[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion Orion Sadducees
At 15:51 05/07/97 +0000, Stephen Goranson wrote:
>On 2 June Y. Ben-David wrote:
>"Qimron demonstrated that 'we' and 'you' in MMT refer to two distinct
>kinds of Tz'dokim..."
> I have a somewhat different view. Qimron and Strugnell do indeed argue
>(in DJD X, p. 117 and elsewhere) that MMT involves two varieties of
>Sadducees. (They don't use the spelling Tz'dokin, which is an unusual
>one, since an apostrophe usually transliterates an aleph or ayin.)
Clearly "Sadducees" is even further away from the tzade - dalet - quf
shoresh. I was referred for acceptable transliterations by the Orion
moderator to a web page that turned out to provide Hebrew (not
transliterations) which many forum members probably don't have. I will
certainly use it if it's acceptable. I'm aware of at least three different
sets of transliterations (one popular in many Jewish texts uses the
apostrophe for a khiriq). If the intent is to derive a better
transliteration (rather than simply find grounds to have me expelled from
the list and be rid of logical annoyances) then, perhaps, the natural
relationship in Hebrew can be preserved with Tzedoqim or someone will supply
an acceptable transliteration that preserves whatever relationship there is
>find this argument not persuasive--in other words, not demonstrated. MMT
>is more probably written from an Essene perspective to a
>Sadducee-inclined reader and about Pharisees ("they").
Please document the assertion "More probably (written from...)".
>For second temple
>period Sadducees Josephus and NT are closer than later rabbinic
Anachronistic and logically impossible. Was Susskind also wrong in his
asssessment? And in stating that halakhah was "the central factor in Jewish
life during this period"? Logically, this is intractably antithetical to
anti- halakhah positions characteristic of the *later* NT -- which would
appear to be baiting the discussion to venture beyond the scope of Orion?
(Clarification from the list moderator please.)
>Baumgarten, who was the first to note MMT parallels with legal positions
>later noted as Sadducee (JJS 31  157-70), has remarked that too
>much has been read into this, and has restated and added to observations...
Does this suggest that Qimron, Strugnell, and Susskind, publishing in 1994,
all were unaware of Baumgarten's 1980 remarks?
Even if the Qumran sect were Essenes (a point I leave to others), at this
juncture the logic hasn't been presented how these differences would
preclude their being a separate sub- sect, both of which shared Tzedoqim
origin. If they weren't different they wouldn't have been a separate sect.
Even if a Qumran-Essene connection can be established, mutual exclusivity
between "Essene perspective" and "Tzedoqim perspective" (as Qimron, et al.,
present it) has yet to be demonstrated. Goranson has dismissed, without
answering, the arguments of Qimron, et al. Their arguments merit answers.
Moreover, particularly in light of Susskind's strong statement that the
entire Jewish community regarded halakhah a "the central factor" (DJD X, p.
196-7), coupled with Goronson's anachronistic error, it remains to be shown
how anyone can maintain that any of these three sects of 1st century Judaism
could accurately be portrayed as maintaining anti-halakhic positions
characteristic of the *later* NT. Such a position is certainly untenable
from the one or two Dead Sea Scroll era extant source fragments underlying
the NT -- and discussion of the merits of later documents appears to exceed
the bounds of the Orion forum (again, clarification please from the list
Finally, making no statements of disrespect whatsoever, toward anyone, last
time someone made unsupported and wrongful slander against me I wasn't
permitted to respond (slander for which I'm still considering a lawsuit
against both the individuals and the institutions they represent). I was
suppressed and warned that I would be expelled from this forum if I
responded. So I must assume this may be all I'll be permitted to post on
this topic -- if this message sees the light of day. Hardly an atmosphere
of scholarly openness when one cannot present a logical view without being
slandered and expelled. Such would be reminiscent, I'm sad to say, of
Ioudaios. My silence, therefore, would equate, yet again, to suppression;
not nolo contendere or concession.
Paqiyd 16, Global Congregation of Nazarene Jews
Netzarim Viritual Community Center