Dear Rochelle, We agree, I think, that "Essenes" came from Hebrew. You set up a way to pick one only root. I already critiqued that method and showed many other specific relevant known terms with shortened forms/implied objects. It is interesting that "hoseh" has an O--oh, eek. For the rest, as to what is and isn't an actual quote and what a fair description, since we have both given ioudaios addresses, anyone can read all of both our posts on the matter, and, if anyone wishes, henceforth refer, e.g., to Menahem the non-Jewish Buddhist Essene. Dear Greg, It is not possble in one post to answer all your questions-- some of which I have answered before (and if I already responded, is repetition called for?). And, sadly, these questions as you framed them skew the issues. Here I can only scratch the surface. Perhaps forgive me if I remember a citation incorrectly. "Agnostics" *by definition* do not deny or affirm the matter at hand! Therefore they are quite out of place here (except for rhetorical effect perhaps?) in your first of 2 sections. Florentino G-M, if I recall correctly, wrote of two groups of Essenes, not one Essene and one anti-Essene. Though I do not subscribe to the Groningen view, I much appreciate FGM's work, and no way consider him properly represented here by you. Also I agree with FGM that MMT is not about "precepts" but "deeds/observances"--significant, since it's about 'asah. S. Talmon is indeed a fine, senior, distinguished scholar and gentleman--hopefully we agree (consensus; cf. Society of Friends, pro-consensus?--properly called Quakers also?). His views have changed. We have had a few conversations; not recently. If I recall correctly, years ago he added to Essene ID in HTR. Later (Notre Dame conf. maybe +) he wrote--more or less-- that it's better to call them New Covenanters and postpone Essene question till all data is published. Later (?) in Hengel Festschrift he offered reasons to doubt Q-Essene link. The latter I discussed in detail, already, on orion, disagreeing with each item. I offered two categories (Broshi offered 3; partly incommensurate ones but well worth considering--can you see examples for each?). You reduced my second category quote and also even reduced it further to merely "etc." Not helpful! My two categories are not the only possible categories. Here's a third: sensational journalism to sell weekly tabloids which I see at grocery stores. I can think of others. Here, briefly, I have shown the faulty and misleading framing of questions in your section one. Your section 2, Greg, if anything, is even more complexly problematic, and asks me to respond according to your assumptions and method preferences, even telling me what I cannot say (e.g., no Epiphanius alowed)! I have made some notes or starters, but perhaps I should stick with this brief take on section one for now, to see if this dialogue appears worth pursuing. Dear Russell, By the way, not that it should matter much, I have often spelled consensus concensus, and OED has some hints or that "mix up." best, Stephen Goranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to goranson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
