Books in Brief
004
Judean Desert Discoveries
The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll From Nah
al H | ever (8H| evXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I)Emanuel Tov (with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft and P. J. Parsons)
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) 169 pp., 20 plates, $125
Despite the fact that this is a very technical volume, it will nevertheless be of considerable interest to laypeople concerned with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It is Volume VIII in the series known to scholars as “DJD”—Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, the official publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls in folio volumes by Oxford University Press. This volume, by Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University is the first in the series by an Israeli scholar—indeed, the first by a Jewish scholar.
After the initial discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Wadi Qumran in 1947, Bedouin and professional archaeologists alike scoured the nearby caves and wadis for other scroll materials. Between 1952 and 1954 a collection of fragmentary documents was acquired from Bedouin who said they found it in the Wadi Seiyâl. Among these documents was the fragmentary text of the 12 minor prophets published here. In 1961, an Israeli team systematically searching the Nah
Unlike the Qumran texts, which are mostly in Hebrew, this minor prophets scroll is in Greek. Thus the siglum for the text: 8H
The date of the scroll is uncertain. Peter Parsons of Christ Church, Oxford, who wrote the section of the volume on dating the scroll, opts for a date in the late first century B.C. Other scholars suggest a range between 50 B.C. or 50 A.D.
Although the text is in Greek, one word, and one word only, repeatedly appears in Hebrew—the tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters YHVH, often spelled and pronounced Yahweh, that are the ineffable name of God. Moreover, the tetragrammaton is written in this scroll not in the square Aramaic Hebrew script used at the time the scroll was written, but in the paleo-Hebrew script used before the Babylonian Exile in the sixth century B.C.
The scroll, made of leather, is in tatters. Originally, it could have contained as many as 95 columns which, considering the width of the columns, would have made it—at about 32 feet—the longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls of which we have information. Parts of only 25 (or 26) columns have been preserved, however. They contain parts of six of the minor prophets—Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Zechariah. Entirely missing from the beginning of the scroll are Hosea, Joel, Amos and Obadiah; from the end of the scroll Malachi is missing; and Haggai is missing between Zephaniah and Zechariah.
The text is a revision of the Septuagint text of the minor prophets. The Septuagint is a literalistic Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made for Jews in the Diaspora; it was adopted and preserved by the Christian Church and became the official Church text. The order of the minor prophets is different in the Septuagint from the order in the Hebrew Bible known as the Masoretic text. Although the Na
No one who is not expert in Greek, Hebrew and English will want to study this volume. Yet even nonexperts can appreciate the beauty and care that has gone into its preparation and production. As we might expect, it contains mostly well-produced photographs of 20 plates, a transcription of the Greek text to the extent it has been preserved, a reconstructed text, an index of words preserved in the scroll, a discussion 006of some of the scholarly problems regarding the text, and notes. What is especially impressive is the extent to which additional analysis has been based on computer-generated material (much of this was with the assistance of R. A. Kraft). This volume is an example of what we can expect from a new and younger generation of scholars.
This text also provides an excellent illustration of the difficulty of editing one of these fragmentary Dead Sea Scroll texts. And this one is comparatively easy—for two reasons: First, the text, badly preserved as it is, is comparatively well preserved. Second, it is a Biblical text; thus, a known text provides a template for reconstructing the text. This is not the case for non-Biblical texts that were unknown before their discovery in the caves near the Dead Sea.
Originally, this Greek minor prophets scroll was assigned for publication to Père Dominique Barthelemy, who did some preliminary work on the text and even partially published it. Unable to complete his work on the scroll after nearly 30 years, Barthelemy turned it over, together with his notes, to Tov in 1982. It took Tov approximately five years to complete the work on this volume.
When one considers that there are approximately 1,200 plates in the Dead Sea Scrolls and that a conscientious scholar (Tov), with the help of the previous work of Barthelemy, was able to complete the editing of a Biblical text of 20 plates of comparatively large fragments in five years, one gets some idea of the nature of the task presented to Dead Sea Scroll editors.
If it takes five years to edit 20 plates—approximately four plates a year—it will take 300 years to edit 1,200 plates. That, in short, is why the only answer is to throw open the doors. Let any scholar who wishes see the photographs. In the meantime the team of editors should enlist all willing scholars to work on the scrolls. Thirty-five years after the discovery of the scrolls, it is too late in the day for this monopoly to continue. Anyone who thinks that Tov would have been impeded or somehow hurt if photographs of these poor fragments were made available—for any purpose—to all comers 35 years ago or who thinks that the glory that now shines on Tov’s head would somehow have been dimmed if these photographs were previously made available needs to have his head examined.
Emanuel Tov is now the operating chief editor of the Dead Sea Scroll publication team. As such, he has enormous power to end the monopoly that has become, in the words of Oxford Don Geza Vermes, the “academic scandal par excellence of the 20th century.” We hope Tov will use his new power, once and for all, to end this monopoly.
Crucial Questions
Debating Archaeology
Lewis R. Binford
(San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1989) 549 pp., $44.95
Popularly known as the father of the “New Archaeology,” Lewis Binford is probably not familiar to most readers of BAR. Binford is, and has been for some time, in the forefront of American archaeology. His revolutionary approach to archaeological theory and methods, called the “New Archaeology,” began in the early 1960’s. The phrase “New Archaeology” did not begin with Binford, but it has been popularized by him and his followers. While difficult to define succinctly, central to its understanding are the concepts of cultural systems and scientific methodology. Binford argues fervently that the traditional method of reaching archaeological conclusions, namely by the inductive creativity of the archaeologist, must be replaced by the more scientific method of deduction and testing. Binford has published prolifically in the field, and his book, Debating Archaeology, constitutes a major contribution to ongoing exchanges with colleagues who work and publish in the field of American archaeology.
The book is long and, in places, overly 008technical. In the last two of its four sections, the longest part of the book, Binford takes to task archaeologists whose views, on a variety of issues, differ from his own, especially those whom he identifies as “empiricists.” While these debates will be of interest to New World archaeologists, the content may not be germane to those interested in Biblical archaeology, except as examples of Binford’s ontological assumptions and methods.
For BAR’s readers, the most relevant part of the book will be the first six chapters. Binford challenges traditional archaeology, which he understands as description and classification, and calls for developing scientific methods for testing the conclusions archaeologists make about the past. Binford reminds us that:
“The subject matter that we as archaeological scientists study is simply artifacts. We observe all of the modifications of natural materials and, secondarily, of artifacts themselves that humans and hominids produce as a result of their lifeways. We do not study human behavior… We do not study symbolic codes… We do not study social systems… We do not study ancient cultures, we do not study ancient settlements, nor do we study the past. We study artifacts” (p. 3).
How accurately one interprets the meaning of artifacts is the central issue defining the rise of the so-called New Archaeology. The most important challenge facing an archaeologist, according to Binford, is “[T]he development of reliable means for inference justification” (p. 3), by which he means the scientific testing of archaeological hypotheses.
Binford’s reflections on methodological issues raise troublesome epistemological questions for archaeologists. What is knowledge? How do we learn? Do we learn about the past by studying artifacts, or must we already know the past in order to understand the artifacts? What is science? How does the scientific method work? What constitutes archaeological data, etc? Because he assumes familiarity with basic philosophical questions related to the philosophy of science and epistemology, Binford’s book is difficult to read and even more difficult to understand.
Some of the implications of the New Archaeology for doing Biblical archaeology have already been felt with the use of multidisciplinary staffs and a more holistic approach to archaeological research, especially on digs sponsored by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Subjects regularly discussed in contemporary Biblical archaeological journals and presented at archaeological meetings dealing with many aspects of ancient Near Eastern culture from the environment to socioeconomic systems 009all testify to the growing influence of American archaeology on its Biblical counterpart. There is no reason why this influence should not continue to expand; it is simply an approach to the discipline whose time has come.
Debating Archaeology seems to have been written primarily to help students appreciate the debates that take place in archaeological literature, especially those engaged in by archaeologists who work in the Americas. But because of the crucial questions Binford raises for archaeology in general, his book should not be ignored by anyone interested in the impact of the New Archaeology on Biblical archaeology.
30% Discount
Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer
Seymour Gitin
(Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 1990) Text volume, 270 pp.; Data Base and Plates Volume, 345 pp., $90.00
Volumes of the final report on the excavation of Tell Gezer (1964–1974) continue to pour out. Eventual publication of the full report now seems assured. When complete, Gezer will be one of the very few major Near East excavations in modern times to publish a complete final report.
The latest in the series is Volume III by Seymour Gitin, the current director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem.
Gitin’s new volume provides a typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic pottery recovered at the site during the 1972–1973 seasons. Based on over 300,000 potsherds, Gitin divides the excavation area (Field VII) into 12 strata containing over 250 different pottery forms. Volume III consists of a text volume of 270 pages and a volume of plates and database information of 348 pages.
Previously published volumes in the series include Volumes I, II, IV and V as well as the field manual used in the Gezer excavation and adopted at a number of other sites. The authors and editors of these volumes include G. Ernest Wright, William G. Dever and Joe D. Seger, each of whom directed various phases of the Gezer excavation, and senior staff members H. Darrell Lance, Dan P. Cole and Reuben G. Bullard. Volumes VI and VII in the series are yet to come.
The Gezer volumes are distributed by the Israel Exploration Society, P.O. Box 7041, Jerusalem. A complete set of Volumes I–V can be purchased at a 30 percent discount—$166.25. Please add 10 percent for postage from Israel.
Video
Mona Lisa of the Galilee
Produced by Biblical Productions, Raanana, Israel
(distributed by Joint Sepphoris Project Mona Lisa, P.O. Box 4735, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706), $37.00 postpaid, running time: 42 minutes
Even without the mysterious beauty gazing up from the mosaic floor, Sepphoris would probably be a popular dig—a natural for a video. Like the fabled Troy of which poets sang, the fame of Sepphoris lived on in literature—talmudic literature—long after the city’s demise; only Jerusalem is mentioned more often in rabbinic writings.
It was the town where Rabbi Judah the Prince (Judah ha-Nasi) compiled the Mishnah about 200 C.E. The Sanhedrin, the ancient Jews’ supreme legislative, ecclesiastical and secular council from about the fifth century B.C.E. to 70 C.E., sat in Sepphoris for a generation or more. The Roman emperor Antonius would slip into the city through a tunnel each night from a nearby town to discuss philosophy with his friend, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, according to one of the legends the town has spawned. The largest city in the Galilee and the region’s spiritual core during the lifetime of Jesus, it was a center for Christians as well; Mary was believed to have been born here.
And then there is the intriguing portrait on the mosaic floor of a dining hall—a lovely young woman with an enigmatic half-smile whose timeless face might as easily have modeled for a contemporary hair-rinse ad or a Renaissance painting. This “Mona Lisa of the Galilee” has graced the covers of at least three American magazines (including BAR 14:01) since she was discovered in 1987. She lay like a sleeping beauty under the rubble after having been buried by an earthquake in 363 C.E., and her Prince Charming was an excavation sponsored jointly by Duke and Hebrew Universities.
The video that takes you to Sepphoris begins with a buildup of suspense as we watch the start of a new season’s dig. Will the beautiful woman still be there or could the mosaic have been stolen? (It was reburied after the previous year’s dig because there was no time during that season to properly transport it elsewhere). It is exciting to watch the woman of mystery being uncovered for only the second time in 1,800 years. Yes—there she is—surprisingly small after all the hoopla.
Other segments of the exquisite, well-preserved mosaic are also uncovered onscreen. Much of the mosaic is made up of panels depicting scenes from the life of the Greek god Dionysus. As we watch the dirt being scraped away, suddenly a never-before-discovered piece of the mosaic unexpectedly comes into view—two hunters, one catching a bird, the other chasing a crocodile—to the delight of all on camera, as 010well as the viewer.
Elsewhere in Sepphoris, we see young volunteers digging up potsherds at the bottom of a cistern that had been blocked for millennia by the pileup of household articles. A metal detector finds a hoard of coins from 310 to 321 C.E. beneath the ruins of a house. Among them is one in honor of Sepphoris that proclaims “loyal friendship between the holy council [Sanhedrin] and the senate of the Roman people.” No other city in Roman Judea, it is alleged, ever made such a declaration. Soon we are in an amphitheater, newly unearthed. The inhabitants most likely watched no great comedy or drama here, we are told, but “some of the best pantomime in the provinces.”
Later, we glimpse the “revolutionary” technique by which the mosaic is rolled up “like a carpet” and carted away to be displayed in the Israel Museum.
The technical aspects of the video seem impeccable; its visual qualities are excellent, the script dramatic and fast paced. The haunting music as of a primeval flute sets the scene and underscores the action. Skillfully mixing suspense, humor, drama and music, the video offers an introduction or a visual accompaniment to archaeological knowledge, but not the knowledge itself.
A number of fascinating visual and verbal messages come at the viewer rapidly and in nonlinear fashion: Jews, heretical Judeo-Christians and pagans (members of the Roman administration) lived in Sepphoris peacefully for a remarkably long time. Water poured on the mosaic stones later causes small plants to grow between them. The God of Israel was considered by the Greeks to be Dionysus, god of wine and revelry, even debauchery; in later life, Dionysus sobered up and became a god of suffering noted for his descent to the underworld and subsequent resurrection. An ordinary hair dryer can be used to dry the mosaic floor. An inscription in a synagogue lintel that tells of the synagogue leader ends with the symbol for Christ.
To see it all is a delight, but most of the nonvisual information imparted is what you might learn at a dinner party with a group of witty archaeologists. Perhaps you will wonder who these heretical Judeo-Christians are, or why the Greeks identified God with Dionysus or what the significance is of the Christian symbol on the synagogue wall plaque. If you want to understand what the material being dug up tells us, or an explanation of the context of what you are seeing, you will have to…well, yes…read something.
Judean Desert Discoveries
The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll From Nahal H|ever (8H|evXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I)
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.