George Brooks wrote in response to my last post:
> Prof. Young.
>
> In reference to Prof. Goranson, you write:
> " My problem is that it doesn't seem so simple. At the beginning of
> > the year I> reviewed the standard works on Qumran- Vermes etc, and I
> was
> unable to find one convincing argument for the sectarian Essene origin of
> the
> > Scrolls."
>
> I find this odd. Maybe this is because you are trying to find a text
> that says ESSENE written on it?
>
> If you hold to the view expressed by Josephus that Judaism has
> 3 main "tents" - - it would seem sufficiently clear that the Qumran texts
> are neither Sadducee or Pharisee.
>
> Do you then believe that the sectarian texts at Qumran (rather than
> just copies of parts of the bible) are some OTHER sect, rather than
> Essene?
>
> If this is your belief, I'm sure it would lead to interesting
> discussions.
>
> But the basic point of we who believe the Qumran texts are "more or
> less Essene" (as I might express it for the purposes of this post), is
> that they are NOT texts of the other two major branches of Judaism.
>
> Your thoughts or comments?
Thanks for the comments.
I would see Josephus' account as being very schematic. What he says about
each of the 3 'sects' is stylized for his Greco-Roman audience. More than
that I would suggest there were many more 'sects' than just Josephus' big
three. That is certainly the testimony of later sources like Rabbinic texts
and Church Fathers. There is an article by Goodman in which he criticizes
investigators of Qumran for working on the assumption that Qumran must fit
in with the little information we have in Josephus: M. Goodman, "A Note on
the Qumran Sectarians, the Essenes and Josephus," Journal of Jewish Studies
46, 1995, p.161-166. Thus my first response would be that we can't work on
the assumption that since Qumran isn't Pharisee or Saduccee (some on the
list would take issue with that!) they must be Essene. This also assumes
that all the Scrolls come from just one party. That isn't obvious to me.
Which texts are clearly Essene? Garcia-Martinez, and Boccaccini, for
instance, see the sectarian texts as stemming from a breakaway sect within
Essenism. Others see no connection with the Essenes.
Secondly Josephus indicates that the majority of the Jewish population were
not members of any sect, certainly not one of the 'major' ones. We hear of
just 6000 Pharisees and less Essenes and Sadducees. Do you have to be a
member of a major sect to write literature? I wouldn't have thought so.
People can express political opinions without belonging to a major party.
Thus I would argue it is wrong to assume that the literature must relate to
any sect at all. What sectarian bias can we find in a work like Genesis
Apocryphon? More to the point, do the so-called sectarian texts express
just one viewpoint? And how much do we know about how that viewpoint
translated into membership of a real group that had substantial members?
Can we even demonstrate that a text like the Community Rule, 1QS, is talking
about a real community that actually existed?
Maybe I'm missing something. What arguments convince you of the Essene
theory?
I don't think I'm being deliberately obscure and obtuse here. Of course we
must theorize about the origins of the Scrolls. However, I think it is
dangerous to assume we have solid answers to the basic questions on which we
can then base further theories.
Regards,
Ian Young
Sydney University
For private reply, e-mail to Ian Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
