[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion dss and rabbis
Fred Cryer raised Popper's approach of falsifiability. Cryer also rejected
the "consensual" view of 4QpNah. So I asked if he would falsify it, rather
than merely declare it so. I claimed 4QpNah is an Essene text which refers
to Pharisees. (I do not claim to know "everything about...", by the way.)
Instead, he responded, not with a falsification, but with images of
Victorian furnishings. His way of ending a conversation, I guess.
Sigrid Peterson, in effect, raised a question whether "pun" is the
correct term, since two roots XLQ and HLK, are under discussion. Fair
enough: "word play" might be more appropriate. Again, I don't use
"halakah" for all second temple groups, so to some extent we agree. But we
disagree on the relevance of this to 4QpNah. Again, I do not imagine that
first century Pharisees had identical legal views as third century CE
rabbis, but there is some continuity and development between them, as most,
even on orion--perhaps ; - ) -- will agree. I wish we had lots of early
Pharisee texts, but we don't, so we have to use what we have. We don't know
everything about Pharisees, by a long shot, but we do know some.
The word play comes in a context which Russell Gmirkin, I think,
skirts, when calling the xlq/hlk association "circular." Unless one is
prepared to deal with the 4QpNah's view of, e.g., the presumed misleading
teaching of the group (edah) also called Ephraim, and how that relates to
Manasseh and to the author's group (elsewhere: Judah), one might see the
proposed word play as existing in a vacuum, and hence, without context, it
might seem imposed. To be brief, I am not persuaded by the proposal for
Demetrius I instead of III. And the view of a "systematic" use of animal
symbology goes beyond any party line on exegesis that I have suggested.
What's the problem if 4QpNah criticized Alexander? We know he crucified
Pharisees circa 88 BCE and that Josephus, some Rabbinic literature, and
Qumran mss, on that point at least, cohere. There are many unanswered
questions, but the recognition that 4QpNah is an Essene text referring to
Pharisees and Sadducees--an understanding not of my making but opened by
David Flusser, Andre Dupont-Sommer and many since--it appears to me, is one
of the most historically-useful observations available from the Qumran
texts. If someone in the future presents a more coherent reading and
historical setting for dorshei halaqot, Ephraim, Manasseh, this lion, etc.,
very well. I can only report I have not read one.
Best wishes,
Stephen Goranson goranson@duke.edu