[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion-James Brother of Jesus
>>Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>>If we are still dealing with MMT, then the relevance of Romans is totally
missing. Roman influence came with the fall of Aristobulus. The "we/you"
being dealt with in MMT was clearly before the Romans. You have no idea of
the scale of the conflict between "we/you", so you have no way of knowing
when it was resolved. (I still see MMT as being an early document with a
context that requires a "peaceful" gentile presence in Jerusalem that is
highhandedly being excluded from the temple.) So the following has no
historical basis whatsoever.
Whether we are dealing with dating by Paleography, Numismatics, Carbon 14, or
the archeology of the Qumran site, your position Mr. Hutchesson provides no
better proof than making historical associations for the dating of the DSS.
I won't go over the issues of each of these dating techniques as they should
be well understood by you. MMT is only one of many texts found at this site.
Is there in fact any post 63 bce pre 100 ce evidence for Sadducees that goes
beyond reminiscences of no resurrection and the affirmation that one high
priest was a Sadducee? For a group that seems so important noone seems to
know very much about them at all
Today the term "Sadducee" is used because we have inherited it from sources
contemporary of the time as well as the references in the scrolls themselves
where "Tzqadokiym" is designated as referring to the group at Qumran. We
have references in the writings themselves to this Tzadokee self designation.
To conclude that all of these scrolls are 63 BCE or before is unwarranted
and not in accord with probability. Although the site was abandoned for a
period, it was later reinhabited and no firm assertion can be made that the
scrolls were placed in the caves by either period of habitation exclusively.
These texts can conceivably range from +/- 300 BCE to 68 CE. The talmud.
Although of a later date, does record theological differentiation between
what it calls Tzadokiym and the by then more normative Rabbanism. That the
talmud reflects a record of history earlier than its penning is not in
question.
>>It's a little difficult to keep up with your shifting time zones a
laSlaughterhouse 5. Are you talking about MMT here (pre 63, I think pre 175
bce) or Roman period (post 63 bce)? Are you talking about "the Qumran sect"
or some other? Which "existing records" are you talking about? (I have been
asking for sources for the various positions flying around for quite a
while.) Just so we know what exactly you are talking about...Let me ask the
question once again, as you talk of a Qumran sect: what sect?
The identification of Qumran as a sect is made by comparison. If the beliefs
and positions of Qumran were accepted and followed by all of 1st Century
Judaism then we would not have a sect. However, as the DSS themselves show,
there were some black and white differences between both the Temple
establishment, Pharisaic and Saduceean, and the Qumranites. In the DSS own
text is not this the reason for their separation? MMT specifically is
adamant about the "pollution of the seed". By clear implication this letter
is written to another group or "sect" that does not hold the more strict
Halakha of the Qumran group or if they do, they do so hypocritically.
However, I think a more pronounced differentiation between the Qumranites
and presumably many of the other contemporary 1st century groups is their
peculiar reliance on a variant calendar from that used at the Jerusalem
Temple. This is a very defining piece of knowledge when distinguishing the
Qumranites relationship with the other Jewish groups of the period.
>In my opinion, Qimron has defended his position,
>>You can see how many people are actually following his "defended" position.
Very few.
Don't mistake silence for agreement or disagreement Mr. Hutcheeson, there are
more sympathetic ears out here than can be distinguished by the reply's in
this forum.
>>False Sadducees is a theory that is unsubstantiated and based on a
historical context that is less likely than the earlier one. If it is early
then the baddies of MMT got the chop with the rise of the Hasmoneans, though
it is probable that some of their decendents were regrouped into the
Pharisaic movement.
To the extent that Saduccees were known to officiate in the temple, even
contemporaneously with the Pharisaic members of the temple cultus, and the
knowledge through the DSS that this temple Governance is rebuked in the DSS,
it is not difficult to assert that the Qumranites were not of the same group
as the Temple Tzadokiym. They may share some of the same beliefs but that
does not mean that they identified with the accomodationist and even
collaborationist allowances of the Jerusalem Temple Saducees. To that
extent, for the Qumranites, these Sadducees in the Temple were certainly
"false" Sadduccees.
>>You have no evidence for anything after 63 bce in the texts. The site was
handed over to the control of the Romans and then abandoned after 63 bce.
There is no clear evidence for habitation until the next century.
This is an unsubstantiated position. What we know is that the site was
abandoned in 68CE. We also know that there was a period when it was not
inhabited, but not that it remained uninhabited or was taken over and
exclusively controlled by Romans. The only evidence for the dating of "a
scroll" is that in the Paen to King Jonathan. We know it was written
contemporaneous with his reign and not before of course. Beyond that the
dating for these scrolls is uncertain. We may not have evidence from the
texts for anything after 63 BCE but we have evidence from the site itself of
habitation beyond that date. Furthermore, the texts dated to 63 bce may have
been copies of an earlier original.
Dogma. We've had this dogma for too long. If you repeat something long
enough, no matter how silly, people will start to believe it. There is no
proof of a so-called Qumran sect as separate from mainstream Judaism of the
epoch in which the texts were written. The only contemporary documents are
the scrolls themselves. If you don't agree you should state your position
with suitable evidence and stop falling back on authority. You should know
better as a logician.
The Qumranites, as I stated above, document their own separation from the
Temple Cultus. This separation when taken into account along with their
calendar and other beliefs, not known to have been part of the Jerusalem
establishment Temple Hierarchy of the time, de facto show that they were a
sect, unless you choose to change or clarify your definition of the term
sect.
I would love anyone who has some evidence for a Qumran sect to buy into the
argument. So far the sect supporters have reiterated the sad shreds of
contorted logic that gave us the Essenes of Qumran, that, well, SabbathSongs
were not sectarian, but the rest are -- on second thought, the temple scroll
isn't either -- then again neither are the mishmarot. Well, hell, someone has
some idea of what the sect was. Not everyone is shooting air on this sect
business are they? How many feet does one have to tread on to get some
serious reaction. I wouldn't mind a bit of egg on the face if only someone
would come across with the goods.
I hope you like an omelet Ian, all in fun of course. I think by the groups
own words which play out in scroll after scroll as a common lyric show their
separation, and thus "sectness", when contrasted with those other "sects"
they are writing to and about.
Michael Abdon
Yirmiyahu Ben-David - Shalom!