[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Re: dss and rabbis
>From Dr Goranson:
1. > This is a rather dismissive and insubstantial treatment from a
>scholar who often calls on us to to employ careful, sophisticated
2. >The group
>that, say, Josephus called Pharisees was not always and by everyone called
3. >There is no reason at all that the writer of 4QMMT need be
>imagined as embarassed at using the root PRS of his own group or imagined
>as from a different group than the writer of 4QpNah.
4. > This dismissal of the pun, which has been obvious to several
>writers of close analysis of 4QpNah
5. >show us your historical methodology specifically in the case
>of this text, and why anyone reading orion should conclude that your
>presumably-different results are better.
OK. Here goes. Some Precepts From theLaws of Methodology (4QOrionB)
1 Keep your temper and don't be rude.
2. Employ terms carefully. If Josephus's Pharisees (late 1st century) are
the same group as an earlier group by a diferent name, say so.
3. avoid statements like "'there is no reason at all that" because often
the exact opposite is often just as true, i.e. 'There is no reason at all
4. The fact that something is obvious to many does not make it obvious to
all, and "being obvious" is not the same as being demonstrated. If
something is not obvious to either me or Sigrid or Russell then I am not
sure how obvious it is.
Can I also thank Martin Jaffee for a very useful comment on Ginzberg and
Rabin, with which I am in broad agreement. The arguments from Ginzberg are
certainly good enough to put up against arguments that the Pharisees are
the dwrshy hlqwt, and the conclusion ought to be that the question is open,
perhaps becuase we need to think more and clarify our terms and our
understanding of religious associations in Second Temple Judaism.
Philip R Davies
Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield