Dear Stephen, Sorry for the delay in my response!
It seems to me that your argument has several flaws. First, you are assuming that the word 'halakha' was being used in the Second Temple period as a technical term for legal rulings when there is no evidence to support such a statement. In point of fact, there are only two words in the scrolls that could possibly be read as the noun 'halakha' and they are both used generically to refer to an individual's behaviour (1QS 1:25 and 3:9). Second, as Meier has noted, in order for a wordplay between the 'halaqot' and 'halakha' to work, the word 'halakha' has to be well known and it has to refer to the legal interpretations of the Pharisees. Not only does the evidence in the scrolls argue against such an hypothesis, but it is important to recognize that the authors of 1QS used what appears to be a form of the noun 'halakha' in order to describe their own practices and the conduct of their members. If, as you suggest, the word was exclusively associated the practices of the Pharisees, then why would the authors of the scrolls use what appears to be the word 'halakha' to describe themselves? Given these difficulties, I find it difficult to understand how you can say that the Pharisees "used it [i.e. 'halakha'] during second temple times and Qumran writers belittle it." Other than one or two word plays ... what evidence do you have to support your position? 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
