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

Re: Qumran questiont (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 17:09:24 EST
From: Herb Basser <fishbane@epas.utoronto.ca>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu>
Subject: Re: Qumran questiont

> herb,
> Though not wanting to slug it out, if dss writers called themselves
> Zadokites, sons of Zadok -- which seems to me Saduccees, why did you, and do
> you, doubt that they are in fact Saduccees?

well the zadokite fragment--its earliest designation was never thought
to mean sadducee until 1911. look at my 1985 RQ piece on wacholder's
dawn of qumran. everyone wanted to be a disciple of zaddok-- the
perosnages wiht this name were very distinguished.

but on internal evidence their laws are not sadducean at teh cruical
points, these people believe in resurrection, ginzberg demonstrated
their rules were compatible with rabbinic law and he did this 80 years
ago! it is true MMT has one rule that is like sadduces and i discussed
that in 1985 long befire mmt was even discussed anywhere. in such a
rule you are either strict or lenient. saducees and mmt are strict,
pharisees in mishna were lenient. that is only rule that accords wiht
saducees-- indeed the sect is neither pharisaic nor saduceen but juts
an unknown sect as ginzberg maintains. shiffmans scenario is
self-contradictory as now davies realizes.

 As always I claim lack of access
> to materials to be able to read a lot of the references given here so what
> are your ideas? (Believe it or not, it's an earnest request!)
> Ian Hutchesson

the sect is just a group we never heard of before and has no
significance really except we have there texts, icant go into all the
conglomeration of mistakes by very eminent scholars who know too much
and want to prove what is blatant nonsense. but what ive said is
essentially enough to realize that in the entire flux of things DSS
tell us little or nothing about history, something about language--if
onkly we could really date these things, and alot about the hsitory of
exegesis. the fragments of pseudepigrapha are very important.