Re: orion belated response to R. Gmirkin

[RGmyrken@aol.com]

     Thanks to Stephen Gorenson for his response.  Some brief concluding
responses of my own:

>>>	IMO: the difference in worldview between 1,2 Macc is not "vague."
>>>Macc celebrates a military victory which Qumran mss do not...
>>>1/4QS is an Essene text, with
>>>changes over a long time, regardless of the dates. 
>>>Jubilees and parts of Enoch I also consider Essene. 

Yet Jubilees 34, 37-38 celebrate Maccabean military victories (see VanderKam,
Textual Stidies inthe Book of Jubilees); as does 1 En. 90:9-16 (in the Animal
Apocalypse).  And of course 1 QM is highly militant; 1QSa is explicit about
conscription; and the whole social organization of the sectarians in CD, 1QS,
etc., is military.

Also, the latest historical allusions in Jubilees are to Maccabean battles of
163 or 161 BCE; most of 1 Enoch, and especially the (pro-Maccabean) Animal
Apocalypse date to 163 or before.  We agree these documents are sectarian:
 you call them Essene, I label them Hasidim based on their widely recognized
pro-Maccabean content.  I'm not sure our positions are that different
regarding the scrolls corpus containing old Maccabean Era literature,
especially in light of your conceding the potential age of 1QS.

>>>1/4QM deals with a future, 40-year war which never happened. 

In my forthcoming article "Historical Allusion in the War Scroll" I will
argue that the first seven years of the war were indeed historical, and that
historical allusions date 1QM to 163 BCE.

>>>Q mss express disapproval of national and temple administration. 

In my presentation at Jerusalem, "The War Scroll, the Hasidim, and the
Boycott of the Temple," I argued that this was during the brief period
170-163 BCE, when militant Hasidim abandoned Jerusalem for the wilderness.
 1QM has a pan-Israel outlook (though the "violators of the covenant" are
among the sons of darkness; in Dan. 11:32 these are Jewish collaborators with
Antiochus IV); 1QM 2 envisions the temple returned to sectarian control.
 (And the temple did indeed return to Hasidim control in 164/163 BCE.)

>>>Qumran Essene texts are more like Daniel (and Apoc. John) than Macc 
>>>in that they express hope that God and the angels
>>>will defeat enemies. They do not call for armed revolution. 

2 Macc. 3:22-28 shows angelic intervention against Heliodorus at the temple
under Onias III; 2 Macc. 5:18 contrasts this with the lack of angelic
intervention at the looting of the temple by Antiochus IV and the wicked
Menelaus.  God assisted the Maccabees in battle; cf. 2 Macc. 8:24; 10:16.  2
Macc. 10:29-31 describes angelic participants in the battle of Carnaim.
  This outlook is similar to the 1QM, in which the sons of light and angels
fight together against their enemies.  Osten-Sacken and Davies have both
pointed out close similarities of portions of 1QM with Maccabean religious
wars.

>>> But I read Russell Gmirkin's posts with interest, partly because he
engages in
>>>substantial research, and because he has shown willingness to consider
>>>new data, such as the C14 exclusion of a 63 BCE deposit date, as well as
>>>old data, such as the link of S and Essenes.

Thanks.  I would suggest we abandon our discussion for the present, or at
least defer it until the articles I refer to above are published.  

Best wishes,
Russ Gmirkin

---

• Prev by Date: orion Orion text provenance Q's
• Next by Date: orion Qumran habitation
• Prev by thread: orion belated response to R. Gmirkin
• Next by thread: orion Scroll jars
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread