|
Stephen,
The use of a general term such as "law" or "legal materials" to describe the halachic material in the Qumran corpus disregards the fact that Qumran legal materials are not homogenous. As noted by P. Davies, C. Hempel and others, there is a difference in content and vocabulary between the halachic legal materials and the serekh legal materials, the former dealing with the cult as well as everyday Jewish life, and the latter dealing primarily with organizational matters. J. Baumgarten also notes this distinction. Schiffman (and Beale) may be criticized for not sufficiently distinguishing between these two distinct types of legal materials. I intend to continue to use the terms Halachic and Serekh texts, as these terms have entered the parlance and are immediately understandable within the field. Any suggestion of alternative terminology should take into account the need to distinguish these two distinct literatures (indeed, authored by two distinct groups). I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see an alternative terminology that has any real advantages over what currently exists.
Please note that the phrase Qumran law is also misleading, as it presupposes that the various materials among the Dead Sea Scrolls were authored by or put into practice by the residents of Qumran, which is far from obvious.
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin
|
- [Megillot] Halakhah and Qumran law Stephen Goranson
- RUSSELLGMIRKIN
