Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
Well, Ian, conventions are difficult to break, and truth be told my own adherence to my own claims and views is practised more in the breach than inthe observance: In Brill's Encyclopedia of Midrash (2005) p 513 you will find a caption Halakha and there you will find me comparing halakhic approaches in discussing biblical legal interpretation. Nonetheless, these are simply bad habits and require some discipline to change-- Like using inclusive language, which ingrains an awareness we have. I know what you write is how things are, but we need differentiating language if we are to see Qumran on its own terms and not relative to literatures we know better. Herb ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
Dear Herb, Thank you for your insightful posting! I appreciate your comments on the appropriation/use, or misappropriation/misuse, of terms that are specific to a particular religious tradition. That being said, I am a little concerned that we are being a bit too quick to point the finger at one particular group, be they Jew or Christian. There is no denying that Christian thought has had a huge impact on the way in which biblical scholars go about their business, but many of those who have used words like 'halakha' to describe the legal material in the scrolls over the last century have either been Jews, rabbis, or both (i.e. S. Schechter, G. Alon, Y. Yadin, J. Baumgarten, Y. Sussmann, S. Schiffman, so on). If Jewish scholars use a Jewish term in a way that deviates from its traditional usage, as you have suggested with Schiffman's definition from _The Halakhah at Qumran_, is this simply a case of being influenced by Christian categories etc? Although it can certainly be argued that we have all been influenced by Christian categories, irrespective of our faith or religious tradition, I am not sure this proves that the definition for the word 'halakha' has been similarly influenced. I suppose one way to answer this question would be for someone write a dissertation on the use of the word halakha from its first usage to the present, but, seeing that I am already working on a dissertation, that person is not me! As Stephen Goranson has argued, the mere fact that Qumran scholars use halakha to describe the legal material in the scrolls indicates that, at the very least, it is being used anachronistically, and, at worst, inappropriately. As I have stated in previous postings, I agree that the term is anachronistic but I still feel that it is an appropriate term when applied to the legal material in the scrolls. Contrary to what some may think, this is not a recent trend in scroll scholarship. Take, for example, this quote from S. Schechters introduction to CD in the _Documents of Jewish Sectaries_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), xii: The contents of the MS are in their present state about equally divided between Hagada and Halacha ... The Hagada as well as the Halacha represent apparently the constitution and the teachings of a Sect long ago extinct, but in which we may perhaps easily detect the parent of later schisms with which history dealt with more leniently. Admittedly Schechter does not argue that halakha is a method of interpretation, but doesnt his use of the words halakha and haggadah exhibit a deviation from their traditional usage? Obviously Schechter thought that it was appropriate to use the word halakha, but in doing so he widened the semantic range of the word in order to include writings beyond those of the rabbis. Others have agreed with Schechter and the meaning of the word has since been widened to include the legal material from Qumran and other Jewish documents. Furthermore, we have seen how the term has been widened even further in recent years to include methodological considerations. As long as we are aware of these shifts in meaning, and their possible/probable sources, is this evolution necessarily a bad thing? Sorry for the length and the delay in this posting! 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
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
oh my complaint is against using words in scholarship which are taken from religious traditions and then reading back our anthropological assumptions about these terms as if the tradition is all about our reductions. And also, if physics has no biblical basis does that mean we shouldnt meddle with it? The materials that discuss halakhah hold to a theory of dual revelations-- one oral, one in writing. Then you can try to reconcile them. But even the written one is considered to require specialized reading that goes beyond the scope of our discussion here. But we also have to realize that the talmud reports some cases where halakhah (yes that is the word) uproots scripture. I once wrote an article about that but the Messianic Jews then went ahead and wrote stuff on the web that totally misrepresented my points and quoted me so I do not like to discuss such matters in open forums. Herb Basser [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
Dear Herb, You make a good point! Perhaps I did push things a bit too far in order to make the distinction between the way in which one arrives at a particular interpretation and the interpretation itself. Having said that, please allow me to provide three short quotations which may help to facilitate our discussion: The first quote is from the glossary in H. Harrington, _The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis_ (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 312: Halakha - A majority ruling of the Sages; the traditional interpretation of Jewish law. In my opinion the second clause is not as concise as it could be. If she had said the traditional rulings or opinions on Jewish law rather than the traditional interpretation of Jewish law I would agree with you, but there is more than enough ambiguity in this sentence to suggest that she is describing a method of interpretation rather than the rulings themselves. Perhaps this is splitting hairs, but aren't we already doing that? The second quote is from R. N. Soulen and R. K. Soulen, _Handbook of Biblical Criticism_ (3ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 71 Halakah - ... As a descriptive term referring to the legal interpretive methods of rabbinic literature, 'halakah' stands in contrast to 'haggadah'. This quote speaks for itself, but I should note that this is one of several definitions listed. The other definitions do lend support to your position Herb, but, as you noted yourself ... 'halakha' is not a term that is used with absolute consistency by the rabbis. And finally a quote from L. Schiffman, _The Halakhah at Qumran_ (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 2: To identify the Qumran sect, scholars have considered the 'halakhot' and the peculiar contemporizing exegesis found in these texts. 'Halakhah' and exegesis are necessarily interrelated, since in Judaism the 'halakhah' is primarily derived through or anchored to Scriptural interpretation or hermeneutics. Although Schiffman does not go so far as to say that 'halakha' is an exegetical method, he is careful to note that 'halakha' and exegesis are necessarily interrelated and anchored to one another. This is slightly different than saying that 'halakha' never refers to scriptural exegesis or to the process from which it is derived. Schiffman's definition appears to occupy the middle ground between our two positions Herb, and, I must say, it is quite convincing. As noted earlier in this discussion, Schiffman wrote his dissertation in the early days of DSS research and was no doubt aware of the potential problems associated with calling his book _The Halakhah at Qumran_. Perhaps this is why his definition is slightly more liberal than the traditional definitions you have cited. Whatever the reasons, it appears as if the semantic range of 'halakha' has evolved to a point where it is frequently used in the field to describe both the legal rulings and ways in which those rulings were derived. If anyone has a copy of Schiffman's _Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls_, I believe he has a glossary in the back with a definition of the word 'halakha'. If so ... it might be interesting to see if his understanding the of the word has changed over the years. 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
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
Dear Ian: I appreciate your thoughtful post; allow me please to reflect at length. I stand by what I said. People who deal with Qumran sometimes, improperly, just use the word halakhah to mean law as opposed to lore and I did write in an earlier post What we now call Midrash halakhah (likely, coined in opposition to the term midrash aggada) may pay attention to counter intuitive exegetical rules. Let me unpack this a bit more in terms of modern scholarship. Most scholars use terminology based on Christian categories and as such consider Jewish laws to be somewhat fanciful interpretations of the divine word. Hence their use of halakhah as an interpretation rather than a divine law. Hannah Harrington is a devout evangelical and because of this pays close attention to detail. She knows what she's talking about. But she teaches in a Bible college in Oakland and her terms may be geared to her students (consciously or otherwise). She knows halakhah is never a method. Soulen and Soulen are again caught in the Christian theological web and should have said Midrash Halakhah in which case their defintion would have been accurate. But even so the point is not exact since midrash Halakhah can refer even to aggadic matter, and our compilations of midrash halakhah have ample amounts of non-legal materials also. Schiffman is only correct in stating that legal rulings become attached to specific verses through various strategies but the attachment is not at all referred to as halakhah but rather (in post talmudic times) midrash(ei) halakhah-- ways of deriving halakhah. The ancient rabbis themselves referred to this as talmud or talmud torah (censors later changed the anathematic term talmud to gemara in the sources) and the term yesh talmud lomar (shortened to yesh talmud or talmud lomar, incorrectly rendered as scripture states) introduces the verse being attached to the law for exegetical purposes. But dropping the christian terminology, the word halakhah itself does not imply exegesis at all. It is a definitive ruling, and in order to unify the oral and written laws (so the argument runs) under pressure from opponents much effort was put into developping scriptural base for many Jewish laws which had no scriptural warrant. Halakhah and exegesis are only connected if we see halivni's notion of mishnah as revolution as final (lauterbach actually said it first) but then again they did not call the process halakhah but justified law (halivni I think actually makes the point specifically) or midrash. My inclination is to abandon the term and try to free the language of ancient Jewish texts from Christian/academic/ theology. Halakhah and Exegesis are separate, and even if we allow that halakhah stems from exegesis (which is not an absurd assumption) we should not allow ther terms to mix. A human being is not sexual activity, although we should admit that the one produced the other. The word Halakhah as used in Jewish literature precludes any sense of exegesis. If we want to claim that its origins lie in exegesis and take it from there we may do so. I have written at length here only because I know there is no merit in using terms with meanings that have seeped into academic parlance with loaded meanings that are antithetical to the original usages. Now I know people will claim that halakha cannot be accepted as the word of God in the academic community and that is of course true, but we should not use terms that are specific to religious traditions and strap the term with our own baggage. Strack's discussion (Intro to the Talmud and Midrash, ch 2, first page or two) makes clear the division between halakhah and written scripture. We can and should make judgments about terminolgy employed by religious traditions but we must not use their terminology as if it already reflects our functionalist/reductionalist suppositions. Students who learn bible in university alone might think that the ancient Jews accepted JEPD as givens. They cannot then understand any ancient discussions of the Bible. And yes, I have an axe to grind here: the late Willard Oxtoby objected at my PhD orals (how could a tradition so biblically based produce this gibberish!) and my supervisor, Lou Silberman objected--( Oh, they weren't protestants!) and that exchange cost me an aweful lot subsequently. Lets keep our interpretations of what is interpretation separate from the usages of the traditions we study and just use English. Herb ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
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
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
I just want to make one small comment on an issue that has been raised by Stephen Goranson but has recurred throughout the more recent history of DSS discussion. These legal matters are best not termed here halakha, because that rabbinic term is not used at Qumran in the rabbinic sense The question is not what the term is called but whether it is the same thing. In fact it is not a term consistently used by the rabbis either. Legal exegesis aimed at regulating the life of a Jewish community, in both cases. And the techniques are similar enough, as are the presuppositions. I remain to be convinced that the 'rabbinic sense' is sufficiently different (hardly different, really) to warrant a distinct terminology. I. at any rate, despite the structures of my dear friend Al Baumgarten, prefer this to any other word (such as??) for this hermeneutical technique. Philip Davies -- ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
- Original Message - From: Joshua Ezra Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ian Werrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; g-megillot@mcmaster.ca Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten The same can be said about traditional Samaritan halakhah, which, as far as I can know, is still called halakhah by Samaritans today. An legal exegetical device by any other name... Josh Burns I did not know this. Please elaborate. In which Sam. documents can we find the H word? And why is halakhah exigetical? What we now call Midrash halakhah (likely, coined in opposition to the term midrash aggada) may pay attention to counter intuitive exegetical rules but in general the term halakhah in the literature I know refers to unwritten laws (not said to be based on exegesis but) based on oral traditions given to Moses at Sinai, (in later usages-- equal to a unit of mishnah) or laws proclaimed by decisive authority or the common practice, . It is the two latter usages that are used primarily in the exegetical literature itself (and not used much at all there). The Halakhot of the Sabbath are famous for not being based on scriptural exegeses in the main and I doubt if Shifman would justify his usage by defining halakhah as a law derived by some exegesis of scripture. I'm open to challenge on this of course but so it seems obvious to me without checking concordances, databases or my library or even Shifman himself. Herb ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
