Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective (Galatians 2:14-21 and 4QMMT)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl P. Donfried" <kdonfrie AT email.smith.edu>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective (Galatians 2:14-21 and 4QMMT)
  • Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:35:28 -0400


Dear Roy,

I am grateful for your response and I wish you well in your travels.
Since I leave for the SNTS meetings in Montreal tomorrow am we probably
won’t be able to continue this before sometime next week at the earliest.

Your comments allow me to clarify a bit what I had in mind originally.
First, I do like your citation of Perelman’s phrase, “dissociation of
ideas.” In a sense, but in a different sense from how you understood me,
this is what I am intending to do. Let me explain.

One of my chief criticisms of Sanders and Dunn is that they retroject
the latter rabbinic materials into the NT period and, thus, to a certain
degree, construct an artificial form of Judaism. That is misleading. In
fact, there is, technically speaking, no such thing as Judaism at the
time of Paul – only JudaismS. Since Paul has so many direct parallels
with the DSS and that is, for the most part, the only extensive
literature that we have representative of late Second Temple Judaism, I
am suggesting that an examination of Paul more closely related to the
Qumran or the yahad would be beneficial.

Let me also try to simplify what it was that I was trying to
distinguish between the DSS and later rabbinic literature, or even that
of the earlier Pharisees. We need to be very careful when we use the
term “halakhah” since it is not use by Qumran, except of course in
polemical way, i.e., dorsche halaquot, as a description of the Pharisees
as “interpreters of smooth or false laws.” From this text in the Zad
Fragments it is clear that the Pharisees are already using the term
halakhot. The criticism is that they have traditions and laws that are
nonbiblical, which in itself is an annulment of the Torah. With the
yahad’s use of nigleh and nistar as their method of inspired exegesis,
we are simply in a different world from that of the Pharisees and their
followers, as Talmon has put so clearly (see my previous note for
citation). So my point is this: these two “theologies” of the law are
so different, in such fundamental conflict, that one needs to first
recognize this situation. (See also, as another example, the conflicting
interpreations of 4QMMT B56-58 and M. Yadayim 4:7 with regard to the
issue of “one moisture”). I am not sure that the so-called “new
perspective” does.

I hope this helps to clarify a rather non-complicated point I was
initially attempting to make.

Karl



"Roy E. Ciampa" wrote:
>
> Karl,
>
> Yours is an interesting argument based on what Chaim Perelman calls the
> dissociation of ideas. I don't think your dichotomy between "descriptive
> legal precepts resulting from study and legislation" and "prescriptive
> observance of the Law" and your attributing the former to rabbinic halakha
> and the latter to the scrolls is
> quite fair to either sets of literature. Would the authors of the Mishnah
> be happy with the suggestion that their work was merely descriptive and did
> not deal with prescriptive observance of the Law? I doubt it. And I
> suspect the authors of 4QMMT would be insulted by the suggestion that their
> document was not a result of study and authoritative decision (since the
> document contains a list of legal rulings made by the recognized authorities
> of the community and exhorts its readers to carefully study the Law of Moses
> to confirm the truth of its teachings). The Mishnah was authoritative (and
> the result of legal rulings made) for the community led by it's authors.
> 4QMMT was authoritative (and reflects legal rulings made) for the community
> led by ITS authors.
>
> You refer to the Judaisms of the Second Temple Period, and in the sense that
> rabbinic Judaism reflects a period with much less diversity, where one
> group's halakha holds for the vast majority of Jews it's position is
> somewhat different from any halakha of the Second Temple Period. But I
> don't see how the basic idea is very different. If we define halakha as
> being exactly (and only) that which we find in rabbinic literature then, by
> definition, we do not find that in any other literature. If, on the other
> hand, halakha is understood to be the authoritative exposition of the Law of
> Moses which is given by the leaders of the Jewish community for the sake of
> the purity and careful obedience of that community, it seems to me that
> 4QMMT fits the bill.
>
> Both delineate the proper interpretation and the law so that the readership
> might properly observe the same. While the Mishnah describes the positions
> of various rabbis and explains the majority position, 4QMMT simply expounds
> the position of the authors (which seems to assume a knowledge of contrary
> positions). Clearly the authors of 4QMMT based their position on careful
> study of the Law, and they explain some of the thinking behind their
> positions in the document (perceived parallels between the structure of the
> tabernacle and the Temple and city of Jerusalem, etc.). the Several
> articles have been written on the subject of the halakha reflected in 4QMMT
> (and other Qumran literature) despite the fact that the word does not appear
> the document(s). Referring to the document at hand Qimron tells us that in
> "most of the halakhot there are allusions to the biblical passages on which
> the particular halakha is based. Some words from each biblical parallel
> occur in the halakha of MMT...." (DJD X 136). The quote supports both my
> assertion that the document consists of halakhot and that those halakhot are
> indeed based on careful study of the Law of Moses. Because they recognized
> the halakhic nature of the document, Qimron and Strugnell invited Y.
> Sussmann to contribute his appendix on "The History of the Halakha and the
> Dead Sea Scrolls." I do not think these and other halakhic scholars have
> misunderstood the nature of this document. (I do think, however, that
> Sussmann's study tends to imply that the rabbinic halakha always reflected
> some sort of normative or orthodox position and does not reflect my
> understanding of the multiform nature of Second Temple Judaism.)
>
> [First thing Monday morning my family and I are flying from Lisbon to Boston
> and then will be unpacking, settling in for a few days. It may be a couple
> of days before I can check in again. Time to finish packing my bags!]
>
> Roy Ciampa
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Roy E. Ciampa
> IBP-ESETE
> Rua Castelo Picão, 13
> 2670 Sto. Antão do Tojal
> Portugal
>
> Tel:
>
> +351 (21) 982 1319 (home/casa)
> +351 (21) 974 9047 (office/gabinete)
> +351 (91) 974 0151 (cell/TM)
>
> E-mail:
>
> RoyCiampa AT mail.telepac.pt
> Roy_Ciampa AT compuserve.com
>
> Karl P. Donfried wrote:
>
> Roy,
>
> The use of halakot in the rabbinic literature considerably latter than
> the DSS carries with it presuppositions that I do not find evident in
> the scrolls. Talmon comments that "yahad's final dissent from the
> emerging brand of Pharisaic Judaism at the turn of the era constitutes
> the climax of the lengthy confrontation of these two streams [i.e. the
> prophetic and the rationalist]." Is it not anachronistic to emphasize
> in Second Temple Judaisms descriptive legal precepts resulting from
> study and legislation over against prescriptive observance of the Law?
> As Qimron has remarked "MMT deals with the observance of commandments,
> not with the manner in which they are deduced." (DJD X 133n23) and that
> strikes me as a significant difference between the scrolls and the
> substantially later rabbinic materials. As a result I find no evidence
> whatsoever to support your concluding statement: "I think 4QMMT (and
> Galatians 2?) is evidence that before the terminology of
> halakha/halakhot was clearly established the same type of material was
> called, by some groups at least, 'works of the Law.'" Part of the
> problem that I have with Sanders and Dunn is that they are creating a
> description of Second Temple Judaisms which do not exist within the time
> frame of those Judaisms.
>
> Karl
>
> Roy
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Roy E. Ciampa
> IBP-ESETE
> Rua Castelo Picão, 13
> 2670 Sto. Antão do Tojal
> Portugal
>
> Tel:
>
> +351 (21) 982 1319 (home/casa)
> +351 (21) 974 9047 (office/gabinete)
> +351 (91) 974 0151 (cell/TM)
>
> E-mail:
>
> RoyCiampa AT mail.telepac.pt
> Roy_Ciampa AT compuserve.com
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: kdonfrie AT smith.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')

--


Karl P. Donfried
Elizabeth A. Woodson Professor
of Religion and Biblical Literature
Neilson Library A10
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063

kdonfrie AT smith.edu
413 585-3669 (phone)
413 256-6202 (fax)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page