concepts of purity and its rhetoric defy clasification by reference to the
boundary markers. Forinstance the am haaretz were treated as if they had
zav impurity and gentiles the same. Now it is possible for jew to have
zav impurity but impossible for a gentile. None the less-- here gentiles
were marked as Jews by the boundary markers --- but that is nonsense-- of
course they were not considered Jews at all, non Jewish women were marked
as "nida" but of course tehy were not. The terms and rhetoric refer to how
a haver interacts with them and allows his family to interact with them.
But it tells us nothing about the classification of the polarity
Jew/Gentile.
Boundary Behaviors are insufficient to identify a group-- they are
functional and utilitarian, social but not descriptive of any one specific
entity. There are a lot of people I stay away from and for lots of
reasons. The fact I avoid drunk drivers is not the same reason I avoid
police cruisers. But my behavior is the same-- I want other cars between
me and them.
Thus there is nothing to learn from Essene behavior towards other Jews
about how they viewed their Jewish identity.
Herb Basser
For private reply, e-mail to Herbert Basser <[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.
(PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
