Dear Stephen, I am familiar with Baumgarten's position on the relevance of rabbinic 'halakha' to the legal material of the scrolls. One of the most concise presentations of his position can be found on page 22 in DJD 18:
"As is well known, there are those who consider the relatively late date of the editing of rabbinic texts as a sufficient justification for ignoring them in their portrayal of pre-Christian Jewish history. There are scholars who view the Mishna as largely a theoretical construct of the sages of a post-destruction period, with little or no basis in ancient reality. Others still follow A. Geiger's theory that Pharisaic halakha was a late innovation, while the Sadducees were the guardians of the old halakha. These approaches are in need of substantial modification. Of course, one begins the exploration of Qumran law from within, utilizing the wider collections of biblical exegesis and 'serakhim' which are now available. The occasional approximately synchronic 'halakhic' material found in extra-biblical Jewish literature can also be of value. Nevertheless, in the study of the D fragments we have found the systematic tannaitic halakha to be the indispensable tool for understanding what the Qumran legists were teaching and with whom they were contending. Thus, the judicious utilization of rabbinic literature promises to bring more light through the unique window of ancient Jewish life opened by the Scroll discoveries." Not only do I agree with Baumgarten but, as far as I am aware, nothing I have said in this conversation contradicts his position. Finally, I have some issues with your counter arguments, which I reproduce here: "You have restated (below) that you consider it "helpful" to call Qumran legal texts "halakhic" I really do not. I find that it is either (a) assigning to them a quite distorting view owned by sect they opposed (Pharisees) and/or (b) retrojecting, without warrant, rabbinic terminology, on a group not rabbinic." Surely you can admit that there is a difference between the method of interpretation one uses and the results that are obtained from using a particular method. Disagreement with the results of a particular method is different than disagreeing with the method itself. The authors of the scrolls seem to have disagreed with some of the legal positions that were held by other groups but does this mean that they used a different methods to come to their positions? Not necessarily! Both Qumran and their opponents interpreted the biblical material through gap-filling, harmonization and the like. I am willing to concede that the scrolls do appear take issue with the so-called lenience of their opponents, but is this a rejection of the method, the results, or something else? A method is certainly influenced by such factors as stringency and lenience, but when this happens we say things like the author's 'halakha' is marked by stringency or lenience. We don't call it something else! Historically speaking you are no doubt right ... the authors of the scrolls probably would have "cringed" to hear us use the word to describe their legal positions. Clearly the word meant something different to them than it does to us (i.e. "seekers of smooth things" dorese hahalaqot), and that may well be reason enough to stop using it. However, when used in a generic sense to describe a method of interpretation, which is the only way I have seen it used in the field of ritual purity, I would argue that it is entirely appropriate. But as you say ... we might have to agree to disagree. Best, Ian -- 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
