----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: history analysis (was Re: [Megillot] SV: osey hattora)
Without wishing to start a long, repetitive thread, allow me to note that
in
numerous publications by numerous authors and in this list archives, in my
view, it has been repeatedly shown that Qumran scrolls are not Sadducee.
And
that use of the word "halakha" to characterize Qumran mss legal
determinations
is unhelpful in distinguishing the history of groups. Proposed histories
which
rely on such misteps cannot reasonably be relied upon. On Qumran legal
matters,
Joseph Baumgarten's articles are exemplary, as are his demonstrations of
Qumran
Essene characteristics.
best,
Stephen Goranson
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
"Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene"
I agree with you, Stephen, in that I never quite understood the speculation
for Sadducee origins for the DSS based on what little we know about
them...mostly from Josephus. Of course, Josephus' trustworthiness on his
reporting on Sadducee beliefs might be suspect. Given that the Hillelite
and Shammaite Pharisees and the Sadducees as well as the DSS people (whoever
they were) all differed from each other on halakhic matters, I am missing
why you think the use of the term "halakha" is not helpful in
characterizations of these groups. Can you unpack that a little more for me?
BTW, your paper is very compelling for Judah as TOR.
Jack Kilmon
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
