Quoting Jack Kilmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your agreement concerning the Sadducees and that Judah the
Essene was
the Teacher of Righteousness ("very compelling"). I appreciate it.
"Halakha" today quite properly applies to Jewish legal determinations. But in
Late Second Temple Period, based on the Qumran Essene puns agains seekers of
smooth things/flattery, Essenes did not call their legal determinations
halakha, but rather punned against the halakha of one group they opposed, the
Pharisees. Then the Rabbis, as often noted, were the heirs of the
Pharisees, at
least in this terminology. As for the Sadducees, we do not know that
they called
their legal determinations halakha, so it is methodologically better, not
prejudging nor retrojecting, simply to call their legal determinations by a
more neutral generic name. Philo didn't use the term halakha either. Did the
early Samaritans? The early Karaites? Calling Essene legal texts halakha--a
term they rejected--confuses distinctions and self-descriptions of groups.
best wishes,
Stephen Goranson
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
