[Megillot] osey hattora

[Søren Holst]

Title: Meddelelse

Hi Russell   Thanks for the thorough update!   You say that "the pesharim ... are completely lacking in Serekh terminology, as are the hymns" I would have said that one of the marks of "sectarian" provenience is the use of "yachad" in an undisputably nominal sense. There are some cases where an earlier pan-Essenic view of the Qumran finds led scholars to translate yachad as "community" in places where it might as easily just mean "together" as in the Bible, but when it occurs with the definite article, I would say it looks like an _expression_ unique to the sectarian scrolls -- and it's found BOTH in 1QS and in the pesharim (pretty much all of them except pNah), although its occurrence in 1QHa is debatable.   Is this outside of what you define as "Serekh terminology"? I guess you were talking primarily of "halakhic" / religio-legal (trying to come up with a neutral term) issues?   thanks again Soren         -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 28. april 2006 04:04 Til: g-megillot@McMaster.ca Emne: Re: [Megillot] SV: osey hattora Hi Soren,   Here is part 2 of my response.   2. Old Paradigm, New Questions   The existence of two distinct legal traditions indicates the necessity for a thorough reappraisal of the Qumran corpus, since it can no longer be assumed that these texts are homogenous or that they were produced by a single sect.  The old idea that (H) and (S) laws in CD and other texts were produced by the same group now appears incorrect, but the appearance of these two legal traditions in the same library (and in the cases of CD and 4QSerek, the same texts) has not yet been adequately explained.  That the (S) laws are late additions in CD appears to show that the (H) group at some point came under the influence of the group that authored the (S) texts.   The Qumran field has not really assimilated the new findings.  For instance, Beall’s research on Josephus on the scrolls is sorely outdated in light of the Sadducee legal traditions now shown to permeate the halakhic texts at Qumran.  Significantly, the parallels Beall catalogued at pp. 123-25 pertain almost exclusively to the Serekh texts; of 26 parallels, 22 come from 1QS (and CD parallels).  Conversely, of the discrepancies he catalogs “most involve the Damascus Document, not the Manual of Discipline”, and these occur on points where these two texts themselves disagree.  Such disagreements are largely found in (H) passages.  I see no evidence that the Essenes used any text from Qumran except for a late, variant version of 1QS (which renders Goranson’s proposed derivation of the name Essene problematic, since the term does not appear in Serekh texts).  Harmonistic attempts to read the Essenes into the rest of CD or into other scrolls such as the pesherim appear misguided IMO.   The field has responded in various ways to the fact that both Sadducee and Essene traditions (as documented in later sources) are represented at Qumran.  One approach, motivated IMO by an unwillingness of the adherents of the old paradigm to truly come to terms with the new evidence, is to blur the distinction between Essene and Sadducee, claiming that the two somehow overlapped.  Perhaps the dominant model today is to label the Sadducee texts such as 11QT and (H) portions of CD as “pre-sectarian,” while the later (S) texts are considered “sectarian” by definition.  It is commonly suggested that the Essenes under the leadership of the Teacher broke off from the Sadducees to form their own sect and authored 1QS and other (S) texts, perhaps at Qumran.  Yet the Teacher is mentioned in none of the Serekh texts, while the pesharim which mention the Teacher are completely lacking in Serekh terminology, as are the hymns thought to be authored by this figure.  It has not yet occurred to the field that the Teacher might instead have been associated with the earlier halakhic (Sadducee) tradition (something I will discuss next in my response in this thread to Philip Davies).   Next:  3. The Teacher and the Halakhic Tradition   Best regards, Russell Gmirkin