By way of history.
Isn't it necessary first to establish that the Qumran texts have (a) historiographical intentions and (b) might convey historical information.
The problem with much historical reconstruction, as with biblical 'history' is that if some kind of accord between known history and a literary source exists, then that is taken as confirmation of historicity of the text.
Why would we think that the soubriquets of the pesharim are historically reliable when those of the Hodayoth are almost certainly not indicative of precise groups, let alone individuals?
Why is the 'Wicked Priest' absent from D (though we certainly have wicked priests)
Why is the figure of a founding 'teacher' nowhere hinted at in S?
The one historical conclusions that might be permitted is that if Josephus has been asked wither the group(s) described in D were what he would dub 'Essenes' he would almost certainly say (he'd have to!), 'yes'. What if Pliny or Philo were to answer differently, though?
In the end it may be interesting to speculate on the identity of historical characters. But such identification will (a) probably never be certain enough to base any critical history upon, and (b) tell us little about the nature and origin of the groups represented in the texts.
Yes, I do like doing history. But the sort of history that we can work at rather than may informed or uninformed guesses about and which in the end explain little or nothing.
Philip Davies -- Professor Philip R Davies University of Sheffield _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
