[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion DSS and rabbis
Dear Fred Cryer,
I appreciate various of your posts (e.g., I think is is a good
question whether one can always tell if a small scrap of text is dictated).
On the other hand--I could be mistaken and can be corrected--but it appears
to me that on occasion you simply avoid evidence which does not suit you.
For example, if you wish to try to falsify the conclusion that the writer
of 4QpNah addressed (amongst others) a group we today call "Pharisees,"
then, by all means, give it a go. (Note: I concede the name "Pharisees" is
not in that text.) Anyone else is free to, as well. No one has done so.
Greg Doudna and others have hinted that perhaps they could do so, if
inclined. Rather, as Martin Jaffee observed, we have, e.g., allusions to
Golb, who vaguely raised doubts rather than propose a clear better reading
or alternate; Golb, who demands a higher level of evidence from others than
from himself. If it is problematic to retroject Rabbinic ideas to early
Pharisees, is it not also unsafe to assume rabbinic texts sprang up out of
the blue? (No one has answered L. Grabbe's review of Golb, either.)
Popper et al. have their uses (discussions of theory [uses and
abuses] have, actually, reached Durham NC), but there's no point dressing
up your personal preferences with references to them, as if that makes your
claims more scientific. We have had this problem before. E.g., though I
have no trouble agreeing that many Qumran mss apparently were written
and/or copied c 100 to 50 BCE--after all, I've written that Alexander
Jannaeus and Judah are important figures in this (and, who knows, maybe
Simeon b. Shetah too)--you simply report the AMS numbers incorrectly.
That's not science.
Again, Fred or anyone: how is it that to say 4QpNah is concerned,
in part, with Pharisees is false?
Stephen Goranson email@example.com
P.S. The Altman on orion, not to be confused with Neil Altman, is Rochelle