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

Re: orion brief responses

Dear Stephen Goranson,
     It was not my intent to single you out for special criticism on your
historical constructs, but more to make a general comment on historical
methodology.  There is a qualitative difference between historical models
that have to postulate all manner of historical events and those that find
events already present in conventional historical sources.  Alexander
Jannaeus crucified 800 enemies probably aligned with the Pharisees.  This is
a historical datum.  Introducing the Essenes into these events, postulating
Jannaeus' persecution of Judah the Essene, and so forth, these are not facts
found in the historical texts (i.e. in the historical "lacunae" or gaps in
the text).  As long as I communicated this point, I'm satisfied to let
matters rest.  Most historical models on sectarian origins are subject to the
same criticisms, not just yours - indeed, one would expect only the correct
historical solution to be free from the need to invent or postulate new
historical facts.  And if you can come up with a less inflammatory term than
"conjectural" that accurately conveys the required meaning, I would be happy
to adjust my terminology as my intent has never been to offend others on the
list, especially yourself.
     As for the critique of Hasidim origins of the Essenes in the secondary
literature you have cited, I haven't tracked down all three articles yet so I
won't respond yet, but Davies' article critiquing Hengel's views on the
Hasidim doesn't really apply to the research I've conducted.  

     Best Wishes,
     Russell Gmirkin

>	Dear Russell Gimirkin, I have learned from some of your previous
>posts. But I am not arguing from lacunae, and it is wrong for you to say
>so.  You have not answered the critique of many of Hasidim origins of
>Essenes, which is a major issue, IMO.  There was a TR; there was a "land of
>Damascus"; and it is reductionism and/or misrepresentation to dismiss my
>datings (and those I have borrowed from others) on the grounds you have.
>You must know that I do begin with tentative givens as to historical
>context into which to fit the new data, a proceedure more like yours,
>really, than like F. Cryer's, despite all the opportunistic disingenous
>posts from him. I simply admit that history-writing is not totally
>objective and scientific--all the better to alert one to test it and to
>beware of fraudlent claims which exclude evidence on whim while pretenting
>to be scientific. I have questioned the use of 1,2 Macc without adequate
>account for its different perspective than, say, the pesherim. Perhaps we
>can have usefl exchanges in the future.
>