I forward the post below from ane (ancient near east) list. Readers here may
wish to skip the first paragraph, a response to questions on ane. The second
paragraph may be of relatively more interest here, and if Prof. Green's on list
9or joins), I'm open to dialog on his article, with which I largely but not
fully agree.
Stephen
----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:51:13 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 3 Jannaeus-era groups (was Re: [ANE-2] Re: Stephen Goranson: Anti
Hasmonean Scrolls, etc.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rod, if one looks at one phrase by itself without context, several plausible
associations may come to mind. In my view, the confluence of the evidence
places the Qumran text Teacher of Righteousness as teaching when the Wicked
Priest (and ruler and military leader) arose and opposed him, just as Louis
Ginzberg largely recognized back before World War I, based on The Damascus
Document's account of "Jannes and his brother" opposing that teacher, like the
magicians of Pharaoh had opposed Moses. (Details in the paper after my
signature.) On "Seekers After Smooth Things," (Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea
Scrolls) Al Baumgarten has some good pages (too long to quote here) reviewing
the evidence for the Pharisee ID. Ephraim is that same group. Sadducees,
Manasseh, aristocratic backers of Jannaeus. And Pharisee halahka is not the
only teaching the Essenes opposed. Of course all three groups thought
themselves the best interpreters and followers of Torah. For more on this see
Jim VanderKam, "Those Who Look for Smooth Things, Pharisees, and Oral Law" in
Emanuel [the Tov Festschrift, 2003]. By the way, if interested, see flattery in
Daniel 11, as noted in my "Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in
Qumran Texts," The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive
Assessment (eds. P. Flint and J.C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 2.534-51
As it happens, the latest issue of Revue de Qumran (#86) arrived a few
days ago with Dennis Green, "'Halahkhah at Qumran'?: The Use of [root HLK] in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, 235-251. I agree with much of what he writes. For
example: "...the word [halahkah] does not appear to be used in the classical
Rabbinic sense within any document from the Judaean desert that we are aware
of." (237) I agree. And "...the Sect definitely uses [root HLK] in a polemical
fashion to describe aspects of their opponents, or an opposing legislative
stance." (237) If by this he refers to the pun [technically speaking, using a
different root, XLQ], I agree. On the other hand, after quoting John Strugnell
and me (Dead Sea Discoveries 2 1995 81, 82), in the conclusion Green offers
some views differing from Strugnell and me. Briefly, in my vew, the word
Halahkah in the sense used by Rabbis (heirs of Pharisees) must have existed in
Pharisee use (we just don't have second temple period Pharisee mss) for the pun
to work. And it can obscure differences between groups if one refers to Qumran
legal exegesis and determinations as "halahka" when Essenews opposed that (it's
an anachronistic retrojection). Further, DSS avoidance of that form of the word
suffices; there is no reason to expect them to avoid using the common root
itself. I will look for Prof. Green's email address (or anyone may forward
this) in case he'd like to discuss this here and/or on g-megillot list (I'll
fwd this there.)
Stephen Goranson
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
