FW: Re[8]: Methods in biblical scholarship

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Thu Dec 30 14:46:43 EST 1999

At 12.22 30/12/99 -0500, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>At 07:50 AM 12/30/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>>At 15.20 29/12/99 -0500, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>>>At 09:01 PM 12/29/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>>>>At 10.56 29/12/99 -0500, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>>>>>The DSS are filled with tirades against the
>>>>>temple as it was. They seemed to be independant of the temple.
>>>>If you put it in context, it would help. You'll find strong defences of
>>>>temple in the DSS. The tirades are never against the temple, but against
>>>>the people who were in control of it at one stage. There are a few well
>>>The point I am making is that they were able to exist without the temple,
>>>because they saw it as 'unusable'. The post destruction period would be no
>>Moshe, that may be your immediate point, but you have diverged from the
>>conversation on the position that can be elicited about the writers of the
>Maybe you have forgotten, my comment was with regards to your saying that
>only the Pharisees were able to function after the destruction of the
>temple because they had a theology to deal with it. I just pointed out that
>this was an error. The DSS community should also have survived.
>>scrolls as to their position in Judaism and thus the texts that they used,
>>ie if the people represented by the DSS were not a minor sect, how can one
>>exclude the texts known from elsewhere that they used, Jubilees, Enoch,
>>Tobit, testaments of various patriarchs, etc?
>Maybe Josepehus was right about their being a minor group?

Whose being?


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list