[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Sadducees
On 2 June Y. Ben-David wrote:
"Qimron demonstrated that 'we' and 'you' in MMT refer to two distinct
kinds of Tz'doqim..."
I have a somewhat different view. Qimron and Strugnell do indeed argue
(in DJD X, p.117 and elsewhere) that MMT involves two varieties of
Sadducees. (They don't use the spelling Tz'dokim, which is an unusual
one, since an apostrophe usually transliterates an aleph or ayin.) But I
find this argument not persuasive--in other words, not demonstrated. MMT
is more probably written from an Essene perspective to a
Sadducee-inclined reader and about Pharisees ("they"). For second temple
period Sadducees Josephus and NT are closer than later rabbinic
writings. "Sadducees" in some late Hebrew texts is practically the
equivalent of general "minim" or "disapproved people." Joseph
Baumgarten, who was the first to note MMT parallels with legal positions
later noted as Sadducee (JJS 31 [1980] 157-70), has remarked that too
much has been read into this, and has restated and added to observations
which support the Essene and Qumran texts association. Essenes may well
have agreed with Sadducees on some legal matters, just as they were
closer to Pharisees on the issue of resurrection. Perhaps if we had old
Sadducee texts, we might find Essenes and Pharisees mixed together and
called misled separatists. Some Qumran texts do mention "sons of Zadok"
as (important) members of the community, but I think they never call
their whole group by this name. They do, on the other hand, call
themselves 'osey hatorah, the self-designation from which, in my view
(and in the view of various pre-Qumran writers), the name Essenes
derives.
Stephen Goranson goransons@uncwil.edu