Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

364 Journal of Biblical Literature Qumran as well as his dating of the coin hoard to Period II. Charlesworth suggests this hoard was hidden around 40 B.C.E. when the site was invaded by the Parthians (pp. 50–52). It was the latter who were responsible for the site’s extensive abandonment and not the 31 B.C.E. earthquake. He believes that the site’s abandonment was extensive and lasted from 40 B.C.E. to 4 B.C.E. (pp. 44–52). Charlesworth, moreover, suggests that de Vaux’s Period Ib, which he dates “from ca. 102 to ca. 40 or 31 B.C.E.,” was the period during which “virtually all the pesharim and related commentaries were composed” and likely received their final editing (p. 49). Charlesworth attempts to support his historical reconstruction by proposing that the renovation of the earliest Hellenistic phase of Khirbet Qumran removed all evidence of de Vaux’s Period Ia. He writes: “Also, those living at Qumran would have removed, intentionally or unintentionally, realia from the first occupation level” (p. 44). Commenting upon the ceramics, Charlesworth states: “Finally, the sequence of pottery chronology does not change from Period Ia to Ib. To claim that none of the pottery found at Qumran must date before 100 B.C.E. is not insightful or helpful” (p. 44). Although Charlesworth does not discern any significant changes between the ceramic profiles from de Vaux’s Periods Ia and Ib, it is important to note that de Vaux relied upon whole vessels for dating Khirbet Qumran’s archaeological strata, which would reflect the final use of an occupational stratum rather than its earliest use. Nevertheless, the absence of early ceramic remains from Khirbet Qumran as well as its vicinity is perplexing: archaeological structures, even when renovated, tend to leave behind traces of earlier strata, especially potsherds. The lack of ceramic remains that can be dated with confidence before 100 B.C.E. tends to favor Magness’s reconstruction despite the potential consequences it poses for understanding the historical references and allusions in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Charlesworth recognizes that Magness’s dating of Khirbet Qumran's occupational phases poses some significant difficulties for the traditional identification of Jonathan or Simon as the Wicked Priest, and Khirbet Qumran as the place where a dissident group of Essenes moved. He accepts the established view, which holds that Khirbet Qumran was the locale where the Teacher of Righteousness—a terminus technicus that Charlesworth for grammatical reasons prefers to translate as “the Righteous Teacher” (pp. 28–30)—led a small group of his followers to live a monastic lifestyle in the wilderness (pp. 30–42). Charlesworth does suggest that the designation Wicked Priest may have been used as an epithet early in Qumran history: there may have been several Wicked Priests but only one Teacher of Righteousness (pp. 37, 66). According to his extensive analysis and discussion of all clearly recognizable historical references and sobriquets in the pesharim, he concludes that all datable events in these documents can be identified with historical people who were active after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness and before Herod the Great (p. 117). Because Charlesworth’s historical reconstruction of Khirbet Qumran, as read through its archaeological remains and the Dead Sea Scrolls, demands the existence of de Vaux’s Period Ia, he also uses evidence from CD to place the origin of the Khirbet Qumran group sometime in the first half of the second century B.C.E. (p. 27). Commenting on Magness’s rejection of the existence of de Vaux’s Period Ia, Charlesworth states that “her position makes sense if one looks only at the archaeological evidence; much of the pottery and coins do not lead to conclusive evidence that de Vaux’s Period Ia existed” (p. 37 n. 97). While Magness’s revision of
Book Reviews de Vaux’s stratigraphy certainly complicates matters, as Charlesworth recognizes, it is perhaps easier for Qumran scholars to take the numbers in CD cum grano salis and revise their dating of the historical references in this particular Dead Sea Scroll than to argue for the existence of a settlement at Khirbet Qumran for which there is as yet no discernible archaeological trace. Despite their differences as to whether archaeological evidence, primarily stratigraphical analysis and ceramic typology, or the historical allusions in the Dead Sea Scrolls should be used to resolve debates concerning the existence or absence of de Vaux’s Phase Ia, the works of Magness and Charlesworth contain more similarities than differences. Both recognize that the numerous miqva
Page 1 and 2:
Journal of Biblical Literature VOLU
Page 3 and 4:
JBL 123/2 (2004) 201-218 WHAT LAWS
Page 5 and 6:
Hahn and Bergsma: Ezekiel 20:25-26
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
JBL 123/2 (2004) 219-234 PLOTTING A
Page 23 and 24:
Weitzman: Plotting Antiochus’s Pe
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
JBL 123/2 (2004) 235-251 THE POLITI
Page 39 and 40:
Buell and Johnson Hodge: The Politi
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53:
Page 56 and 57:
254 Journal of Biblical Literature
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 83 and 84:
JBL 123/2 (2004) 281-313 MYTH AND S
Page 85 and 86:
Friesen: Myth and Resistance in Rev
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 7. Relief of Claudius defeat
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 10. Relief of Claudius, Land
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115: Friesen: Myth and Resistance in Rev
Page 118 and 119: 316 Journal of Biblical Literature
Page 131 and 132: JBL 123/2 (2004) 329-389 BOOK REVIE
Page 133 and 134: Book Reviews ish fixation with the
Page 135 and 136: Book Reviews traces of Hellenistic
Page 137 and 138: Book Reviews Jews and Greeks, the p
Page 139 and 140: Book Reviews The Intellectual Respo
Page 141 and 142: Book Reviews gion, as Hengel accuse
Page 143 and 144: Book Reviews in the cynic Jesus equ
Page 145 and 146: Book Reviews tors in constructing a
Page 147 and 148: Book Reviews tributes a comprehensi
Page 149 and 150: Book Reviews question of ritual pur
Page 151 and 152: Book Reviews Der Bericht Nehemias:
Page 153 and 154: Book Reviews of people involved in
Page 155 and 156: Book Reviews focuses (through the l
Page 157 and 158: Book Reviews Fitzmyer presents a cl
Page 159 and 160: Book Reviews archaeological site of
Page 161 and 162: Book Reviews Davies, “How Not to
Page 163 and 164: Book Reviews its likely use and app
Page 165: Book Reviews intact or restored. Su
Page 169 and 170: Book Reviews recent analysis and in
Page 171 and 172: Book Reviews Chapter 4 investigates
Page 173 and 174: Book Reviews lowed by the dissoluti
Page 175 and 176: Book Reviews knew 1 Peter; indeed,
Page 177 and 178: Book Reviews basis of Sampley’s r
Page 179 and 180: Book Reviews lengthy essay on Gadar
Page 181 and 182: Book Reviews ately honoring gods an
Page 183 and 184: Book Reviews initial version of the
Page 185 and 186: Book Reviews much anticipated. The
Page 187 and 188: Book Reviews ences on Aramaic (Chic
Page 189 and 190: Book Reviews learning, and a self-r
Page 191: Book Reviews occurred more graduall
Page 202: 400 Journal of Biblical Literature
show all

Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?