Philip, You write that you see "no probabilities...of identifying the historical teacher." I do, both theoretically (your negative declaration goes way beyond the evidence), and as it has already happened.
I accept that later accounts are not necessarily accurate, and we are well-advised to look for that too, but "ideological constructs" can themselves also be overly (and sometimes ideologically) imagined (or urged) as not building on or interpreting of on history. For example, two individuals may be in a conflict and only ome consider it a crucial dualistic struggle, but, still, two individuals were in conflict. Perhaps you have been influenced by the false, unsupported, traditions that the Semitic Vorlage of "Essene"/"Ossene" is not and cannot be in the scrolls? (When it is). Or the false tradition that the teacher is not mentioned by Jusephus? (When Judah is.) Taking your proposal, when would be the time between D and S most likely? (Hint: Yanni.) And your advice on ideology: well, the ideologies fit these two. The confluence of evidence is there. The job now is refining, to the (admittedly limited) extent possible. Not going behind Essenes, or beyond Essenes, or denying Essenes, but clarifying what is true and false about Essenes--plenty of both was eventually written. Not all history is knowable, but we can know some, and any history method warning us off history raises the question what such method has to fear. best, Stephen Goranson Quoting philip davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > As every New testament scholar knows (or should), there is a Jesus of > history and a Christ of faith. So no doubt with the Teacher; whoever > historically this person may have been, the texts do not necessarily > point directly to him. A good example is the impression that he was > persecuted by a 'Wicked Priest' (and this also answers the question > whether there ever was a historical 'wicked priest'). There are > reasons to doubt that this is simply a historical datum, just as > there are reasons to doubt the Jewish trial of Jesus. > > As for 4QMMT; its mention of 'camps' suggested an already sectarian > organization on the lines of D, though nothing that points to S (the > latter point is not conclusive, but I don't see a strong case for the > yahad being envisaged as an organization in several different loci.) > > Put in Maxine's way: the Teacher in the Scrolls is an amalgam of > several readings, though all by his followers (not unlike the NT > really). Also, like the NT, no external evidence for the person at > all (I don't buy Josephus and Tacitus is a third-hand source). > > It is better not to take as fact something that might be than to take > as fact something that may not be, I think. Of course, most 'facts' > are a matte of probability, but I see no probabilities in the matter > of identifying the historical teacher. Exploring him (and his > opponents) as an ideological construct within the texts is better - > and also the first step in any historical work. > > Philip > -- > Professor Philip R Davies > University of Sheffield > _______________________________________________ > g-Megillot mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot > _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
