Dear Stephen, When Schiffman's dissertation came out in the early 70's (Brandeis 1971?) the field of DSS research was less than twenty-five years old! It is not surprising that the use of the word 'halakha' caused some waves, but it has since been adopted as an acceptable label by the majority of those working on the legal material from Qumran. And yes ... Schiffman still uses the word!
I don't know that I have ever suggested that the word 'halakha' is totally without baggage. 'Halakha', like cannon and pseudepigrapha, is anachronistic when applied to the Qumran literature. There is no getting around that. Moreover, 'halakha' certainly has a more specific usage in rabbinic circles. That is not to say, however, that the word cannot be used as a helpful technical term to describe a similar form of legal interpretation in the Second Temple period. In contrast to what you have suggested, I do not see the use of the word 'halakha' in scholarly discussions as some form of revisionist history. I have no doubt that some have used the word in a less than accurate manner, but in my experience people like Baumgarten and Schiffman have used the word in an appropriately generic fashion. Could we come up with another word to describe the legal interpretations of the scrolls? Sure! Would it be helpful? In the short term I would have to say no. In the long term, however, and this is where I agree with the trajectory of your thought Stephen, we may find it helpful to disentangle the scrolls from the witness of the rabbinic material in order to free the scrolls from their already powerful influence. For the moment, however, it is helpful in scholarly discussions to describe the legal material at Qumran as 'halakha'. Best, Ian Quoting Stephen Goranson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear Ian W. > > Again you are using the argument that if someone (modern) did it, it is OK, > even good. (But, Mom, all the kids do it.) Your first example, Larry > Schiffman's dissertation title, is I recall correctly, did not arrive > without considerable regrets by some learned advisors. You have the option of > > less problematic, less obscuring, language, if you are open. > > To take another example, should we say Philo writes halakha, before > considering > his Greek? Did early Samaritans practice halakha? > > best, > Stephen Goranson > > P.S. Herb, good example. > _______________________________________________ > g-Megillot mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot > -- Ian Werrett PhD Candidate St Mary's College University of St Andrews ----------------------------------------------------------------- University of St Andrews Webmail: http://webmail.st-andrews.ac.uk _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
