Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

2006/5/24, goranson AT duke.edu <goranson AT duke.edu>:
> Dear Herman,
> It depends, in part: do you also read "each individual manuscript as if it
> had
> nothing to do with," say, Sadducees, Pharisees, Jerusalem, Damascus,
> Josephus,
> and so on?
> all the best,
> Stephen Goranson
> http://www.duke.edu/~goranson


Dear Stephen,

Exactly - all texts that we are not sure of who wrote them, when and why,
must be studied initially without taking any refuge whatsoever to presumed
historical circumstances that are not beyond a shred of doubt. Only then are
we able to ask the first questions we must ask any text:
What is the structure of the text? What is it trying to say? What are our
own prejudices about the kind of text we're reading that we must question?
What question are we actually, consciously or not, expecting the text to
answer? etc.
If this may sound rather vague, I think that it is the best way to start.

Of course, if we come to the conclusion that a given text is very similar to
certain texts that we know to be, for example, "Pharisaic", or whatever, we
can link these texts together. But it is very risky to think, for example:
"Let's assume that the DSS are basically the product of "Essenes" - and if
we get in trouble, finding all kinds of contradictions, we may,
occasionally, have to ascribe certain texts to others."
This is what happens a lot, and it's quite a human thing to do, but I don't
think it is productive. Most important, it won't allow us to see things we
first didn't see.

best regards,
Herman