Russell Gmirkin wrote (28 April):
Thank you, Jack, for your comments on the utility of the term halachah.
Everyone in the field knows that the term is anachronistic, but everyone knows
what it means, and consequently most everyone uses the term (with suitable
disclaimers) for the reasons you note. One problem is that we do not know what
term the authors of the halachic texts used for this genre of legal writing, or
if they even had a special term for it. Goranson has been advocating the use
of "a more neutral generic name," which I am open to, but I have yet to hear
what this name would be. The phrase "Qumran legal materials" fails to
distinguish the halachic materials from the Serekh legal materials that have to
do with social organizational matters, and the descriptor "Qumran" is far from
neutral, since both the Serekh and halachic materials likely predate Qumran.
Perhaps one could say "the legal materials that looks like later halachah and
use the same methods of legal exegesis, but which we cannot call halachah for
fear of offending members of a Jewish sect who have been dead for over 2000
years." In any case, this terminological dispute has nothing to do with
history or source criticism.
Also, a minor point of fact, the characterization of the legal content of
the halachic texts as Sadducees owes nothing to Josephus, but is based on later
rabbinic references to Sadducee legal tenets. The Talmud presents the rabbinic
(i.e. Pharisee) side and such Qumran scrolls as 11QT, 4QMMT present the
Sadducee side of the same legal controversies.
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin
I (Stephen Goranson) respond:
In my reading, Jack Kilmon's recent views appeared relatively more in agreement
with my recent writing than yours.
You can hear many neutral, generic terms: legal determinations, laws, decisions,
judgements, opinions, rulings, tenets (to borrow a term you used), for example.
The words are not far to seek.
As for Sadducees: what evidence do we have that they had any books outside of
TaNaK (if indeed that whole canon; e.g., including Daniel, with named angels
and resurrection?). Some suggest a Book of Decrees. Decrees, there is another
usable word.
An agreement on streams of liquid does not mean two groups are identical.
Pharisees and Essenes, unlike Sadducees, reportedly both believed in some kind
of resurrection, but that agreement does not make the groups identical.
Dismissing Josephus is not good methodological practice. "Sadducees" in Rabbinic
literature undergoes a broadening process, which to some extent resembles the
broadening process of a different term, Minim, as decribed by Reuven Kimelman.
Retrojecting later usage of terms is not good methodological practice, and
doing such, in my view, presents missteps that leave source criticism dependent
on such missteps less than persuasive.
best,
Stephen Goranson
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
"Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene"
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
