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

Re: Calendar, MMT

Dear Yirmiyahu,

The following flash was from Greg Doudna:

>>>The key question is one of evidence: what is the evidence
>>>that MMT is sectarian and not composed by priests in power
>>>in Jerusalem?  So ends this heretical reading of MMT.
>>>But is it so heretical?  Q and S say at one point:
>>>    "MMT implies that the 'we' group regularly
>>>    administered the Jerusalem temple" (p. 121)

>I understood this quotation from Qimron to be phrased ambiguously and to 
>mean: "MMT implies that the 'we' group [*ONCE*] regularly administered
>the Jerusalem Temple" which, of course, is so obvious as not to require
>further explanation.  In not supplying an otherwise obviously needed
>explanation I reasoned that this was Qimron's meaning.  Perhaps he and/
>or Schiffman could clarify?

However, while your understanding is in concert with Qimron, the important
content is that the "we" writers "regularly administered the Jerusalem
temple". There is no discord in this statement. Those who administered in
the temple were high priests and mainstream people. There is no reason to
suspect MMT is otherwise than what it seems -- a mainstream document.

If this is so, then the following logic needs to be revised:

>While I buy the date for MMT Qimron gives on the same page ("probably 
>between 159 - 152 BCE"), I still think CD is even earlier (Khonyo III, a 
>generation earlier), and, while a later dating for CD is more popular, I 
>think the later date for CD is suspended from speculation about the 
>identity of the Moreh Tzeddek.  Thus, I still see CD antedating MMT as 
>plausible.  Reasonable?

While we're guessing, why can't MMT have been written prior to Onias III's


Ian Hutchesson