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

Re: Qumran question (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:59:44 EST
From: James R. Davila <jrd4@st-andrews.ac.uk>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu>
Subject: Re: Qumran question

>as far as i am concerned a text read by a community is a community
>text whether or not they composed it-- daniel was influential even
>though the sect didnt write it. dividing texts into the sects and
>others may have a point but not in discussing their beliefs.

Would that it were that easy.  Since the texts in the Qumran library are
not perfectly consistent, it is impossible that the sectaries could have
believed everything in them.  As one of my students in my current DSS
seminar has pointed out in this week's paper, it appears that three
calendars are represented in the Qumran library:  the solar calendar, a
lunar calendar (4Q503), and a 360 day Mesopotamian (?) version (4Q318).
Which did they use?  Such examples could be multiplied.

Granted, Daniel was influential-at least they read it, but that doesn't
prove that the librarians believed in resurrection, anymore than
Protestants keep the laws in Leviticus.  Beware of canons within canons!

>thanks for
>the resurrection reference. AS far as ican see there is one clear
>rule, one probable rule in MMT that one might call "shared with
>sadducees", as i said i discussed these already in 1985 RQ.

Which is just enough to be completely confusing, isn't it?

Jim Davila
University of St. Andrews