[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Love" in the DSS
>You are quite right. It is for this reason that I think it essential to
>examine the theological positions of the scrolls themselves; without taking
>our cues from other sects of the period.
>Perhaps, however, I am not being clear on this point.
>Let me explain myself and urge your help where I am in error:
>
>A sect, in opposition to the leading theological ideas of the day, leaves its
>Jerusalem headquarters and makes its way to a secluded desert place to
>establish a community in which its own theological ideas can be developed and
>adhered to. (I know, its a preposition, but I'm getting old and to the point
>of not caring about grammar!!!).
>
Actually, Qumran is not that far from Jerusalem, though it is somewhat secluded.
>Of what help will it be to examine what the Jerusalem community thinks of
>"love for God" in order to clarify what the new community thinks about the
>subject? They of course might be compared to one another; but that can often
>lead to a blurring of the lines instead of a sharpening of the lines which
>distinguish them.
>And if there are no distinctions between them, then why did the community
>leave Jerusalem in the first place. After all, they agree on the main
>points, don't they?
>
>You see, what I am interested in is what the Sectarians at Qumran thought;
>not what the chief priests in Jerusalem thought, of love for God.
>
The cheif priests were Saducees. During the Roman occupation, they were
appointed by the Romans. What is your (anyone in the groups) opinion about
the theory that the people of Qumran were mostly of the priestly cast and
were opposed to the priests in Jerusalem?
Shalom,
Gretchen