|
Please be careful to
consistently distinguish your response from the message to which you are
responding.
Ken M. Penner,
Ph.D.
A few comments in reply:
3. The
Teacher and the Halakhic Tradition
In this
section I will respond to the comments of Philip Davies.
Philip:
No: marrying,
having numerous settlements, limited temple participation all fits Josephus
and the Admonition of CD. I cna't see any reason, either, to assign the
Admonition and Laws to different groups.
Good, we agree on this.
Both CD
Admonitions and Laws sections are composite subdocuments. For Laws,
Hempel's book The Laws of the Damascus Document is definitive in showing the
relative sequence between older halachic (H) materials and later Serekh (S)
rules. The halachic portions of the Laws do not particularly correlate
with the Essenes. Further, the (H) laws in CD, like the related laws
in 11QT, have full temple participation. In CD, one only sees
reservations about the temple in later portions of the Admonitions that
contain the later Serekh terminology and thus postdate the (H) legal
materials.
Not full temple participation at all. Where do you find that? The temple
participation is partial and consistent with what Josephus says about the
Essesnes
Hempel's
chronological stratification of Laws also helps unravel the subdocuments in
Admonitions, the early portions which contain affinities to (H) and the
later portions of which contain Serekh language, as I discuss extensively in
an article under preparation, The Damascus Document: A
Literary-Historical Analysis.
I also did a book-length analysis of the Admonition many years ago; and I
haven't changed my mind, nor has anyone managed to refute my conclusions
yet.
Russ: From source critical arguments from CD, the
Sadducean halachah appears to relate to the Teacher of
Righteousness.
Philip:
What arguments? Whose? There is no halakhah associated with the TR in CD (or
anywhere else): we have the 'voice of the Teacher' - but that is quite a
different matter.
That the
Teacher's name was attached to a body of laws is well known from the
pesharim. The Teacher's name is also attached to a body of laws in CD
in an early sub-document contemporary with the Teacher that contains
the text of a covenant enrollment speech. the original oral context of
this speech is evident from recurrent formulae that gave rise to the
familiar title Admonitions: "Listen, all those who know justice" (CD
1:1); "Listen to me, all entering the covenant" (CD 2:2); "Now, my sons,
listen to me" (CD 2:14). CD 20:27-34 contains part of this speech
enjoining those entering the covenant to "remain steadfast in these
regulations, and going in accordance with the law, and listen to the
Teacher's voice" (CD 20:28), and "lend their ears to the voice of the
Teacher of Righteousness and do not reject the holy regulations when
they hear them" (CD 20:32-33). Clearly these regulations and laws were
those being promulgated under the Teacher of Righteousness's name and
authority.
I see you are still using the pesharim as reliable information about the
Teacher. I don't. My reasons are in my book Behind the Essenes. What
are your reasons for taking the pesharim as reliable (and how do you counter
my arguments?)
The
enrollment speech contains no Serekh terminology, and as noted in earlier
postings Serekh texts contain no reference to the Teacher, while the
pesherim that do mention the Teacher (or his opponents the Man of Lies and
Wicked Priest) contain no Serekh language. There is in the scrolls no
textual evidence linking the Teacher to the Serekh laws found in 1QS, 1QM,
or later parts of CD. The idea that the Teacher authored Serekh texts
is traceable to the early days of scrolls scholarship when CD was thought to
be a unitary document, and the Serekh elements within CD consequently
linked with the Teacher in the minds of scrolls scholars.
This simplistic approach it no longer supportable in light of the
demonstrable composite character of CD's laws and Admonitions. So
one cannot assume that the Teacher's laws are in any way linked to the
Serekh materials in CD or elsewhere in the Qumran corpus.
Indeed: see my '1QS and the Case of the missing Teacher'
And indeed
one can demonstrate that the Teacher's laws were in fact of the halachic,
Sadducee type. For not only does CD 20:27-34 enjoin those entering the
covenant to listen to the Teacher's voice and obey these (i.e. his)
regulations and laws, but 4QD(e) 2 ii contains a summary list of these
laws.
No: 'voice of the teacher' does not necessarily imply laws; the only laws
to be observed are those that the CD community previously followed.
That
this latter list of laws was part of the covenant enrollment speech is
guaranteed by the formula that concludes this passage, "listen to me all you
who know justice and fulfill the law." The list of laws summarized in
4QD(e) 2 ii are expanded in detail elsewhere in the halachic portions of CD
/ 4QD. It inescapably follows that the halachic laws of CD / 4QD
were precisely those promulgated in the name of the
Teacher.
I seem to have escaped this lie of reasoning - perhaps because I do not
regard the basic stratum of Cd as reflecting the community that followed the
'Teacher'
In short, the
Teacher of Righteousness is associated with the Sadducee halachic legal
traditions that the field is accustomed to labeling as
"pre-sectarian." The so-called "sectarian" Serekh texts postdate the
era of the Teacher on evidence of CD. These source critical observations
also completely sever the Teacher from the Essene
tradition.
I guess we'll just have to differ. But I'm keen to see how you deal with
the evidence I published over the last 20 years ago on the whole range of
matters that you discuss.
Philip Davies
--
Philip Davies
Professor Emeritus
Department of Biblical Studies,
University of Sheffield
|
