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

Re: orion Stephen Goranson & Josephus

Yirmiyahu Ben-David wrote:

> At 22:53 22/07/97 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> >even the most reasoned speculation is still opinion.
> Non sequitur.  Reasoning is neither opinion nor speculation.  Your
> assertion
> is unfounded and self-contradicting.

    Well...uh...ok.  Let me try to make what I thought was a clear
statement clearer.Reasonable speculation (based on the available
evidence) is the "stuff" of the
historian.  It is the result of a methodological approach to the
analysis of the
palaeographical, contextual and archaeological evidence where the DSS
concerned.  Both the external and internal evidences for the Essenes as
owners and depositors of the DSS are weak and problematic in some areas
it is still a "reasonable speculation."  Most DSS scholars, therefore,
are of the
*opinion* that the texts belonged to the Essenes based on their
speculation* following their methodological studies of the internal and
evidences.  Schiffman's *opinion* that the DSS were the property of the
Sadducees is also a *reasonable speculation* based on his methodological

approach in interpreting the available evidence.  If, however, one
wishes to
pose that the DSS were the property of von Danniken's spacemen who built

the pyramids, I would characterize that as "UNreasonable speculation"
an opinion.

    Again you missed the intent and focus of my post.

> >Along come the putative Essenes who wear the white
> hats...er...robes..and
> >they are perceived to be more like us Christians than "dem durn
> Pharisees
> >and Sadducees."
> Perceived to be more like 'you Christians' by whom?  Based on what?
> This is
> something which needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.

    By the Christian DSS scholars based on the real or perceived
parallels in practiceand vorlage.  Read the earliest reports and
publications, particularly of the 50's.  Read
Charlesworth.  Read Schiffman who titles his book "Reclaiming the Dead
Sea Scrolls."

> The sine qua non of
> Christianity, and proto-Christianity, was selective observance of
> Torah as
> contrasted with observance of the entirety of Torah (including Torah
> sheba'al peh) by legitimate Judaism as defined by the Beyt Din
> Ha-Gadol.  If
> there is evidence that the Essenes were tolerant of selective
> observance of
> Torah, the necessary ingredient characteristic of Christianity and
> proto-Christianity, I don't recall having seen it presented.

    None of the above has anything to do with my post which addressed
the *present*state of DSS studies.  I am sure there is one of those
Latin "logic" phrases that
addresses this but instead I'll ask you to go back and READ what I
really said.

Jack Kilmon