Stephen, Are we to deny the presence of 'halakhic' material at Qumran simply because the word 'halakha' does not appear in the scrolls or because it is not used in the rabbinic sense? Virtually every scholar working on the legal material in the scrolls, including J. Baumgarten, uses the word 'halakha' to describe the rulings and legal positions forwarded in these documents. Furthermore, in a recent article entitled "Is There 'Halaka' (The Noun) at Qumran?" John P. Meier notes:
"One need only read the 'Rule of the Community' (1QS) or the so-called 'Halakic Letter' (4QMMT), to say nothing of the extensive treatment of legal issues in the corpus of Philo or in Josephus's 'Jewish Antiquities,' to settle the question of the existence in the first century B.C.E. and C.E. of the reality that we call 'halakha.'" JBL 122 (2003): 150. Seeing that we cannot deny the presence of legal material in the scrolls that is 'halakhic' in nature, the word 'halakha' would appear to be an appropriate label. That is, of course, providing we acknowledge that the use of such a word is anachronistic. Best, Ian -- Ian Werrett PhD Candidate St Mary's College University of St Andrews ----------------------------------------------------------------- University of St Andrews Webmail: http://webmail.st-andrews.ac.uk _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
