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

orion-list Goranson on 4Q448

I don't know how I rate being advertised so well in Goranson's
posts--perhaps I will owe him quite a royalties commission
one of these days.

> 	On the other hand, I found very useful, thank you, your posts on
> 4Q448, with bibliography and notes on E. Main's fine article. Would that
> G.
> Doudna had make more use of your indications. Instead, even recently, he
> wrote on orion that "of course" Qumran was Jannaeus's place. Not only is
> there no evidence for that, but 4Q448 (among other things) is plainly
Well it depends what you consider evidence.  If you want to be 
an extreme minimalist on the point, I agree no ostracon has yet 
been found or foundation stone identifying Jannaeus by name.  
But basically everything else short of that adds up to Qumran 
being a Jannaeus site.  Humbert 1994 discusses Qumran's 
having been built in the context of Jannaeus building Machereus, 
Hyrcania, and Alexandrion.  Jannaeus was heavily active on both 
sides of the Dead Sea at this time according to Josephus.  
Bar-Adon pointed out the obvious long ago--that Qumran should 
be viewed in terms of a regional settlement pattern and not viewed 
in isolation.  The dating of the foundation of Qumran to the time of 
Jannaeus is now commonplace from nearly all major players in the 
interpretation of Qumran archaeology.  Qumran is a Jannaeus 
site because (a) it is clearly a Jewish site, (b) it is within the 
territory controlled by Jannaeus's state; (c) it is founded in the 
time of Jannaeus; (d) it has a clear strategic function prior to 
the establishment of Masada in having the best view deep into 
Transjordan; and (e) Jannaeus founded other fortresses around 
it.  These considerations are just basic, and most in the field 
have awakened and smelled the coffee on this.  I agree this 
maybe isn't quite airtight.  But its what I would call serious and 
substantial, and perhaps it might be useful to consider, before you 
repeat the "no evidence" mantra again what, exactly, you would 
consider relevant as "evidence" in this case?  If you do have 
serious methodological criticisms of Bar-Adon, Humbert, Drori, 
et al, this is perhaps worth exploring further--perhaps you may 
be the one to raise a true minimalist critique against the 
Jannaeus-founding construction.

> against it--even if one accepted (which I don't) a minority view of a shin
> rather than an ayin as first letter of col. B. Doudna ignored your help.
Would you explain how 4Q448, if the first word of line B1 is 
read with a Shin ("song") can possibly, under any conceivable 
interpretation, be read as displaying an anti-Jonathan 
_tendenz_?  I confess I am completely baffled in reconstructing 
your logic on this one, and therefore I assure you this question 
is sincere and not rhetorical.

Greg Doudna

For private reply, e-mail to Greg Doudna <gd@teol.ku.dk>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.