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

Re: Calendar, MMT

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:26:17 +0100  Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>Dear Yirmiyahu, ...
>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.

I guess I'm out of synch but I agree both that it's a mainstream document 
and that it's a sectarian document.  Perhaps you're arguing against MMT 
being perceived as a non- mainstream document?  I think you'd be right 
about that, but I'm not sure this is being argued.

Sectarian, limited to the three major sects, was not mutually exclusive
of mainstream Judaism.  In fact, mainstream Judaism comprised three major 
sects at this time and, it seems to me, MMT represents one of those 
*mainstream* *sects* (IMO the original Tz'doqim purists -- Khasiydim
B'ney Tzadoq -- who had been usurped by the apostate spin-off Greco-
Roman Pseudo- Tz'doqim "appointed" to power by the Romans and who came
to predominate the scribal craft).  As a side thought, I'd think that 
scriptures produced by the "real" kohanim of the Beyt Miyqdash, even
though the "Sadducees" certainly attempted to suppress them and make
them a non- entity, would have been highly prized, motivating them to 
become scribes.  Is such rival suppression by the GR Pseudo- Tz'doqim
not also compatible with the illusive identity of Essenes / scribes / 
Qumranians, et al.?

Also, I'm curious (in general, not you in particular, Ian) if the 
differences between Essenes, scribes, Qumranians, et al. over time is like 
defining the Republicans or Democrats of Lincoln's time and proving that 
they weren't Republicans or Democrats based on today's definitions?  Might 
there be some overlooking of the dynamic natures of these groups over time?

>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

I don't know of any way to rule it out, I just don't find it as compelling 
(yet, at least). But I still don't understand what dictates that this logic 
needs to be revised?  I'm missing something -- of course, that merely 
confirms what everyone already suspected.  (8-{)}

Kol tuv,

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:20:15 Y'rushalayim Time, 11/20/96
Yirmiyahu Ben-David, Paqiyd 16; Ra'anana, Israel
Q'hiylat Ha-N'tzarim
(Global Congregation of Nazarene Jews)

N'tzarim Virtual Community Center:

N'tzarim... Authentic
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *