As noted before, "wilderness of Damascus" is an interesting collocation,
though "Qumran halakhah" is a misnomer, whichs helps obscure the groups of
three which are present in some--not all--Qumran texts (some pesharim,
MMT...), and in Josephus, perhaps Strabo (as Sigrid noted)...
Russell Gm. wrote of
> [....] the
>scroll field's simplistic view of Ephraim and Manasseh as bad (supposedly
>representing the sect's opponents) and Judah as good (supposedly representing
>the sect of the Essenes)
First, "the scroll field" is not one entity, reified and personified,
speaking with one voice, even though the recognition of three sects--in
some not all texts--is indeed very widely recognized for good and
sufficient reasons. In Qumran scrolls, there are indeed claims about who is
the true Judah (those who observe the law in the house of Judah), who the
true Israel, who the remnant. "Simplistic view" here is not valid history
of scholarship. I don't have a copy at hand, but didn't Maurya Horgan
select precisely "Judah" as an example (in a CBQ review of a B. Thiering
book) of a term which has various uses in Qumran mss? Are not discussions
of, say, D, Schwartz and A.I. Baumgarten and others somewhat more nuanced
and careful (agree or not) that "simplistic view"?
Names can matter. E.g. Esau is spelled differently at Qumran, in Jubilees
(considered Essene by some pre 1948, with Enoch, Test. 12 Patr [cf Flusser
as cited by Qimron and/or Strugnell]) where associated with yetser ra, and
in par Gen, where 'asah is used in creation beyond MT. By the way, late
daters of HB move some of the text contemporary with the Historical
Dictionary database. Echo: Cf. John 3 do truth addressee. Why some rejected
Essene from 'asah pre 1948?--the supposition that late second temple Jews
did not speak Hebrew.
Concerning care and respect for names: to my knowledge, it has not been
pointed out before on this list than when a poster (not RGm, but Ian H.)
came on list with the false name of John J. Hays (orion archives 2 Jan
1998ff), that name is similar to the name of a real scholar of Hebrew Bible
and ancient history, John H. Hayes, who deserves an apology. And in the
next instance of this poster using a false name, Ann L. Kraemer (3 Jan
1999ff), that name is similar to the name of a real scholar of history of
Judaism and the status of women, Ross S. Kraemer, who deserves an apology.
Names can matter.
I'm all for more commentary on CD and other texts, but, please, represent
past scholarship more carefully than "simplistic view."
best,
Stephen Goranson
For private reply, e-mail to Stephen 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.
