James Davila has posted a summary of his good first, Indroduction, lecture for his DSS course, linked at:
http://qumranica.blogspot.com To this good introduction, may I suggest a little nuancing of one matter. It is quite true that Joseph M. Baumgarten was the first to publish (in J. of Jewish Studies 31 [1980] 157-70) on comparison of a portion of (what was eventually fully published as) 4QMMT and some rabbinic legal views attributed to Sadducees. That is, shared view, not group identity--for one thing, "Sadducees" has a different range of meaning in rabbinic literature than in second temple period literature. These legal matters are best not termed here "halakha," because that rabbinic term is not used at Qumran in the rabbinic sense; rather, as recognized, for example, in the good articles by Albert Baumgarten (no relation) in Encyclopedia of the DSS, Qumran texts include negative puns rejecting Pharisee halakha. See also JMB in volume 1 (1958-9) 209-21 of Tradition: a Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought. Joseph Baumgarten's insights are important. A quite learned Orthodox rabbi and emeritus Professor, who did his PhD dissertation on Qumran mss (The Covenant Sect and the Essenes, Johns Hopkins, 1954) with Wm. Albright, Joseph Baumgarten has spent more than five decades comparing these legal texts. So I think it is appropriate to note that his publications (bibliography on request) not only caution against identifying Qumran texts as Sadducee, but also advance several reasons to recognize in Qumran characteristics of Essenes. There may be some who still say Qumran was Sadducee (in the second temple period sense), but, as far as I can tell, Joseph Baumgarten is not one of them. best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
