|
Hi Russell
Sorry to flaunt my ignorance (I've worked
very little on CD), but is there anything written on this?
I wrote an article in Danish a few years
ago, trying to sum up the consensus (to the extent that there is one) on which
scrolls are sectarian and which ones not. I deliberately stayed away from the
issue of whether they are Essene, but simply talked of scrolls authored by the
same group of people who produced 1QS. Afterwards a doctoral student from
Aarhus, Kasper Bro Larsen, suggested to me that possibly I should have used the
pesharim and not Serekh as the point-of-departure "sectarian texts par
excellence", as they are unique to the yachad in literary genre, which can not
be said of a rule book. Your suggestion looks as if the choice makes even more
of a difference than I thought.
best regards
Soren
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. april 2006 03:21 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: [Megillot] SV: osey hattora Hi Soren,
There's a basic methodological problem, in that the scrolls appear to
combine literatures authored by two distinct groups (which are combined only in
CD and 4QSerek). The halachic legal traditions in 11QT, 4QMMT, and (H)
legal materials in CD have strong correlations with the Sadducees and do not
appear consistent with Josephus's Essenes; the correlation between Josephus's
Essenes and the scrolls is pretty much restricted to the Serekh text 1QS (and
1QS parallels in Serekh legal materials in CD). From source critical
arguments from CD, the Sadducean halachah appears to relate to the Teacher of
Righteousness and share authorship with the pesherim (including 1QpHab and
4QpPs), while the Serekh texts that might have some argument for having been
used by the Essenes in the later time of Josephus's sources lack the term 'osey
hattora that has been suggested to be behind the name Essene. These facts
undermine the proposed derivation of Essene from 'osey hattora.
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin
So the term 'osey hattora is in two pesher texts only (pHab and pPsalms a). That makes it a very good candidate for a sectarian _expression_, (although being in two texts only it could be a term characteristic of one specific writer?). And it seems obvious that the writer counts himself among those doing the tora. But occurrence in two out of several dozen sectarian texts is a little scarce for an actual technical self-designation, wouldn't you say? If that is what they actually considered to be the word(s) for being one of them rather than being somebody else, how come there's not a single occurrence in 1QS e.g.? |
Title: Meddelelse
