[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Qumran question (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 09:01:02 EST
From: Dr DR de Lacey <email@example.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Qumran question
On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, James R. Davila wrote:
> >But how do we gain the necessary independent knowledge of Sadducean legal
> >traditions? I know of no non-circular arguments (though I'd love to be
> >Douglas de Lacey
> Schiffman argues that in the cases where rabbinic halakha distinguishes the
> Sadducean position from the position of the sages, the Qumran texts (esp.
> 4QMMT and the Temple Scroll) tend to agree with the Sadducees.
I know (and indeed he is not the first.) But "tend to agree with" is far
too strong. "both disagree with the Rabbis" may be defensible -- on some
but not all issues, that is; and not (I would argue) on what are likely to
have been the *important* ones. And anyway this is only very late
tradition about Sadducee views, preserved by their enemies. Not the most
compelling evidence (IMHO).
Douglas de Lacey
Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit, Cambridge University Library