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

Re: Calendar, MMT & Enoch (Combined)

I am trying to combine a few answers to save bandwidth:

>From: "Greg Doudna" <GD@teol.ku.dk>

>"sectarian" begins fracturing.  The insight I hoped to
>introduce was that the issue and rhetoric of group discipline
>and cohesion needs to be distinguished from the
>separate issue of political and social marginalization.
>There is no necessary linkage.  The terminology of
>"sectarian", unless more carefully defined, may be

I agree that we use the term 'sectarian' a little too easily. But in this
case, there does appear to be a delineation being made that excludes the two
groups from belonging to the same 'sect'.

>From: mc2499@mclink.it (Ian Hutchesson)
>>On Greg's suggestion, Moshe Shulman has already pointed out the incongruity
>>of the priestly establishment "separating" from the people.
>This of course doesn't mean a totally isolating separation otherwise their
>priestly role would be rendered useless. The priestly observances that they
>were advocating and following were in themselves something that separated

Actually Ian, it does mean they seperated themselves from the temple service.

>>The reason for the
>>separation is explicitly to avoid participating in the sins of the priests at
>Their separation is on the practice of certain acts and this document is
>making clear their points of view. Does this necessarily imply a physical
>separation? Given the attitude towards the temple clearly derived from MMT
>such a separation doesn't make sense.

PR$ would mean to seperate physically, and not just to differ in their views
of halacha.

>From: "David W. Suter" <dsuter@catadon.stmartin.edu>

>To Moshe, in a yet subsequent post, if one follows the use of zenuth in
>places like CD and the Testament of Levi (I made this argument originally

There is a difference between the noun and the verb. Here it appears as a
noun. (As to CD I looked at 5.6-11 which discusses marriages, and the word
'zenuth' doesn't appear. Is there someplace else that you meant?)

>From: RGmyrken@aol.com

> [Greg misunderstands my position to be that MMT is "non-priests talking
>about all priests."  MMT obviously reflects priestly concerns.  Rather, my
>position is that MMT is from the sectarian council, dominated by priests, all
>of whom were boycotting the temple, against priests still serving in the
>temple.]  This model sees a relation between MMT and Qumran documents such as
>CD that show a boycott of the temple, and are therefore of a definite
>sectarian character.

Why is it so 'obvious' that the concerns are ONLY those of priests. While
there are a few laws of specific sacrifices, the majority of the laws are
those that would effect ALL the people. I can't see this being restricted.

>5. How intense was the MMT debate?
>An interesting question I will pose to Greg and Ian: did the authors of MMT
>consider the practices of their opponents intolerable or merely
>objectionable?  Did these incorrect practices defile the temple and its cult?
> If merely objectionable, then maybe the two factions coexisted in the
>temple.   If intolerable, it seems to me this supports the proposition that
>the authors of MMT boycotted the temple.

This is a key question because it leads to other questions. If we say that
these differences were intolerable (as I would suspect, as my understanding
here is they were serious enough to case these people to seperate from the
majority), then can we say they are Essenes? The reason is that if they were,
we have two non Essenes, Josephus and Philo (who would most likely have
supported the temple worship, and other laws), who actually had very
complementary things to say about the Essenes. My feeling is that what was
serious and the cause of conflict in the 2nd century, was cooled down by the
1st century CE.

>From: netzarim@netvision.net.il
>Particularly if CD was the earlier document as I and others hold, then at
>the time of CD, Moreh Tzeddedk *could* only have referred to a single
>historical person.

The opposite is the case. If CD is earlier, then it is POST MT's death. That
means if MMT is by the Moreh Tzedik, it is a SECOND one.

>>I agree that they are part of the 'tradition', but I don't see this as
>>relating in any way to the use of the word 'moreh'. It seems to have been
>>used specifically of one person, and was not the title of any of the
>>officials of the community.
>The same point above answers this objection as well.  As to its use in
>later documents, that it seems to have been used specifically of one
>person, assuming CD is the earlier document, seems supported strictly by
>petitio principii?  If CD were the later document then the problems you've
>suggested are apparent.  But I don't (yet) find that compelling.  Are
>there other indications that contradict the use of the title passing to

CD uses the term 'Moreh HaYachud' for the Moreh Tzedik, which seems to
indicate the special character that he was.

   |            /\           |                         |
   |       ____/_ \____      |                         |
   |       \  ___\ \  /      |                         |
   |        \/ /  \/ /       |     Moshe Shulman       |
   |        / /\__/_/\       | mshulman@ix.netcom.com  |
   |       /__\ \_____\      |                         |
   |           \  /          |                         |
   |            \/           |                         |