[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion Re: 4QpesherNahum and crucifixion

Dr Goranson,

I know from past observation that there is little hope of coming to any
conclusions about those things you posted as shorthand in your previous
post. Hence you may restate your position as many times as you like without
doing anything more than rehashing previous words. Obviously my post was
somewhat puzzling to you: what you stated as agreed upon by many readers (of
this list implied, hence "scholars"), ie the five presuppositions, are
nothing more than that, agreed upon. Yet by stating this material as you
have, and do frequently, it has the effect of rendering the information in
some sense "respectable", yet, given the approach, it makes me think of
those who interpret the "poetry" of Nostradamus.

Sorry, if this is strong, but in the end all one has is an "Antiochus", half
a "[Deme]trius", a furious young lion and something that is reminiscent of
Josephus' story of the crucifixion of the Pharisees under Alexander
Jannaeus, who was not particularly liked by Josephus. This doesn't add up to
much when one thinks that Demetrius III Eukairos has little hope of being
defined as the "king of Javan", and that crucifixion was practised in Judah
by the Seleucids (the significance of AssMoses as against Herodotus). The
analysis contained in those five presuppositions seems more like
wish-fulfilment, depending so heavily on Josephus as one must here.

Forgive me, but I have no desire to induce rehearsals of a position most
people know you to hold. I merely wanted to complain about the complacency
of those five presuppositions, though I can't supply an analysis of pNahum
that is any more alluring. I appreciate your desire to grapple with the
significance of the terminology found in these documents, but I fear you are
bringing too much baggage to the task: had 4Q448 been released first instead
of pNahum, I believe people would now be saying that one can't trust pNahum,
despite its stimulating historical allusions. Familiarity is not necessarily
a boon.

Oh, and sorry, "bodgey" was a slip. Perhaps "dodgy" would be a little more


John J. Hays
I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto!