Dear Ian Werrett, We are not compelled to call "halakha" legal determinations that the authors would have cringed to hear called "halakha"--is there an history advantage to calling something what it is not?--and, I suggest, it's better method if we do not use a misleading term. "Legal" texts is more generic and easy enough to use. Yes, I deny presence of (Pharisaic and Rabbinic) halakha at Qumran, and, if I may say so, that is a useful recognition. Not only do Qumran writers not use it, but they criticise it by puns plain enough to be seen by most Qumran scholars.
As for Meier's JBL article, I don't have it at hand, and will quote from it later if that seems useful, but he explicity brackets out much of the directly relevant evidence about Pharisees; and hence, IMO, presents a skewed assessment. For a broader and, in my view, more insightful analysis, see James VanderKam's article, "Those Who Look for Smooth Things, Pharisees, and Oral Law," in _Emanuel_, the Tov Festschrift, (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 465-77, for additional evidence of Qumran opposition to, and characterization of, Pharisee traditions. If I recall correctly, Joseph Baumgarten has explicitly stated, in publications, and in private communication, that "halakha" in the Rabbinic Hebrew sense does not appear in the DSS. He and some others (including Schiffman, at times) sometimes use the word in quotes and or with a demurrer about its use in this context. And sometimes (not by virtually everyone, but, even if it were so, is that justification? can we not improve usage?) the word is used without acknowledging it as out of place. To take another example, Karaites did not accept Rabbinic halakha. It would not be a good history of Karaites that obscured that such obtained. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting Ian Werrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Stephen, > > Are we to deny the presence of 'halakhic' material at Qumran simply because > the > word 'halakha' does not appear in the scrolls or because it is not used in > the > rabbinic sense? Virtually every scholar working on the legal material in > the > scrolls, including J. Baumgarten, uses the word 'halakha' to describe the > rulings and legal positions forwarded in these documents. Furthermore, in a > recent article entitled "Is There 'Halaka' (The Noun) at Qumran?" John P. > Meier > notes: > > "One need only read the 'Rule of the Community' (1QS) or the so-called > 'Halakic > Letter' (4QMMT), to say nothing of the extensive treatment of legal issues > in > the corpus of Philo or in Josephus's 'Jewish Antiquities,' to settle the > question of the existence in the first century B.C.E. and C.E. of the > reality > that we call 'halakha.'" JBL 122 (2003): 150. > > Seeing that we cannot deny the presence of legal material in the scrolls that > is > 'halakhic' in nature, the word 'halakha' would appear to be an appropriate > label. That is, of course, providing we acknowledge that the use of such a > word is anachronistic. > _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
