Dear Stephen, I have several problems with your response, but I only have time to raise one issue at the moment. In your last posting you say:
"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)." Here is my question ... if you are so opposed to using the term 'halakha' to describe the legal material at Qumran and you argue that "Pharisaic and Rabbinic 'halakha' is all the 'halakah' there is" then how can you justify using the term 'halakha' to describe what authors of the scrolls were opposing? If the term 'halakha' wasn't actually applied to Jewish legal interpretations until the rabbinic period, as Herb Basser rightly argued in a previous exchange with me, then aren't you actually doing the exact same thing that you are accusing others of doing? i.e. using the term anachronistically! I am aware of your "seekers of smooth things" argument, but you can't have it both ways Stephen. Either we say that the term 'halakha' can be legitimately used to describe what Second Temple Jews were doing or we toss out the term altogether. 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
