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

orion 3 brief responses

	Some time ago, Albert Baumgarten invited us to give examples of
what new, future evidence would cause us to reevaluate a presently-held
view. Here's an example for me. If a future discovery of a Qumran-size
cache of Second Temple mss, except--unlike Qumran--with many Pharisee
texts, failed to include the word "halakah" in a sense similar to that in
Rabbinic literature (though perhaps without the full [perhaps later]
association with oral torah), then I'd say I was probably wrong about the
word play in 4QpNah.
	Poor Popper. Fred Cryer is mistaken in writing that the reason he
didn't deign to falsify the 4QpNah reference to Pharisees is because it's
my theory. Then something about Arcturus. But it's not my invention. And,
in any case, that was not Popper's concern.
	Martin Jaffee wrote "'IF halaqot is indeed a pun on halakah, this
would add further evidence for identifying dorshei halaqot as Pharisees.'
Can we agree on this?" To which I respond: Yes. And further, I think it is
and does add *further* evidence indeed.
Happy New Year,
Stephen Goranson