George wrote:
2) As far as the Qumran material goes, I can find NO evidence
>that they are Sadduceean or Pharisaic....
I suggest you read the analysis of Lawrence Schiffman, et al. regarding Sadducee
content in the scrolls.
>and so I am satisfied
>with at least THAT conclusion. Whether it was Essene or some
>"Essene-like" sect hardly affects the value of these writings,
>wouldn't you agree? Will you please comment on this
>particular point?
The Essenes had nothing obvious to do with the production of the scrolls. The
leaders of the scrolls community were the *sons of Zadok*, who you will find in the
book of Ezekiel, ie the high priesthood of Jerusalem. And MMT is a defence of temple
purity, the mishmarot are priestly rosters for shifts in the temple.
>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.
The logic is incoherent here, George: one doesn't need to provide an alternative
(though I do here). One has to show more than the web o9f conjecture that the
Essenes had anything to do with the scrolls. This has never been done in fifty
years. It seems unlikely now that it will be done. All the arguments for the Essene
Hypothesis are on the table and are lacking. Pliny is misused. Tendentious readings
of the scrolls are not worth publishing. Unprovable etymologies likewise. Some real
evidence? We are at the starting point on that with the Essenes nothing has come
along. We have to stop fantasizing about them and go for the facts that are
available.
Ian
Ian Hutchesson
mc2499(at)mclink.it
28/05/01
For private reply, e-mail to "Ian Hutchesson" <[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.
