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

Re: orion not either/or

I tried to send this before and now try again. SG.
>Dear Jim West,
>If you prefer to deny evidence, so be it. If you wish to consider evidence,
>the list is too long for me to type fully, but includes: Pliny,  whose
>source certainly referred to Qumran during Herod's time; an ostracon which
>attests to the Essene initiation process as described in War 2 and Serek
>hayahad; teachings and practices, e.g., on predestination [did anyone see
>Carol Newsom's wonderful title of a paper on S--it starts "You May Already
>Be a Winner.." !   :  - )], expulsion, community property, spitting, etc.,
>which greatly resembles those described by Philo and Josephus et al.; the
>fact that the long-term tenure of the group to the archaeology and the size
>of the collection excludes unknown small groups; and, yes, the texts do
>explicitly tell us they are Essene (though presuppositions slowed
>recognition), in some cases (e.g., 1QpHab) by self-identifying as writings
>of the 'osey hatorah, an etymology known since at least 1532 by  various
>people, including Wm. Brownlee in the 1950s. And there is yet more evidence
>(yes, including the unusual grave type). But, if you will not acknowledge
>the above, it is needless to list further.
>	You accept that Essenes lived in Jerusalem (as do I, and they
>probably wrote some texts there), presumably based on Josephus' mention of
>a Gate of Essenes (and Judah, Menahem, and Simon).  Yet you reject Pliny
>and the thorough archaeological surveys (are you familiar with the Survey
>of Israel?)
>	Of course Essenes did not compose each text (e.g., Isaiah)--need
>this really be repeated? As to your inquiry ("Huh?") about James and Rev,
>these canonical books became reinterpreted as Christian interests changed;
>e.g. James' "be a doer of the law" was increasingly unwelcome, as were
>portions of Rev, such as its anti-Rome views. As for "parallelomania,"
>Sandmel was a scholar who had earned the right to use the term. Reclaiming
>the Essenes for Judaism is valid in a similar sense as was the work of the
>great scholar Gershom Scholem in reclaiming Sabbatianism. Have you read the
>review by L. Grabbe yet?  If I recall correctly, you have written favorably
>the "Jerusalem origin"  hypothesis. I am still awaiting a response.  N.
>Golb, of course, is free to join orion, also. I was not the originator of
>the Essene identity of some Qumran texts and residence at the site, but I
>see that it is ineluctable, It is a fait accompli. It is so obvious that I
>have become interested in the reasons some might have to insist that this
>obvious conclusion must be resisted. Can it be, in part, for some, a
>psychology which hopes that "democratic" scholarship will overturn
>everything built by supposedly bad old scholars? Josephus et al. are not
>infallible, and Essenes evidently had some internal differences. Those are
>important areas of study, IMO. That both Josephus and Paul claimed some
>link to the Pharisees for some part of their life makes things complicated,
>but interesting.
>Best wishes,
>Stephen Goranson