Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 07-30-2012, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Suppose a 2012 Jew in a communal Kibbutz were involved in defrauding non-Kubbutz Jew of money and has to repay. Does the bad Kibbutz Jew repay money come from the Kibbutz or his own money?

In the situation of the Essene, he doesn't have any money.... But the person in the scroll does.

The Community Rule clearly envisages some form of Community of Goods which becomes complete on full membership.

With the ability to pay with their own money, it is certainly not uniquely a community of goods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The passage about fraud reads

Quote:

Whoever speaks with his companion deceitfully or knowingly practices fraud is to be punished by reduced rations for six months.If a man is drawn unawares into a fraudulent scheme by his comrade, then he is to be punished by reduced rations for only three months. If money belongins to the Yahad is involved in a fraudulent sheme and lost, the man responsible must repay the sum from his own funds. If he lacks suffcient resources to repay it, then he is to suffer reduced rations for sixty days.

Possibly a full member (without private funds) would go rather hungry for sixty days, whereas a probationer would still have private assets and could pay back the debt.

This changes nothing, Andrew. Some people have more money than others. There is not an indication of probation, yet there is the indication of having enough status to be able to abuse community funds. You definitely would not expect this from a probationer.

mountainman · 07-31-2012, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

In essence, you can have orthodox Christians depositing their bibles at Nag Hammadi, and a distinct group of gnostics also depositing their scriptures there.

Please cite the book out of the Nag Hammadi Codices that you consider to have been deposited by orthodox Christians. AFAIK there is nothing orthodox about the NHC.

andrewcriddle · 07-31-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In the situation of the Essene, he doesn't have any money.... But the person in the scroll does.

The Community Rule clearly envisages some form of Community of Goods which becomes complete on full membership.

With the ability to pay with their own money, it is certainly not uniquely a community of goods.

Quote:

If anyone of Israel volunteers for enrollment in the society of the Yahad, the man appointed as leader of the general membership shall examine him regarding his understanding and works. If he has the potential for instruction, he is to begin initiation into the Covenant, returning to the truth and repenting of all perversity. He shall be made to understand all the basic precepts of the Yahad. Subsequently in the process, he must stand before the general membership and the whole chapter shall interrogate him about his particulars. According to the decision of the society of the general membership, he shall either proceed or depart.
If he does proceed in joining the society of the Yahad, he must not touch the pure food of the general membership before they have examined him as to his spiritual fitness and works, and not before a full year has passed. Further, he must not yet admix his property with that of the general membership. When he has passed a full year in the Yahad, the general membership shall inquire into the details of his understanding and works of the Law. If it be ordained, in the opinion of the priests and the majority of the men of their Covenant, then he shall be initiated further into the secret teaching of the Yahad. They shall also take steps to incorporate his property, putting it under the authority of the Overseer together with that of the general membership, and keeping an account of it--but it shall not yet be disbursed along with that of the general membership. The initiate is not to touch the drink of the general membership prior to passing a second year among the men of the Yahad. When that second year has passed, the general membership shall review his case. If it be ordained for him to proceed to full membership in the Yahad, they shall enroll him at the appropriate rank among his brothers for discussion of the Law, jurisprudence, participation in pure meals, and admixture of property. Thenceforth the Yahad may draw upon his counsel and judgment.

This does seem to involve community of goods among full members.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The passage about fraud reads

Quote:

Whoever speaks with his companion deceitfully or knowingly practices fraud is to be punished by reduced rations for six months.If a man is drawn unawares into a fraudulent scheme by his comrade, then he is to be punished by reduced rations for only three months. If money belongins to the Yahad is involved in a fraudulent sheme and lost, the man responsible must repay the sum from his own funds. If he lacks suffcient resources to repay it, then he is to suffer reduced rations for sixty days.

Possibly a full member (without private funds) would go rather hungry for sixty days, whereas a probationer would still have private assets and could pay back the debt.

This changes nothing, Andrew. Some people have more money than others. There is not an indication of probation, yet there is the indication of having enough status to be able to abuse community funds. You definitely would not expect this from a probationer.

On reflection I agree that probationers are unlikely to be relevant here.

I think it is more likely that some of the income from the community property and assets was distributed to members to use for their own needs. (The alternative is for a bursar to buy literally everything for everybody.) This would potentially allow a member responsible for a moderate loss of community funds to make good the loss from their own resources.

Another possibility is that the member has himself gained money from business dealings that harmed the community. (If neither the member nor the community as a whole were lkely to benefit then the motive for the deal becomes unclear.)

The above is speculation, but as long as community funds are first pooled together then redistributed back to members then one can imagine scenarios in which the statements in the Community Rule make sense. It is only if, (as in some monastic orders IIUC), ordinary members give up the use of money that there is a real contradiction. But the Community Rule does not involve the renunciation of money in that sense.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 07-31-2012, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In the situation of the Essene, he doesn't have any money.... But the person in the scroll does.

The Community Rule clearly envisages some form of Community of Goods which becomes complete on full membership.

With the ability to pay with their own money, it is certainly not uniquely a community of goods.

Quote:

If anyone of Israel volunteers for enrollment in the society of the Yahad, the man appointed as leader of the general membership shall examine him regarding his understanding and works. If he has the potential for instruction, he is to begin initiation into the Covenant, returning to the truth and repenting of all perversity. He shall be made to understand all the basic precepts of the Yahad. Subsequently in the process, he must stand before the general membership and the whole chapter shall interrogate him about his particulars. According to the decision of the society of the general membership, he shall either proceed or depart.
If he does proceed in joining the society of the Yahad, he must not touch the pure food of the general membership before they have examined him as to his spiritual fitness and works, and not before a full year has passed. Further, he must not yet admix his property with that of the general membership. When he has passed a full year in the Yahad, the general membership shall inquire into the details of his understanding and works of the Law. If it be ordained, in the opinion of the priests and the majority of the men of their Covenant, then he shall be initiated further into the secret teaching of the Yahad. They shall also take steps to incorporate his property, putting it under the authority of the Overseer together with that of the general membership, and keeping an account of it--but it shall not yet be disbursed along with that of the general membership. The initiate is not to touch the drink of the general membership prior to passing a second year among the men of the Yahad. When that second year has passed, the general membership shall review his case. If it be ordained for him to proceed to full membership in the Yahad, they shall enroll him at the appropriate rank among his brothers for discussion of the Law, jurisprudence, participation in pure meals, and admixture of property. Thenceforth the Yahad may draw upon his counsel and judgment.

This does seem to involve community of goods among full members.

We are interested in a full community of goods. The possession of money in the passage I first cited displays that we don't have a full community of goods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The passage about fraud reads

Quote:

Whoever speaks with his companion deceitfully or knowingly practices fraud is to be punished by reduced rations for six months.If a man is drawn unawares into a fraudulent scheme by his comrade, then he is to be punished by reduced rations for only three months. If money belongins to the Yahad is involved in a fraudulent sheme and lost, the man responsible must repay the sum from his own funds. If he lacks suffcient resources to repay it, then he is to suffer reduced rations for sixty days.

Possibly a full member (without private funds) would go rather hungry for sixty days, whereas a probationer would still have private assets and could pay back the debt.

This changes nothing, Andrew. Some people have more money than others. There is not an indication of probation, yet there is the indication of having enough status to be able to abuse community funds. You definitely would not expect this from a probationer.

On reflection I agree that probationers are unlikely to be relevant here.

I think it is more likely that some of the income from the community property and assets was distributed to members to use for their own needs. (The alternative is for a bursar to buy literally everything for everybody.) This would potentially allow a member responsible for a moderate loss of community funds to make good the loss from their own resources.

The problem comes when one tries to shoehorn 1QS into an Essene context. There is no indication that an individual pooled all his finances into the association. There may have been a stake or contribution for each person which was pooled. If you could make the quota, then perhaps you would still be accepted, but obviously had no money outside the community of goods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Another possibility is that the member has himself gained money from business dealings that harmed the community. (If neither the member nor the community as a whole were lkely to benefit then the motive for the deal becomes unclear.)

The above is speculation, but as long as community funds are first pooled together then redistributed back to members then one can imagine scenarios in which the statements in the Community Rule make sense. It is only if, (as in some monastic orders IIUC), ordinary members give up the use of money that there is a real contradiction. But the Community Rule does not involve the renunciation of money in that sense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.