If I may venture comments on some matters perhaps not quite resolved on the
sometimes quite helpful ane and g-megillot lists. It was perhaps misleadingly
stated that I do not recognize the falsifiability method. I think what I've
said is that I'm not a Popperian. Falsifiability, itself, existed before Karl
Popper did; and likely many of us use it sometimes. I merely am not persuaded
that Popper (or Kuhn's different view--2 smart people) adequately explained
all that happens, nor all that should happen, in science or history research.
E.g., briefly, can Popper be falsified? (There's a journal that allows such
questions, more rigorously stated.) Can falsification be 100%? If so, how can
that be falsified? Popper may be good enough for, say quantum mechanics--hire
some quantum mechanics to make a bomb; good enough for
government work. ;.) Part of the problem may be the boundaries of the problems
(if you dislike Plato, atomism?). Popper, I guess, was not post-modern. And I
assume we agree some problems are unsolved or not mutually agreed on
("Istanbul" origin, e.g.). But, to try 3 specific ane cases, perhaps
falsifiable claims.
1) In some Qumran texts, the "wicked priest" is Alexander Jannaeus.
2) In some Qumran texts, the "teacher of righteousness" is Judah the Essene
(the first Essene attested in Josephus, War and Ant., as alive and teaching in
Jerusalem just before Jannaeus took power.)
3) The various Greek spellings of what English has as "Essene" and "Ossene"
came from Hebrew 'osey hatorah, self-designation in some Qumran texts, texts
on other grounds widely, properly assessed as Essene texts.
What would it take to falsify or affirm or declare data-insufficient or
declare improperly-stated or any other appropriate option I left out?
Not to repeat all the arguments or to get too philosophically windy, a few
specific comments.
Number 1 at least conceivably can be falsified, if the data exists. But if the
WP were a title held by more than one individual including AJ, shall we call
it partly falsified? What's the nature of the boundaries of the problem?
What's relevant to consider and write in history research? Two problems at
once? Two methodologies at once? Writer tendenz over time with different
data? When someone claims a methodology but does not follow it? And what are
non-falsifiable claims in history? Is etymology (i.e., what happened in
language, not what one might have prescribed)? If one claims or claimed, say,
that all Qumran mss predate 62 BCE and that all internal text
references stop before then "permanently," is that falsifiably-stated? If
there are X number of 2 sigma C14 date ranges entirely after 62 BCE, does that
falsify?
Is it appropriate to consider a complaint that those around the scrolls early
on underestimated urban Jewish culture, so the scrolls weren't connected to
Qumran? When is it methodologically appropriate to consider and/or quote old
stuff in history, history of research? Bios praktikos, operarii, factores
legis, observers of torah, Essenes as experts in the law of God, rabbinic
texts versus ostentatious separatists named from saying 'what is my duty that
I may do it'?--of Essenes/Ossenes. "....Jewish 'Ossaioi'....at all events,
various writers have shown that there must be a close connection between
the 'Ossaioi' and the earlier Essenes [note 12 to Lightfoot, Hilgenfeld,
Thomas]." (p. 45, "The Qumran Covenanters and the Later Jewish Sects," J. of
Religion 41 (1959) 38-50, N. Golb)?
best,
Stephen Goranson
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
