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

Re: orion Several

At 11:01 AM 10/15/97 -0400, you wrote:

>The suggestion that a group which considers itself to be attempting a
>"revival" of  "all Israel" cannot  simultaneously be considered by some
>outsiders as "sectarian" or separatist or mis-directed is plainly false.

Why?  If it is a "pan-israel" movement the point is that there are no
outsiders so far as the group is concerned (except for those outside the
covenant- i.e., gentiles).  The whole point is to call back Israel to its
religious roots; this is an inclusive rather than exclusive movement.  Thus,
the participants in the movement would not have seen themselves as
sectarians- and that is what counts.

>The Essenes at Qumran and elsewhere considered themselves to be attempting
>what could be called a "revival" yet were considered wrong-headed by some
>outsiders. Essenes considered themselves the true Judah and the true
>observers of torah. Not everyone was pleased by that self-description.
>There are other examples in Judaism and many other religions.

Who are the outsiders; and from whose perspective are they outsiders?

>	On this list, with the reeruption of belligerence from Dr. Cryer,

This sentence is pure rubbish; I hope that the moderator takes note of the tone.

>even as I write about Essenes, I know some on the list appear fixated on
>denial that some Essenes lived at Qumran and had some scrolls with them.

Not fixated- just unconvinced.  How does such divisive language advance the

>I'm not speaking of those who merely advocate a methodology of first
>studying discretely, say, archaeology of cylindrical jars [evidently not
>available in 63 or 55 BCE] , but of those actively intent--as if by
>oath--to deny what de Vaux, early cave four editors, and several before
>them, have recognized. At this point the historical observation of a Qumran
>Essene presence is less puzzling than the psychological questions of why a
>few modern scholars would be so irrationally committed to excluding it.
>Stephen Goranson   goranson@duke.edu

Perhaps the greatest irrationalism is in holding to an unproven position
rather than honestly questioning its presuppositions.


Jim West

Adjunct Professor of Bible,
Quartz Hill School of Theology