[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Calendar, MMT

>On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:36:28 -0800  Moshe Shulman wrote:
>Actually, I've lost track of who said what.  I think Ian wrote:
>>>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 understood this quotation from Qimron to be phrased ambiguously and to 
>mean: "MMT implies that the 'we' group [*ONCE*] regularly administered
>the Jerusalem Temple" which, of course, is so obvious as not to require
>further explanation.  In not supplying an otherwise obviously needed
>explanation I reasoned that this was Qimron's meaning.  Perhaps he and/
>or Schiffman could clarify?

I believe that this is the implication. Since Schiffman has written that the 
Qumran group came from the Sadducees which was basically the priesthood, it 
would imply that they did at one time 'control' the temple. BTW there is 
another way of looking at it, in that any priest could serve in the temple 
(according to the Talmud/Mishnah there were orders for this). In such a case 
there is nothing strange in them making comments that imply that they had done 
service inthe temple. Josephus actually says that when the Sadduccees had to 
openly follow Pharisee law because of the laters popularity. I would assume 
that included in the temple itself (which again is attested to in the 
Mishnah). In any case I find it hard to see this statement changing anything. 
(BTW I understand that Qimron is more fluent in Hebrew then English so like 
anyone writing ina language other then the one that he/she speaks regularly 
there is always the possibility of using words that have connotations other 
then that which was intended.)

>While I buy the date for MMT Qimron gives on the same page ("probably 
>between 159 - 152 BCE"), I still think CD is even earlier (Khonyo III, a 
>generation earlier), and, while a later dating for CD is more popular, I 
>think the later date for CD is suspended from speculation about the 
>identity of the Moreh Tzeddek.  Thus, I still see CD antedating MMT as 
>plausible.  Reasonable?

If, as is assumed, that MMT is from Moreh Tzeddik, then it would predate CD, 
since there is some historical discussion mentioning the Moreh Tzeddik. I have 
the source at home and could provide it later if you need. It is at the 
beginning.

-- 
   +=========================+=========================+
   |            /\           |                         |
   |       ____/_ \____      |                         |
   |       \  ___\ \  /      |                         |
   |        \/ /  \/ /       |     Moshe Shulman       |
   |        / /\__/_/\       | mshulman@ix.netcom.com  |
   |       /__\ \_____\      |                         |
   |           \  /          |                         |
   |            \/           |                         |
   +=========================+=========================+