Dave,
While I intended to "retire" from this thread for a while
as I checked out some of the references by Greg D.,
I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your post.
You write:
" The rabbinic and other testimony about more than just the 3 sects
> must be given at least equal weight when considering a question
> such as this one."
I would actually look forward to an evaluation of the rabbinic
references to various sects. The material I've read up to now
(which is far from systematic to be sure) is that sometimes
different names are applied to the SAME group. So there are
not quite as many sects as one might initially surmise. But in
any case, it would certainly be a GREAT help to us here if there
was a systematic treatment of the Rabbinic material on sects.
Are you familiar with a work that might do this?
You write:
"there are numerous crucial differences between Josephus' description of
> the Essenes and, say, 1QS, so the picture is far more complicated
> than one might think."
And this is the classic refutation that I find so "wanting". Saying
there
"crucial differences" does not nullify an Essene hypothesis.... as long
as there are no other real contenders for what we DO find in 1QS.
It motivates one to explain the differences (regional or chronological)
within the Essene movement. Hippolytus himself has a notoriously
overlooked treatment of the Essene movement changing over time
and being rendered into FOUR (4) factions. And yet I see no one
examining this "on point" text for conclusions.
You write:
" Why only the Essene movement? Why not PART of the Sadducee
> movement, or the Pharisee movement, or some other movement
> about which we know nothing?"
I would be willing to explore that.... but is there ANY serious
discussion anywhere of rival sects WITHIN the Sadducees?
This group is already small.... because it is "defined" by its
connection to the post of High Priest, and the highest levels
of authority within the Temple hierarchy. And since the Post-Herod
Sadducees have become "boethusian" in their opposition to an
afterlife and resurrection, they make a pretty poor candidate for
the Qumran materials.
The Pharisees make a better candidate. But not much better.
This group is defined, again, by their connection to the temple
hierarchy. Tithing (and avoiding tithes) is what this group is
well known for. While I am familiar with certain movements
WITHIN the Pharisees (two-fold vs. four fold or more different
strains or varieties), I am not familiar with Pharisees that share
the Essene viewpoint of the afterlife, with an immediate uplifting
of the soul....until the end of days, rather than a SLEEP until
the end of days. But perhaps I have not been broad enough in
my studies. If you have a group to suggest, I would look forward
to investigating them.
You write:
"The Essenes certainly didn't corner the market on
> such ideas in Judea."
While, in principle, I agree with this statement, the fact
that they worked APART from the Temple made it possible
for NUMEROUS splinter groups to form within the Essene
ranks, without having a centralized hierarchy to rein them
in. The Essenes are the PERFECT "greenhouse" for sectarian
development. But, again, I am open to suggestions about
non-Essene groups that you can suggest.
You write:
"....others have found plenty of Pharisee ideas in other documents."
This does not surprise me. What I would be interested in is
finding Pharisee ideas that CONTRADICT Essene ideas.
If you have specific instances of this, I'm sure they would be
valuable to disucss on this list.
You write:
"It hasn't really even been shown that the sectarian documents present
a unified picture of a single group; what has been preserved seems to
include ideas from all the ones we know and some that we don't know."
I am perfectly content with a NON-unified picture of what would
be an inherently fractious movement. To proceed, you will need to
tell me which documents are Pharisaic, and/or which are Sadducee,
and/or which ones seem to be unidentifiable. And then let's
discuss their merits on a case by case basis.
I WROTE:
> If you want to make your point convincingly, you need to
> show that either the other 2 KNOWN sects wrote the sectarian
> materials, or you need to identify ANOTHER sect that you think
> DID write them.
>
YOU WROTE:
> This is a false test, because it may be impossible to identify this
> "ANOTHER" sect.
I was quite deliberate about putting the "or" into this "test".
All I'm asking for is proof that there is ANY sect that more closely
explains the writings at Qumran better than the Essene model, and
which of course includes the idea that the candidate sect is not just
an offshoot of the Essenes (a la Hippolytus).
You write:
" Hence, this requirement to identify EXACTLY what sect might have
> produced the scrolls is not legitimate because there are too many
> unknown variables."
And I think this is the perfect sentence to conclude on.
What I see, in this "rush" of anti-Essene-model rhetoric is that
because there isn't PROOF that the material is Essene, then the
Essene model is dead. But I would use your own argument here.
The Essene-model is valid because it is the best fit of the known
facts..... not because it is iron-clad. When someone shows that
Essenes could *NOT* have written a manuscript..... this will be
NEWS.... and I will be very interested in learning about that.
Otherwise, all I perceive is "obstructionism" .... throwing road
blocks in the way of the most encouraging line of investigation.
David, thanks for the time you put in a very thorough response to
my earlier post.
George Brooks
Tampa, FL
For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks <[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.
