Re: [Megillot] Satan and Belial

2007-08-09 Thread Dierk van den Berg
In 11Q15, 4 (PAM 43.895, not 42.895) ? Hard to say, really. Could be both. _Dierk - // - - Original Message - From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Dierk van den Berg Cc: g-megillot Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [Megillot]

Re: [Megillot] Satan and Belial

2007-08-09 Thread Jeffrey B. Gibson
Dierk van den Berg wrote:  First of all, totally different from what is assumed here, both terms in question, Satan as well as Belial are, among others, used in the DSS to describe the figurative evil, yet with emphasis on the latter term. But to add insult to injury, 11Q11 col. 4 (PAM

Re: [Megillot] Satan and Belial Offline

2007-08-09 Thread Dierk van den Berg
Generally speaking, it is alrteady a technical term. And this term is not used by the Yahad !!! You are dealing, thus, with Satan-terminology of the long-living predecessor sect of the mxhqq, IMO the philosophical root of the Essenes in Josephus et par. _Dierk - Original Message -

Re: [Megillot] Satan and Belial Offline

2007-08-09 Thread Jeffrey B. Gibson
Dierk van den Berg wrote: Generally speaking, it is alrteady a technical term. Is it? What's your evidence for this, especially if you think that the technical meaning of this term is not adversary? And this term is not used by the Yahad !!!You are dealing, thus, with