Dear Philip, You may not be persuaded about the significance of different perspectives on the word "halakha," but, I submit, the authors of many Qumran texts were; so, if we are interested in history, we'd likely do well to recognize that and not use anachronistic terms. And beyond terminology, we may as well be open to possible differences in sources and methods of legal rulings.
best, Stephen Goranson Quoting philip davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I just want to make one small comment on an issue that has been > raised by Stephen Goranson but has recurred throughout the more > recent history of DSS discussion. > > > > >These legal matters are best not > >termed here "halakha," because that rabbinic term is not used at Qumran in > the > >rabbinic sense > > The question is not what the term is called but whether it is the > same thing. In fact it is not a term consistently used by the rabbis > either. Legal exegesis aimed at regulating the life of a Jewish > community, in both cases. And the techniques are similar enough, as > are the presuppositions. I remain to be convinced that the 'rabbinic > sense' is sufficiently different (hardly different, really) to > warrant a distinct terminology. > > > I. at any rate, despite the structures of my dear friend Al > Baumgarten, prefer this to any other word (such as??) for this > hermeneutical technique. > > > Philip Davies _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
