Philip, I do not know of any Qumran scholar--apart from
my own 2001 discussion--who has argued in favor of identifying
the Teacher of CD 6.11 with the Interpreter of the Law
of CD 6.7. If you know of any, I would sure like the reference.
My understanding is those who argue that the Interpreter of CD 6.7
is the historical, past TR (as Collins) define the teacher of righteousness
figure of CD 6.11 as a distinct, "second" teacher of righteousness.
(So Collins, _Star and Sceptre_, 104.) My 2001 discussion is the only
exception on this point known to me.
I do not have pp. 119-125 of your 1983 _Damascus Covenant_
at hand to check, but I do have your later chapter
"The Teacher of Righteousness and the 'End of Days'" in your
1996 book _Essays on Qumran and Related Topics_. In this article
you start out as an opening premise stating that the teacher of
CD 6.11 reads as future, note the problems raised thereby, and proceed
to argue your solution to these problems. Your argument for reading
the TR of CD 6.11 as future does not seem stated explicitly but comes
through indirectly as (I think) your reading of the syntax of "until", with
the
Interpreter of 6.7 at the beginning of a time period and the Teacher
of 6.11 at the end. Yet this seems more assumed as a given (and discussion
proceeds from this given), and embedded in the scenario for which you
argue, than argued directly, at least in that essay. At the same time
I realize you intended that discussion to be read as part of larger and
previously published arguments concerning CD of which that is one
element.
I agree that Collins' solution is unconvincing
(I have criticism of Collins' position on this in my _4Q Pesher
Nahum_ at p. 65 n. 78). But while your solution of a prior oracle
foreseeing a future TR, incorporated without change of its tense
into the final redaction of CD at 6.7-11, is ingenious (and I realize it is
part
of your much larger and argued scenario argument), in my view it fails to
account for parallel "end of days" language applied to the Interpreter
of the Law in other texts, and other reasons for supposing the two
figures to be variant reflections in the world of these texts of a single
figure. In any case, I think I have offered a counter-argument
on CD 6.10-11 which removes the alleged problem in these lines that
you and Collins differently attempt to solve.
To summarize:
-- You have two figures. The first, earlier one is called Interpreter;
the second, later one, is called TR. Both are long past from the
point of view of the authors/final redactors of Qumran texts.
-- Collins has two figures. The first is called Interpreter/TR,
the second is also called Interpreter/TR. The first is
long past, the second future, from the point of view of
the authors of Qumran texts.
-- I have a single figure, called Interpreter/TR. This figure is
either living (pesharim) or (in CD) very recently dead, from
the point of view of the authors/final redactors of Qumran
texts. There is no long-past nor future figure known by either
of these titles in the world of the Qumran texts. Both
notions, however deeply embedded in Qumran scholarly
discourse, are without foundation.
Which is the best reading of these texts? Open question.
Greg Doudna
Actually, in most book and articles, I find it assumed that this figure is
the same as the 'Interpreter of the Law' a few lines earlier, i.e. the
founder of the 'sect'.
As for myself, I argued (not assumed) in my own analysis of the Admonition
of CD that it is a future reference, and am still waiting for a good
counter=argument. Until then, I will just assert my conclusion! I have also
argued that this is a messianic title, based on exegetical equivalences
within CD. That Collins disagrees encourages me to think I must be right,
since he is wrong more often than not on this as on other matters.
Philip Davies
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
