously known--and that Qumran texts also help illuminate some of those sources. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
Russell, your misrepresentation included declaring that there was no evidence other that what you mentioned, whereas you know I that draw on other evidence (too much to retype here; I hope to offer more later). Misrepresentation included again presenting Judah ensconsed in the temple, as if he had that option or as if he could not move (in other words, it is the wrong word), and as if his prophecy concerning two brothers of Jannaeus just before the latter took power somehow made him effectively about to die in Timbuktu (spelling?), i.e. irrelevant. (This reminds me of the minimalism (of another) declaring a min was attested in Sepphoris on one time only. Strabo's extant description of Egypt includes Jews in one line only--did he know more, say in his more ambitious History?) Rather than describing Judah as the first known Essene, teacher, at the beginning of Jannaeus getting out of prison; a sectarian among sectarians--local and some foreign groups of every stripe had cause for worry during Jannaeus' long time. He was a major priest and ruler. Most others proposed as wicked priest are too late or too early. On ANE list you Russell recently declared differences between you and G. Athas small or the like; but he described carving of the dalet that you consider forged was written in a direction that would make your forgery claim (about what the carver did) on the Tel Dan Aramaic inscription falsified. I have read your curious source criticism and your claim that M is the Maccabee War Scroll. I am puzzled why you offer a method lecture. Have you taught method at some university? A point I was trying to make is that the 3 items (listed, not argued there) are related: E.g., Are the 2 characters historical? Are they contemporary? Is one Essene? What's Essene? Some things are more readily falsified or more completely falsified than others. Falsification may not be our only tool. Another observation or invitation was to consider the most probable (tentative) reconstruction of history, the confluence of evidence. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
Stephen, In your recent posting inviting discussion on methodology, falsification, Popper, etc., youwrite 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 toplace the Teacher of Righteousness within the time frame of the site of Qumran. The Qumranfield is rampant with suchad hoc,unfalsifiable, speculativehistorical 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
Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc.
First of all, a paradoxographical seer-figure as integral part of a collection of anecdotes is just an interchangeable symbol, a political message without the need for any historicity. _Dierk - Original Message - From: Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: g-megillot@McMaster.ca Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [Megillot] falsifying methodology; 3 cases; etc. Russell, you have misrepresented my views especially in what I consider to be the support for them and possibilities for falsifying, so I doubt whether dialogue with you on such unreliable basis was much promise. best, Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
