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

Re: orion response to RG, etc.

Dear Stephen,
     Of course the point of view of 1/2 Maccabees is different from the
pesharim.  However, you have not elaborated on or articulated the
significance of this obvious (if vague) fact, so I don't know how to respond.
 The POV of the pesharim and Josephus are also different, yet that has not
prevented anyone including yourself from utilizing Josephus for historical
     To answer your second question, I think it quite possible that there is
a relation between the Essene account and 1QS.  But to repeat my question, to
which you have _not_ responded: given that the Qumran corpus includes older
Enochian writings as well as Jubilees, why do you exclude the possibility
that 1QS isn't another example of an earlier (2nd century) text written by a
precursor to the Essenes of Josephus?  (This question is independent of
whether Enoch and Jubilees are from Hasidim circles.)

-- Russell Gmirkin

>Dear Russell Gmirkin,
>I have responded to you often. Since you asked me to, I'll respond, but be
>brief, since you seem unwilling to consider (the possibility) that the
>point of view of 1, 2 Maccabees differ(s) from that of the pesharim. I
>don't discourage anyone from studying those books or time periods. I am not
>persuaded Enoch "comes from the Hasidim" of 1,2 Maccabees, as you implied,
>though I do not deny that some people who have backed the Hasidim origin of
>Essenes may have opined that possibility.
>	As to another question on the orion table--whether the initiation
>in Serek hayahad is also described in War 2--Have you a view on that?
>Best wishes,
>Stephen Goranson