Corpus-Paul

["Lewis Reich" <lbr AT sprynet.com>]

On 28 May 99, at 14:06, Liz Fried wrote:

> > From: Lewis Reich

> >  I'd suggest that all Jews thought that
> > *some* Temple was
> > appropriate, but clearly the Qumran sectarisn thought the Temple
> > should be somewhat
> > different than it was, and the priests of the Leontopolis temple
> > rejected the
> > leadership of the Jerusalem priesthood.


<LF>
> OK. I'll take this as a friendly amendment.

Thanks:  that's how it was intended.  <g>

<LR>
> > Hmmm.  I'd say that salvation wasn't a paramount Jewish concern, but that
> > righteousness, meaning following the law, was important.

<LF>
> Righteousness as a way toward salvation wasn't a Jewish issue.  Following
> the law was important, but not as the route toward salvation.

I have a sense that we're pretty much on the same wavelength 
here....

<LF>
> > > The Jew had a place in the world to come,
> > > in God's covenant, regardless of the degree of his righteousness.

<LR>
> > As long as s/he was righteous in some measure.  The Talmud
> > indicates that some Jew had
> > no portion in the world to come.

<LF>
> But that wasn't a function of their righteousness. These were polemical
> statements against certain groups whose beliefs the rabbis disagreed with.

True, but it's nevertheless significant that those particular points 
were felt to be so significant that the rabbis felt that holding those 
belief so compromised their righteousness that they could not have 
a place in the world to come.

<LR>
> > I'd suggest that they didn't follow *some* of the rabbinic laws.
> > Much of the rabbinic
> > effort, it seems to me, was a codification and systematization of
> > the different
> > traditions of observing the law that were common among the 'am ha'aretz.
<LF>
> I think we have different views of the rabbis.

That may very well be...

> Read the article on Oral Law in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

It's high time I did anyhow....


Best wishes,

Lewis