[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Calendar, MMT
>(b) pHab 11.4-8 refers to a Wicked Priest pursuing
>the T of R to his house of exile...on the day of
>Atonement. Agreed that the "wicked priest" is a
>high priest (among other things, the pun HKHN HRS'
>on HKHN HR'S supports that). Since
>a high priest or any temple official would be in
>the temple on the Day of Atonement, this passage
>despite its cryptic references looks like
>a two-calendar system--with by implication the
>"wrong" lunar calendar associated with the WP/Jerusalem.
I think you have missed the problem here. The problem is NOT that the priest
would be serving in the temple, but that he couldn't travel that distance on
the holiday as it was forbidden to travel. (This appears in the scrolls and
Josephus) If this priest came from Jerusalem, then for him it was not Yom
Kippur, but for the Moreh Tzeddik it was. We see a similar thing in the
Mishnah of Rosh HaShanah 2:9.
>(c) Vernon's third point seems to be the most important
>one: MMT may have the solar calendar and is written "quite
>possibly from the 'sect' to the Temple, advocating the solar
>calendar..."
>Fifty times I have read MMT and followed the basic
>interpretation that MMT reflects an outsider group in some
>or dispossessed from power? It seems all to devolve from
>4Q397 C7 (Q and S numbering): "we separated from the multitude
>of the people" (PRSNW MRWB H'M). Qimron and Strugnell
>(hereafter Q and S) interpret this as a separation from "the
>multitude of the people" on halakhic grounds. But did the
>RWB H'M, "multitude of the people" have halakha at all?
>Q and S identify (p. 115) the "multitude of the people" with
>the "they" group. But this seems a gratuitous identification--
>what is the evidence for this identification? I found
>RWB/RB in pNah and the rest of the pesharim to be simply
1. The style of MMT and pNah are different so that comparing the words used is
not useful. 2. For it to take the meaning you want, the wrong word is used. It
should have read: $LXNW RWB H'M, which would mean that 'we sent away the
multitude of the people' (i.e. they remained in their place in Jerusalem and
sent the others away). the 'PRSNW M' indicates that they are the ones removing
themselves.
>A second issue is dating. Q and S many times refer to MMT
>as being "earlier" than other Qumran texts such as CD or
>the pesharim. I can see no evidence why MMT should not best
>be plugged in at the latest end of the Qumran texts (I
>interpret latest end to be mid-1st BCE). There is a known
>calendar text which has MH like MMT and is certainly
>later than 62 BCE: 4QMish(c). MMT with its MH and
>possible calendar portion of text would go naturally in the
>same time frame as the 4QMish texts as well. MMT is perhaps
>the most personal, most revealing, least cryptic of the
>Qumran texts.
If MMT was placed at the end there would be another problem. Josephus, who
seems quite familiar and friendly with the Essenes, knowsn of no such
disturbance that brought them into existance.
>The key question is one of evidence: what is the evidence
>that MMT is sectarian and not composed by priests in power
>in Jerusalem? So ends this heretical reading of MMT.
>But is it so heretical? Q and S say at one point:
> "MMT implies that the 'we' group regularly
> administered the Jerusalem temple" (p. 121)
I am iunclear as to where they get this. I don't see anyplace in the whole
fragmant where the author claims to have done any of the things there, only
that they are the proper wa for them to be done. In fact, you assume the
author was a priest. That is never stated.
--
+=========================+=========================+
| /\ | |
| ____/_ \____ | |
| \ ___\ \ / | |
| \/ / \/ / | Moshe Shulman |
| / /\__/_/\ | mshulman@ix.netcom.com |
| /__\ \_____\ | |
| \ / | |
| \/ | |
+=========================+=========================+