>
The Jewish Museum in New York is presenting an exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls titled: “The Dead Sea Scrolls: Mysteries of the Ancient World.” The exhibit runs through January 4 at The Jewish Museum, 1109 Fifth Ave, New York.
Contrary to previous exhibits, this one focus on the controversy raging among scholars on the provenance and authorship of the scrolls. According to an article published by The Jewish Week, the exhibit presents Roland de Vaux’s view that the scrolls belonged to the Essenes, a monastic Jewish sect who lived at Qumran.
The exhibit also presents the views of Norman Golb, that the scrolls belonged to Jerusalem Jews escaping a Roman attack.
The Jewish Museum has made an effort at presenting both sides of the controversy. Susan L. Braunstein, the exhibit’s curator, said that “It’s not the moment to say which is the most believable or correct. We don’t have enough of the archaeological evidence published; there’s no smoking gun.”
The article gives a ray of hope that may solve the controversy. Until now, some of de Vaux’s field notes from his excavations at the Qumran remain unpublished. Some scholars believe that these notes may vindicate the new theories about the scrolls.
The article reports that Jean-Baptiste Humbert, the successor to de Vaux, has announced that the third volume of de Vaux’s field notes from his excavations will be published within the next three months and the fourth and final volume will be published within a year after that.
The article in The Jewish Week is excellent and presents a balanced view of both side of the debates. Read the article by clicking here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Archaeology, Dead Sea Scrolls, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Norman Golb, Roland de Vaux
var addthis_pub = ‘claude mariottini’;
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
>See this linkhttp://freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=255308for a discussion of the apparent efforts of two defenders of the Qumran-Essene theory to criticize the Jewish Museum exhibit by attacking the Jewish Week article.One of those individuals is the same person who submitted a lengthy comment to Dr. Mariottini’s September 29 posting on the same topic, attacking Dr. Golb and the earlier Wall Street Journal article on the Jewish Museum exhibit. That lengthy comment was also distributed to (and, in violation of scholarly protocol, published by) several websites, including ANE-2.One is entitled to ask whether these two individuals have decided to wage some kind of internet campaign in an effort to discredit developments in scrolls research and their neutral representation in museum exhibits; and if so, why?The author of the above-linked discussion observes: “What’s interesting about both of these responses … is that they largely avoid confronting the issue of the Jewish Museum’s new approach to the scrolls controversy as distinguished from previous exhibiting institutions. In other words, instead of discussing the question of whether such exhibits should present the DSS debate in a neutral manner, they largely limit themselves to dogmatically repeating old arguments in favor of the Qumran-Essene theory. Their tactic is to attempt to “correct” the exhibit’s neutrality, suggesting that opposition to the Qumran-sectarian theory should not be taken seriously, and thereby revealing what appears to be a state of alarm over the effect this exhibit will have on visitors to the museum.”
LikeLike
>Philip,It is sad that Qumranic studies has come to this point. Every time I post an article on the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are one or two people who leave comments that are critical of one view or the other.It seems that Golb’s view is not acceptable to a few people and they go all the way to criticize that theory. One may not agree with Golb’s view but scholars should treat opposing views with respect and dignity.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>Comments on the article in Jewish Week:In his publications on Qumran de Vaux *never* called it a "monastery." Old bones in earthquake prone soil break; physical anthropologists analyse them differently than Golb. Golb is aware, but apparently didn't mention, that some women and children burials may be (many conclude likely are) later bedouin. Pliny located Essenes were Qumran is, on the "north-west shore" to use the 1862 words of CD Ginsberg. Josephus wrote Essenes gave all property to the community; Sefer hayahad, multiple Qumran copies, ditto. The hair net is not from Qumran, but another site entirely. This error was corrected before in NYT. Essenes are a Jewish group, Josephus, Philo, and others reported. Essenes were likely a larger group than aristocratic Sadducees. Qumran lacks 1 Maccabees and Hanukkah, Esther and Purim. It is not a crosssection oftexts. Qumran has named angels and resurrection texts; Sadducees rejected both. Magness is not in a minority. Magen & Peleg's dig is negatively reviewed in scholarly publication; it's an absurd site for pottery export. Essenes made pottery for their own use (pottery does not exclude Essenes). Except one tower, the walls are not fortified. 11 caves had scrolls. Men use mikvaot–no proof of women. An example of a defender of De Vaux's main conclusions at Ecole Biblique: excellent scholar Emile Puech. The name Essene was said to come from Hebrew 'osey hatorah by many scholars before 1948; it's in the scrolls as a self-designation, and increasingly recognized as the etymology. There is no evidence all the scrolls were brought from Jerusalem at one time past a Roman siege. No one claims *all* the scrolls were penned at Qumran (a Golb history-denial straw man argument)–some are older than the site. But more inkwells were found at Qumran than at any other Jewish second temple period site. Golb was not the first to raise questions, nor the second… For further evidence linking Qumran and Essenes see http://www.duke.edu/~goranson Stephen Goranson
LikeLike
>The Jewish Museum exhibit is at the center of a controversy, in that it highlights the “two basic theories” about the scrolls — a complete about-face from previous exhibits. See Norman Golb’s review of the exhibit:https://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/dds_new_york_exhibit_2008.pdfand see the controversy that has erupted in the pages of the National Post in Canada — details at:http://michaelhagerspeaks.wordpress.com/and see also the recent important article (link below) in Le Monde (about the new translation of the scrolls coming out in French) which concludes with the sentence: “The ties between the Essenes … and Qumran have now been reduced to nothing, just as the major American historian and paleographer Norman Golb had already written.” I believe this all speaks for itself. Some people are simply upset about the new direction in research. That’s life.http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2008/11/05/les-manuscrits-de-la-mer-morte-viennent-d-etre-traduits-en-francais_1115194_3246.html
LikeLike
>A new article reports measurements of the ratio of chlorine and bromine in inkfrom a Qumran Cave One manuscript and concludes that the ink was prepared withwater from or near the Dead Sea; the Qumran scroll was inscribed near the DeadSea.Ira Rabin, Oliver Hahn, Timo Wolff, Admir Masic and Gisela Weinberg, "On theOrigin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayot a)," Dead SeaDiscoveries 16.1 (2009) 97-106.Abstract (p. 97): "In this study we demonstrate the possibility to identify theproduction area of the scrolls, coupling non-destructive quantitative analysisof trace elements to spectroscopic investigation of the inks. This approach,that allowed us to determine the Dead Sea area as origin of 1QHodayot a, is ofgeneral validity."Conclusion (p. 102) "Using the fingerprint composition of the water from theDead Sea region we could directly link the fragment, and consequently, theproduction of 1QHodayot a to the Qumran area. Furthermore, our study of organiccomponents present in the carbon ink of this scroll indicates that gall nutsextracts were used in the ink preparation as early as 1st century C.E."Stephen Goransonhttp://www.duke.edu/~goranson/Essenes_&_Others.pdf"Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts"
LikeLike