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

Re: orion Essenes = 'osey hatorah?

Dear Russell,
	Thanks for your correction on Philo. (And, of course, Posidonius
knew a little Plato.)
	The geographic claim I made that Epiphanius located Ossenes
adjacent to the Salt Sea/Dead Sea is a non-issue; that's what he wrote;
your presentation misleads.
	Briefly: Epiphanius. Again your numbers are unreliable: there is no
19.15.1. This time, at least you included <Moses> or <of Moses> with the
correct marks. Marks which indicate what? That this is an emendation, an
emendation/addition of Karl Holl, and, in this case a highly questionable
one, unless we wish to think of, e.g., Samaritans also not having the book
of Moses, because they have a version differing from another version. Or
Ossenes who keep the whole Law having no Law. For instances where Holl
emends unnecessarily, see my dissertation, The F. Williams trans. intro,
the rev. of Williams by Wm. Adler, and Adler's article 1997 JTS article.
	You haven't got Ossenes (heresy 19) quite right, so your bringing
in of heresy 18 merely muddies the waters (as did your use of h. 29 last
time). It is *your* language about Ossenes "rejecting the Torah"--language
which contradicts what you quoted from Epiphanius previously in your same
paragraph. Epiphanius is difficult enough without him being misquoted! At
least it helps that, this time, you note pre Christian and Christian times.
Did some people included by Epiphanius as both Jewish and Christian
heretics claim to keep torah? Of course! If you wish further information,
see, e.g., Gerard Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai (1985), with
discussion of Ossenes. Or, for note of Jerome's statement that, such
heretics claiming they were both Jews and Christians, they were
neither--language found earlier in Epiphanius!--see, e.g., Daniel Boyarin's
interesting article in the winter 1998 issue of J. of Early Christian
Studies. For influence in Apocalypse of John, see. e.g., my "Text of Rev
22:14" NTS 43 (1997) 154-7; "The Exclusion of Ephraim in Rev 7:4-8 and
Essene Polemic against Pharisees" DSD 2 (1995) 80-5; "Essene Polemic in the
Apocalypse of John," in Cambridge/J. Baumgarten volume. You must not have
read my previous posts on Sampsaeans, or the literature I recommended. The
association of Nasoraioi, Ossaioi/Ossenoi, Sampsaioi/Sampsenoi, and others,
(and Samaritans sometimes considered by some keepers of torah) strengthens
my presentation of the names.
	Your response to George X. Brooks was not as useful as you could
have made it. You could have noted that his declarations about Essenes and
Pharisees, including his asserted etymology of the latter as Persians, are
highly doubtful. The issue of Samaritan identity and history is very
complex. There are many, many reported sects within Samaritanism. The
relationship of Qumran manuscripts to "Samaritanism" (defined differently
by different writers) is complex indeed, and has been discussed (relying on
memory) by Josephine M. Ford, J. Bowman, Thord Thorson, S. Talmon, Robert
Kugler, in a recent article in current bibliography by A. Crown, by Jarl
Fossum, et al. Again, those who wish not to consider the complexities and
uses of Panarion which I tried to introduce in my previous post are free to
do so, and can merely blithely dismiss Panarion entirely. Others will find
it contains many useful, even if sometimes contradictory sorces--it
includes differing perspectives. A book on 80 heresies which uses authentic
sources from many of these heresies must needs be a book with
contradictions. Fortunately, Epiphanius did not censor out many of these
competing perspectives; fortunately, for historians.

For private reply, e-mail to stephen goranson <goranson@duke.edu>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.