John T wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:45 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:25 pm
John T wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:08 am
Is Norman banned from internet sites like this one?
Possibly, but he's not banned from this one (as far as as I know, he's never signed up).
Then by all means, invite Norman to join this forum.
I have some questions I would like to ask him regarding James the Just and the DSS.
Let's maintain a separation between Norman Golb, and his son Raphael Golb.
Norman is a Jewish scholar with a theory that the DSS are not just sectarian literature that can be ignored as aberrations from "normative" Judaism, but repositories for texts that had been in use all over the region, and thus actually representing "normative" Judaism.
Raphael Golb, his son, is - I believe - a lawyer, who felt that his dad's hypothesis was being contemptuously "poo-poo'd" by Lawrence Schiffman, a scholar with measurably more clout in Jewish academia, because Norman was not being "politically correct."
Apparently, most modern Jews would prefer to think that pre-rabbinic Judaism was fairly close in doctrines to the Rabbinic tradition that developed after the revolt of 66-73 CE. Thus, it is preferable to marginalize the DSS as aberrations held by "Essenes" rather than normative. This is basically the position of Lawrence Schiffman.
If Norman Golb the scholar is correct, though, that the kind of Judean beliefs found in the DSS represent the "norm" of that day and region, right in the heart of Judaea, then Rabbinic Judaism did not exist in the 1st century BCE and earlier, when the scrolls were likely produced.
The teachings and beliefs found in the DSS are quite different from Rabbinic traditions. Our concepts of what constitutes the beliefs and traditions of Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes, must be completely wrong, or the sources that were preserved (mainly Josephus, Philo and the NT) have purposely misrepresented them to Roman and Greek speakers for rhetorical reasons.
This is why so many Jewish scholars have adopted the interpretation that the DSS were produced by "Essenes" and thus did not in any way represent normative Judaism of the time they were likely produced, that is, of Sadducees & Pharisees. So L. Schiffman was motivated to marginalize Norman Golb.
This position of Schiffman also pleases many Christian scholars, because the doctrines of the NT Gospels and Acts presuppose certain teachings as Sadducean & Pharasiac that are fairly close (though not identical) to what Josephus says about them. Many Christian scholars, including moderates and liberals and even some agnostics, thus also agree that N. Golb's hypothesis MUST be pure bunk.
And so the whole issue of what to make of the DSS has become incredibly divisive and embittered, both for Jews and Christians of the academy.
Most also used to laugh to scorn the idea of plate tectonics in geology until it was demonstrated scientifically, many, many decades after the theory was proposed.
Maybe Norman is correct and maybe not (I do not have a firm position on the question), but that is yet to be hashed out. There are many ways to connect dots that have not yet been tried or even imagined. That is what makes the process fun!
That being said, I don't think this justifies Raphael's method of "not getting mad but getting even," by means of character assassination through duplicitous means (falsely attributed salacious e-mails meant to smear his father's antagonists). I do not believe that Norman Golb has condoned his son's actions, and probably was a bit embarrassed by them. Raphael, though, would not be the first to employ such tactics.
The legitimacy issue over of the "James brother of Jesus" ossuary a while back seemed to also have been accompanied by a wave of salacious e-mails spooked to look like legitimate messages that sought to malign Eisenman and others who weighed in on the matter as skeptics of its authenticity. Usually these opponents to authenticity thought that the "brother of Jesus" part was scratched on by the person who owned it in modern times as a means to enhance its value in order to sell it to a museum.
A number of advocates for authenticity, on the other hand, felt that the entire label "James brother of Jesus" was not only true, but this artifact MUST be the ossuary of James the Just the Brother of Jesus from Christian tradition. This view is an overstatement in my opinion, as there could be many possible persons named James (very popular name in that time) who may also have had a brother named Jesus (again, a popular name of that time) for us to assume this with such certainty. But even so, it has become their "proof" that James existed and consequently validates the truth value of Christian traditions.
Let's not even talk about present day US politics on both ends of the spectrum!
This is why I try to remain neutral on matters like this. I don't want to let the tail wag the dog.
DCH (wuff wuff)