Again, the James Davila lecture this week, on D and S, among other matters, is a good one. A few thoughts. (On some points I could expand or provide bibliography, if there is interest on one of them.)
1. It's good to hear that Maxine will give a lecture. I note that last week Popper was mentioned approvingly; this week Grossman approvingly. Popper; Grossman--are they compatible? Both fine of course for a course, but working along the same lines? Falsification surely has its place and uses, but I suggest Popper may not have described how science actually works, much less history. Max writes admirably clear sentences, especially noteworthy given that she speaks of pomo theory, so often jargony elsewhere, but, at the end of those fine sentences, where is the history result? After the method, what can we reliably see? Example? 2. C. Hempel, e.g., I suggest, would loose nothing (in her debatable proposal) to find a term other than "halakhah." Merely because something has "entered the literature" is insufficient reason to continue. For instance, "cold fusion" endered physics literature; is that reliable? Plus we now have on the table options of calling all Qumran law halahka (H) or just a Hemple subset H (or the H-type H?!), or none of it H. The third option, of course, I prefer-- it costs nothing and it helps. Several Q texts reject H. The Meier JBL article is a Catch 22, a heads I win tails you loose, preset deal: if H appears in Q (in a given sense) then they don't oppose it (?!), but if H does not appear (in sense X) then how could they be making a pun against it (answer: easy, given that they did). Plus Meier's article is an inadequate survey of the literature (Kutscher, Safrai...), plus brackets off directly relevant evidence. VanderKam's Tov FS article shows that oral torah--Q rejected--and H are linked. 3. The M. Klinghardt proposal appears unlikely. See, e.g., reasons given by Daniel Falk: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/1999b/msg00371.html 4. The "real" start of D? Meaning the original or earliest attested? Did a medieval reader Grossman-wise have a different view? BTW, Fred Astren has written about the (halakhaless) Karaites ironically developing tradition and history. All text religions need interpretaion and lkegal determinations, but not all that is halakhah. 5. N. Golb in his book with errors and in Cambridge History of Judaism and in a recent Jer. Post letter claims Jerusalem refugees were on the way to Machaerus. But he does not ask, why no scrolls there? Or on the path before Qumran? Nor is S or D at Massada. Plus Qumran floods; Masada much less so-- less ms chance for survival at Khirbet Q (unlike caves). Plus Period III habitation at Qumran changed things there. Different levels of proof in Golb's unlikely proposal. Plus Josephus has Jerusalemites smuggling things in not out. Plus Josephus got a Jerusalem scroll after it fell. 6. The partly Golb supporting works of Y. Hirschfeld--also with many errors-- has been described by Puech negatively (Le Monde des Religions Jan-Fev p. 15 e.g., "farfelue". Also in the 2004 J. of Roman Archaeology, M. Broshi responded to the error-filled Hirschfeld JRA review of Magness. 7. Of the 3, I think Damascus=Babylon is the minority view, J M-O'C and a few students mostly. I haven't done a recent review of the literature, but I think a real exile out of Judaea and north to a land of Damascus (north of Peraea?) is (over D=Q) perhaps the first view. best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
