|
Thank you, Jack, for your comments on the utility
of the term halachah. Everyone in the field knows that the term is
anachronistic, but everyone knows what it means, and consequently most everyone
uses the term (with suitable disclaimers) for the reasons you note. One
problem is that we do not know what term the authors of the halachic texts used
for this genre of legal writing, or if they even had a special term for
it. Goranson has been advocating the use of "a more neutral generic
name," which I am open to, but I have yet to hear what this name would be.
The phrase "Qumran legal materials" fails to distinguish the halachic
materials from the Serekh legal materials that have to do with social
organizational matters, and the descriptor "Qumran" is far from neutral, since
both the Serekh and halachic materials likely predate Qumran. Perhaps one
could say "the legal materials that looks like later halachah and use the same
methods of legal exegesis, but which we cannot call halachah for fear of
offending members of a Jewish sect who have been dead for over 2000
years." In any case, this terminological dispute has nothing to do
with history or source criticism.
Also, a minor point of fact, the characterization
of the legal content of the halachic texts as Sadducees owes nothing to
Josephus, but is based on later rabbinic references to Sadducee legal
tenets. The Talmud presents the rabbinic (i.e. Pharisee) side and
such Qumran scrolls as 11QT, 4QMMT present the Sadducee side of the same legal
controversies.
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin |
- Re: history analysis (was Re: [Megillot] SV: osey hattora) RUSSELLGMIRKIN
