Dear Ian Werrett, Thanks for your comment on Joseph Baumgarten.
We still differ on "halakha." Pharisaic and Rabbinic "halakha" is all the "halakah" there is. (See, e.g. Tradition volume 1.) If speaking of differences between Rabbinic "halakha" and wrongly so-called Qumran "halakah" using the wrong term (Qumran actively *opposed*! halakha) can be done, how much better using the methodologically better terms (legal texts). Previously I mentioned the absurdity of calling some Qumran text even halakha- type halakha! I see MMT somewhat differently than Prof. Sussman. Additionally, for all those interested in "counterfactual" or "what if" history, kindly try this heuristric exercise: imagine that Essenes survived the Second Temple period as one of the main religions in the world. (They did in fact survive 70 AD, but as a minority grop, and died out after a disputable length of time, depending on group definition, but do not survive [despite some other minority groups using the name today] continuous up to today.) And imagine that Rabbinic Judaism (with its vovcabulary) did not become a major religion. So, method-promotors and occasional "counterfactualists," please consider using the free terminology that does not distorT, as "Qumran halakha" indeed *does*. In my view, it is a unfortunate habit without any benefit. best, Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
