Boid's Soon to be Published Reference to Shilo = Chrestos

[StephenGoranson]

"...all traditions have halakhah."

I agree that all traditions, more or less, have legal determinations, rulings, specific practices, and the like, and that sort of stuff can eventually be called, by some, if they so choose to, halakhah.

But whether or not I was mistaken about Karaites (who rejected oral Torah), which may be, it is not the case that all traditions themselves originally used the word halakhah ****of their own traditions****

For example, Qumran text (pesher Nahum) specifically rejects halakhah/halacha with a negative pun, apparently dissing Pharisees (who may have used the term before the rabbis did) as "seekers of smooth things," dorshe halakot.

When 4QMMT (from Qumran) was published, some called it a “Halakhic Letter," which, imo, was an inappropriate title, given the group's rejection of that term for their own traditions.

Another example, given that you mentioned Schiffman. Larry, though not a rabbi, is quite quite learned about rabbinic Judaism, and a good guy, but when he entitled one of his books
The Halakhah at Qumran
by Lawrence H. Schiffman.
Leiden : Brill, 1975.
I was not the only one to find that title misleading.

Compare the 1913 book by Bernard Revel, The Karaite Halakah And Its Relation To Sadducean, Samaritan And Philonian Halakah. It is doubtful that Philo even knew that Hebrew word. Though Revel, from his perspective, later, obviously did use it, perhaps misleadingly.
Or, one could claim, the word became expanded, changed, over time, in its application, whether I find it anachronistic or not, whether I like it or not.

Daniel 11:32 (RSV) includes a contrast: "He shall seduce with *flattery* those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action."

And, from an old paper of mine:
67 It bears repeating that there is no “halakha” in Qumran text, but rather legal views
which reject halakha as the determinations of another group. The article by J.P. Meier, “Is
There Halaka (The Noun) at Qumran?” JBL 122 (2003) 150-55 in an apparently
distorting way brackets off directly-relevant evidence: “I do not intend to engage the
larger question of whether the ‘seekers of smooth things’ should be identified with the
Pharisees [154, n.20].” But then, nevertheless, he goes on to offer supposed “problems
with this reasoning,” [154]—allowing only a negative conclusion. Unless I
misunderstand, and unlike various of his other fine publications, Meier here sets up an
effective Catch-22 type exclusion of this view whether the noun is considered attested or
not. In other words, if a certain word is attested, then it’s accepted, so how could they pun
against it; and if a word is not attested, then how could they know to pun against it? Of
course they knew the root, and the pun is not far to seek; that’s the third, here disallowed
option. I prefer the quite informative and history-accepting and illuminating research in J.
VanderKam, “Those Who Look for Smooth Things, Pharisees, and Oral Law,” Emanuel:
Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed.
S. Paul et al.; SuppVT 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 465-77.

[Secret Alias]

Unnecessary cleverness. If every Biblical sect had halakha then the Karaites are part of the subset "every sect." "Pharisee" began as a pejorative. Then it meant something else. Since Jews defined the way we understand how the Bible was interpreted, we have inherited the world הלכה. It would appear the Rabbanites took over the terminology of the Pharisees. The Samaritans don't refer to legal decisions as הִלכָתָא, הִלכְוָותָא‏. It's just how we describe processes related to the Bible. In the same way we describe Samaritans as "Jews." Language isn't perfect. We still pretend that "Jerusalem" is the city at the heart of the Pentateuch. It isn't mentioned. But we inherited our way of interpreting the Bible from one group of Israelites.

[StephenGoranson]

I'm trying to be open to the history of the changes in terminology, and anachronisms.
Philo didn't use "halakha," which is relevant in evaluating attempts to portray him as aligned with Pharisees or Sadducees, etc., or not.
Some Qumran mss rejected "halakha."
Early Karaites surely rejected much rabbinic terminology, even if, over time, they also developed their own traditions, as shown, e.g., in Fred Astren's publications, including
Karaite Judaism and Historical Understanding, Studies in Comparative Religion, Columbia, South Carolina (2004).

[Secret Alias]

You're just derailing the conversation with hair-splitting. Samaritans don't call themselves Jews. I bet you only refer to Samaritans as a "Jewish sect." We inherit charged terminology. We are speaking English and in English we refer to legal interpretation as halakhah. In English many of our words have been inherited from a particular sect of Judaism. I don't see you cheering on my efforts not to refer to "the Marcionite Christ." This is a complete waste of time other than to demonstrate what you have learned from studying Qumran puns. Ok let's applaud. What's next? Juggling. Are you going to recite a poem? A little knowledge is dangerous.

[StephenGoranson]

Yes, we are using English, mostly. But history-conscious English readers need to notice changes even when reading KJV or Shakespeare.

[Secret Alias]

I think it's good that we witness firsthand our bias in favor of Rabbanite religious concepts. I am going to Paris in a few months and I am polishing up my French. Even with efforts of their government to curb English in their language it just keeps growing. If Samaritans had been the English speakers window to the Bible we'd be taking for granted the "heresy" of the Jerusalem-based culture. The Pentateuch is not a Jewish document. It is an Israelite text, one which does not take an interest in Jerusalem. Nevertheless we hear about it as a "Jewish literary text." In one ear, out the other with regards to these terminologies. We call it "halakhah" and "Judaism" and "kosher salt" doesn't mean that salt can ever be unkosher/treif. Just the limitations of English.