[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
> 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
> 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.
For private reply, e-mail to Greg Doudna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to email@example.com 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.