----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <g-megillot@McMaster.ca>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: history analysis (was Re: [Megillot] SV: osey hattora)
Quoting Jack Kilmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I agree with you, Stephen, in that I never quite understood the
speculation for Sadducee origins for the DSS based on what little we know
about them...mostly from Josephus. Of course, Josephus' trustworthiness
on his reporting on Sadducee beliefs might be suspect. Given that the
Hillelite and Shammaite Pharisees and the Sadducees as well as the DSS
people (whoever they were) all differed from each other on halakhic
matters, I am missing why you think the use of the term "halakha" is not
helpful in characterizations of these groups. Can you unpack that a
little more for me?
BTW, your paper is very compelling for Judah as TOR.
Jack Kilmon
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your agreement concerning the Sadducees and that Judah the
Essene was
the Teacher of Righteousness ("very compelling"). I appreciate it.
"Halakha" today quite properly applies to Jewish legal determinations. But
in
Late Second Temple Period, based on the Qumran Essene puns agains seekers
of
smooth things/flattery, Essenes did not call their legal determinations
halakha, but rather punned against the halakha of one group they opposed,
the
Pharisees. Then the Rabbis, as often noted, were the heirs of the
Pharisees, at
least in this terminology. As for the Sadducees, we do not know that they
called
their legal determinations halakha, so it is methodologically better, not
prejudging nor retrojecting, simply to call their legal determinations by
a
more neutral generic name. Philo didn't use the term halakha either. Did
the
early Samaritans? The early Karaites? Calling Essene legal texts
halakha--a
term they rejected--confuses distinctions and self-descriptions of groups.
best wishes,
Stephen Goranson
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
OK, I see your point. Since Halakha has its foundations in the Talmud and
the Mishna as "the way" of practicing the 613 mitvot, it is an anachronistic
term to earlier 2nd temple times and climes. The concept from Rabbinical
times includes aspects that did not exist then. OK...I buy it. I wonder,
however, if it is possible to separate the term from the concept which is
soundly rooted in DSS scholarship. MMT comes to mind, often called "the
Halakhic Letter." Sussman appears to join the concept to the DSS in:
Sussman, Y. "The History of 'Halakha' and the Dead Sea Scrolls --
Preliminary Observations on Miqsat Ma`ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT)" Tarbiz 59
(1990):11-76.
The entire corpus of DSS books from Vermes to Davies seem to use it. There
are many cases where it is difficult not to use terms that are techically
anachronistic but conceptually pertinent.
Jack Kilmon
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
