Subject: Re: Qumran evidence for textual dive

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 18:17:39 -0500 (EST)

VERY, VERY LONG. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DELETE.
> 
> On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Andrew Gross wrote:
> 
> > Tov's revised figures appear in the paper he contributed to the volume 
> > _Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness_ edited by Lawrence Schiffman 
 > > and Devorah Dimant (Brill 1995).

> 
> > methodological leap of faith.  Specifically, even if the figures for
> > distribution of text-types at Qumran support Schiffman's position, one 
> > still must assume that the distribution of text-types at Qumran can be 
> > extrapolated to all of Palestine at that time.  I still don't see how 
> > such an extrapolation is justified 
> 
> The problem, in my mind, is further complicated by the fact that we have 
> only what was found at Qumran; we don't know if we have even fully 
> represents the Qumran community, let alone Palestine.
> 
> Tyler

     But much that was found in Qumran was also found in other sites and
dicoveries. The Chairo Ghenizah for example. The Damascus document was
utilized (for whatever reason) for almost a thousand years (poss. only 500
yrs). 
     I believe that the Qumram documents are a fine example of what
sociologists call a "cross section of a given society" or Judaean Society.
(Below is an important cross reference into another discipline) 

From:   IN%"[email-masked]"  "thomas w kavanagh" 15-FEB-1996
21:38:29.30 To:     IN%"[email-masked]"  "Multiple recipients
of list ANTHRO-L "

CC:     
Subj:   Variable Ethnicity; VERY LONG, few quotes, ANALYTICAL

Never said I was a SeAist, Luv, but I am mildly familiar with Leach, and
at least with Kunstadter's Ethnic Group, Category, and Identity: Karen in
Northern Thailand.

As for changing identity, people change "ethnic" identity all the time. No
problem there, just note that the "new" identity is also based on
purported "facts of birth"; everything is negotiable in politics. I know a
respected folklorist who, with a change of emphasis, went from being
"regional folklorist" to being Texas Cherokee, and thus a whole new
occupational vista opened up.

Ethnic identity is different from other political identities, such as
Unionist, Democrat, etc.

Now I haven't read Leach in a while, and didn't fully comprehend his
argument then, and probably still don't now. However, I remember something
about people (or groups) changing their basic outlook, from egalitarian
(Ack! I said it, No I said it again. Ni, MPATHG) to stratified, but I
can't remember it that cycle was in years or generations. On looking at my
copy, I find no mention of ethnicity in the index, and at a major bookmark
at p 44, the comment "the sub-categories of Kachin, as I use the term, are
of three kinds, (a)linguistic, (b) territorial, (c) political."

As for Kunstadter, I have used his Ethnic Group, Category and Identity
article in my Pol. Anth classes, but mostly for his categorization as a
starting point for discussion.

According to Kunstadter:

By *ethnic group* I mean a set of individuals with similar
        consciousness and mutual interests centered on some shared
        understandings or common values. . . .
By *ethnic identification* I mean the process of assigning an an
        individual (including oneself) to a group or category, and
        thus implicity recognizing boundaries of community of interests and
        predicting a set of behavioral traits appropriate to members of
        the group or category
By *ethnic category* I mean a class of people or groups, based on real or
        presumed cultural characteristics, with the implication that a
        categorization is a more or less systematic application of some
        kind of rules to the variety of known individuals or groups

The points for discussion are "similar consciouness and mutual interest"
(what distinguishes an ethnic group from other communities of interest,
such as trade unions); how much does "recognizing boundaries... and
predicting ... behavior" border on sterotyping; how "systematic" is the
categorization?

Kunstadter goes on to note that "Leach ... demonstrated that ethnic groups
or ethnic categorizations are not necessarily synonymous with a culture or
social system," and that "as we study varieties of ethnicity in SEA, we
begin to understand that ethnicity, at least in part, depends on reference
to some other group...." That is, political identification is (1) not
necessarily an empirical statement of cultural difference; and (2) it IS
an us-them (political) situation; it takes two to ethnicize (see Cohen
below).

I have also used Charles Keyes' somewhat earlier (? I don't have
Kunstadter citation handy--my photocopy does not have the book citation.)
1976 article "Towards a New Formulation of the Concept ofof the Concept of
Ethnic Group" (1976 Ethnicity). Keyes does note that the dictionary
definition of "ethnic group" is "a group of people of the same race or
nationality who share a common and distinctive culture." Like Kunstadter,
he notes that, as shown by Leach's material, "a people, socially defined
[Kunstadter's "ethnic group"?, "category"?], do not always share a
distinctive culture or language." Rather, following an apparent practice
of translating the Thai term, *chat* [Sanskrit *jati*] 'birth' to the
English "ethnic," Keyes notes that "The idea of shared descent,
abstracted from the web of kinship, is basic, I would insist, to the
concept of ethnic group."

Several points to consider. The classification of ethnicity can be
both, dare I use the words, "emic" and "etic." The perceptions of cultural
difference by the people themselves may be totally different from the
"objective" (note quotation marks) outside observer. [I have had
Comanche women insist to me that the small "tabs" at the bottom of the
side seam in women's dresses is a Comanche mark, and want me to do the
museum work to verify it. It's not that I can't do the work, I can't
verify it. Lots 'o folks seem to have had it.]

And there is ethnic manipulation. As a political phenomena--you should
think otherwise?--people manipulate the "facts" for their immediate
purposes. There are several dimensions to those manipulations: there are
the kinds of concentric identites that Boyd talked about in her "This
Indian is not and Indian" article: One is at the same time a Lumpwood,
Absaroke, Crow, 'Skin, Indian, Native American, and the choice of which
label to use is related to the social context. Being one does not deny any
of the others.

There are also the non-concentric identities: it is difficult to switch
back and forth from being Crow to being, say, Hispanic: in the modern
American political climate ethnicity is generally perceived of as
permanent, and based on the "facts of birth." The person who discovers
late(r) in life that their grandmother was a XXX, is a wannabe, [in
contrast to the "cultural" labels 'apple', 'oreo', etc. which designate
difference from the proper "ethnic" cultural values associated with birth
into a particular community]. [Nothing spectacular in my family; because
of the ways my family worked, growing up I spent more time with the
Kavanaghs than with the Whitneys. Moreover, because of the demographics, I
never "knew" (intellectually) until grown that there were Strauses
involved with the Whitneys and that it was possible that the Strauses were
Jewish. However, I can claim not only the Irish of the Kavanaghs, but the
Welsh (and or English) of the Whitneys, and the German (and or Jewish) of
the Strauses [not to mention the Melicks, Luddingtons, Bamforths, etc.; or
even the rumor that the Kavanaghs were "black Irish," descendants of the
Spanish Armada: Can I claim Hispanic?] But when asked on one of those
forms, "Ethnicity:", I say simply, American: that is who/what I am
not who my ancestors were.]

Then there is the kind of "retribalization" that Abner Cohen talked
about, which can also be called "ethnogenesis", the intentional creation
of a political group based on an emphasis on a "fact" of cultural
commonality:

        the process by which a group . . . involved in a struggle for
        power and privilege with another [group] . . . manipulate[s]
        some customs, values, myths, symbols, and ceremonials from their
        cultural tradition in order to articulate a political organization,
        which is used as a weapon in that struggle. [1969:2]

Nancy Gonzalez paralleled Cohen: ethnogenesis was the breaking down [of]
old loyalties, and merging old symbols from diverse cultural patterns into
a new and self-conscious ideological framework (1975:120);  Sturtevant
(1971) called it the establishment of [self-conscious] group
distinctiveness.  It is the use of invidious and chauvinistic Us-Them
comparisons as political ammunition.

While I like the term "ethnogenesis" (first used by the editor of a
Charleston SC, newspaper to celebrate the new Confederacy in 1861), I want
to emphasize that the possession of those traits, patterns, etc, which are
essential to the new organization are often "facts of birth".  It doesn't
matter how well I play the blues (once, at a gig, a New Orleans born blues
singer reached over, put her hand on my knee and said, "Honey [semantic
analysis begin, end], you sure you ain't from N'orleans?"), that is,
although I may possess the outward and visible symbols of the cultural
traits, the inward and spiritual {i.e. genetic, ethnic} essence ain't
there.  But when I am at Walters, Oklahoma, dancing with Comanches at
Homecoming as I have for most of the last 25 summers, I am Comanche. And
I do play the blues.

You figure it out.

The above was a position from another field in helping to understand
cultural transmition of a socio-political heritage. 

   There existed a Jewish society in the dawn of the developments in the
early sectarianism that pleagued later Judaean Society. If Murphy O'Connor
is correct, we may be dealing with documents whose origins were found in the 
Babylonian Exile, that survived into in Midieval times and unearthed in
Qumran. Here is a representative of the "Folkgeist" that existed through two 
millenias. This was a constitution for a collective that reflected a
semi-autonamous lifestyle. To a certain extent, a democratic lifestyle. A
Lifestyle that did not recognize the "authorities'" legitamacy to power at
certain stages of development. This being a source for the observation of
the development of the Synagogue. As well as certain developmentary stages
in the advant of certain sectarians. 
     The Karaites most likely preserved the Damascus Document that found
it's way into the Chairo synagogue. Perhaps through intermarriage or such it 
found its way into the ghenizah. The Karaites rejected Rabbinic authority.
So this document (CD) would represent their cultural differences to Rabbinic 
Judaism. But the Text (CD) was also found in Qumran. And no matter how you
slice it, I do not see how a Karaite community existed that early in Qumran. 
But are we dealing with a document that was utilized by only one sect? Or
did it represents a "standard formula" in Jewish political history and
culture which transcends many historical events. Hence the lack in the use
of names as in the Righteouse Teacher. Is he real or is he an Archeotype? Or 
is he both? But that document (CD) certainly represents a dynamic adaptable
society that retained a certain cultural political heritage.  

     As far as I know, but I could be mistaken. The "monastary" is not yet
linked to the finds in the Cavers. I would suggest that some documents were
put in the caves as the business of recopying them went on. These documents
may have been already ancient when they were finaly deposited and the caves
could have been known depositories long before the monastary was built.  
     Were the scrolls put into new Jars before they were deposited?
     This is why I would like to see TL testing on the Jars. Can there be
seen a trend when compared to C14 and other dating methods?    

     Sorry for the long post. But I tend to start flamewars unintentionally
due to others unfamiliarality to other disciplines. I do not wish that my
posts be so long, but I feel that much is being neglected as seen in this
statement: 

> The problem, in my mind, is further complicated by the fact that we have 
> only what was found at Qumran; we don't know if we have even fully 
> represents the Qumran community, let alone Palestine.
> 
> Tyler

There is a disreguard here for a dynamic society that did not stagnate. A
disreguard for what I call the Folkgeist, the spirit of the people. Qumran
was a find amongst many in a "living" culture. I can tie links in working
models that will bring a greater awareness of Jewish political culture (even 
in modern Zionism -pre-state kibbutzim in the 1880's), in early church
constitutions and others. Qumran represents alot more than just the Qumran
community, it represents a cross-section of Judaean society (poss. even a
random one), and then some. 

Though I am certain this was not Tyler's intention nor do I accuse him of
anything wrong or inappropriate. It was perhaps even a subconciouse Freudian 
slip, or I may be taking his statement completely out of context:)~ Sorry:(
but I like sharing my ideas with schooled superiors.:) 
   So, Tyler and Gross, if I offend you I am sorry:) 
   I suspect that Tyler is simply stating that we cannot assume that these
documents were utilized outside their location in Qumran. But as I stated we 
find this material in other places in the "Living Folkgeist".  

I believe many remember my mishap with my Keterim, now revised Ketarim,
paper. But if you like I can submit it again but privately. But Stuart A
Cohen "The Three Crowns" is my central source. 

Bradley Harrison
Phila. Pa
MA JS Gratz College

---

From: Andrew Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 19:32:53 -0500 (EST)

> (Below is an important cross reference into another discipline) 

[LOTS of stuff deleted]

> MA JS Gratz College

Hello Bradley,

I think you have totally misunderstood the topic of this discussion.  If 
I am wrong, please correct me, but we are not talking about the Qumran 
texts as a whole, but only the Biblical texts found in the Qumran caves.

While I would dispute your statement that "much" that was found at Qumran
was also found at other sites (what other Qumran document besides CD was
found in the Cairo Genizah?), that is immaterial.  Our primary focus here
is to reconstruct the text of the Hebrew Bible and not the social
structures of Second Temple Judaism (though we can try doing that on the 
side if we like).

Because you are subscribed to the textual criticism list, I'm assuming
that you are aware of the methodologies and approaches that define textual
criticism of the Hebrew Bible.  If not, I would be happy to rehearse for 
you what we had been talking about in the early stages of this thread.

cheers,

andrew gross