[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion dss and rabbis
Dear Russell Gimirkin,
By "presumed" I meant only presumed by the author of 4QpNah (rather than
necessarily representing my opinion). That's all. That the 4QpNah writer
disapproved of Jewish groups including an edah, ie an organization, a
congregation, (Ephraim) which taught interpretations of torah, with which
he disagreed, and seen as misleading many--isn't that, at least, plainly in
the text?
Perhaps we should stop using words like "conventional" and
"consensual" views. I used the latter to refer to Martin Jaffees's original
question just as shorthand. In my opinion, descriptions of what is a
"consensus" view vary widely, and often use of such terms often obscures.
The "Maccabean" (and pre-M) option has not been ignored. That's why
we have the lingering Essene etymology trying to link with Hasidim. The
Qumran archaeology onset was estimated too early, IMO, partly to fit the
Jonathan I as wicked priest proposal. Why is there not one copy of a pesher
dating from about 150, or is there? Jonathan I has been advocated, I think,
more often than any other "wicked priest." And I know that the etymology
related to Hasidim via Aramaic has definitely been advocated more than any
other of the 60 or so etymological proposals. Yet I disagree with both. To
attack me as a convention defender is simply misleading.
Russell called the Maccabean links "obvious." I was told, in
effect, not to use that word. Maybe your usage will be "allowed."
I have tried to present some plausible partial reconstructions of
history. The proposal of Alexander as wicked priest is not now, as far as I
can tell, a majority view (though it has had supporters before). There are
many unanswered questions; perhaps we can agree on that. If you, Russell,
or others, have views you consider more plausible, you are, of course,
invited to write them.
Sincerely,
Stephen Goranson