7/27/2019 p294

1/15

book reviews294

BOOK REVIEWS

Bach, Alice, Religion, Politics, Media in the Broadband Era. The Bible inthe Modern World, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004. x +200 pp. Hardback 40.00 / $70.00 / 60.00. Individual Scholar Prices20.00 / $35.00 / 30.00 ISBN 1-905048-07-6.

When foraging through a flea market some years ago, I purchased acollection of Victorian era paper cut-outs. Each one illustrated two Bibleverses (a Golden Text and a Catch Thought), and offered a child-digestible, destined-for-the-scrapbook bite of moral instruction. One card,published in 1895, depicted a city skyline etched with fantastical towers,flags, Moorish arches, andin the centera mosque-like buildingtopped by the sign of the crescent. The golden text? So we may see thatthey could not enter in because of unbelief (Heb 3:19). And the catchthought? This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our Faith

(1 John 5:4). While children pasted these little bits of biblical wisdominto their scrapbooks, their parents were probably reading gossipy, sexu-alized newspaper accounts of debased Ottoman rulers, those infidelMuslims addicted to abhorrent appetites, fanaticism, and unseemly luxury(e.g., The Sultans Extravagance, New York Times, Dec. 27, 1875:3; ASick Mans Amusements and Thousands for the Harem and Nothingfor the Army, New York Times, May 21, 1876:6; October 7, 1878:8).

I recalled my flea market purchase when reading Alice Bachs collec-tion of essays. By standing at the confluence of biblical narrative, poli-tics, and popular culture, Bach helps her readers discern the whispersof biblical antiquity that run through the political and cultural dialogueof our own day (p. 67). A hundred years ago, a Sunday school cut-outthat blended biblical literalism with militant Americanism stood behindanti-Muslim policies carried out against the failing Ottoman Empire.Today, as Bach writes in one essay on American myths and mainstream

media, the steroidal idea of America talking to God while the wholeworld watches and waits on the outcome (p. 70) has bulked up the newrulers of mass communications who easily justify smart bomb devastationof non-Christians with a rhetoric that fuses biblical texts with imagery ofredemptive violence.

Bach resists these new realities of American life. She is appalled thatthe holier than all the rest of the world rhetoric has been indelibly su-perimposed upon a war of self-defense against terrorists (p. 70). Hercautionary sign-off is succinct. Remember the New Testament scene inwhich the Evil One tempted Jesus with unparalleled power and wealth,she tells her readersand Washington politicians. With the gun (car-

7/27/2019 p294

2/15

book reviews 295

ried by Saddam Hussein) hanging on his wall, she writes, Mr. Bush haschosen the symbol of death over the symbol of life (p. 90).

Not all of Bachs essays are as focused on political commentary as this

one. But they all are as trenchant. And they often sparkle with memo-rable phrases that distill her argument or unleash ironic, withering criti-cism of cultural trends she finds distasteful. On Mel Gibsons The Passionof the Christ: My succinct film review can be writ small: Jesus is a bloodymess (p. 9). Of immensely popular end-of-days novels: Seeing througha glass darkly has never been so profitable (p. 50). A best-selling videoseries for children calls to mind a series of F wordsfluffy, fruffy,fancy, frumpy, flippant, funky, frustrating, frivolous, foolishemblematic

of a culture desirous of avoiding troublesome moral obligation (pp. 52-53).

Indeed, moral obligation and outrage is one important key to Bachsexploration of the varied and complex connections between scholarlyapproaches to religion (especially biblical studies), the practices of reli-gion, and media-driven popular culture. In the tradition of public intel-lectuals, Bach deconstructs the phenomena she studies, exercises judg-

ment about what she finds deficient, and imagines a world in which jus-tice for women, for example, or for the poor, or the non-American, wouldbe a higher value than winning-at-all-costs. She does so with panacheand without claiming some authoritarian privilege of scholarly neutral-ity.

Examining the brouhaha around Martin Bernals Black Athena (NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987), Bach finds a cautionarytale for biblical scholars. Lurking behind every academic disciplines

reach for disciplinary security is a bias against new types of interdisci-plinary interpretation (p. 12) offered by scholars (such as Bernal) whoviolate boundaries prescribed by the high priests of specialized training.In watching religionists read films, Bach calls for more cultural analysesof how celluloid Jesuses, cinematic landscapes of Americas past, andHollywood westernsto name just a fewreflect religion, politics andpropaganda of the era in which they were created. In another essay, Bach

examines books, films, and videos that have become the overheatedplaces where the Bible-based biblically correct fight their culture warsand worry her with their disenchantment with modernity and globaliza-tion (p. 49). In Marketing Women from Proverbs to First Ladies, Bachsuggests how biblical stereotypes of women persist where familiarity ofgood and bad characters, evil enemies and loyal wives, is extended toreal women, who are forced to fit into the paradigm of Good Wife (p.103) and beyond that, into the media driven role of First Consumer

(p. 92). Confessing her need to witness when women in Afghanistan,Palestine, Kosovo, Columbia, and New York are victimized (p. 114), Bachconnects modern events to biblical narratives in which women are both

7/27/2019 p294

3/15

book reviews296

victims of, and resistive safe havens from, violence committed by men.In a concluding essay on womens altars, Bach draws analogies betweenancient religious practices and todays pop culture versions of largely

female, homespun spirituality found in the quotidian practices of, forexample, the kitchen, Vodou altars, and spontaneous public shrines.Bach intends her essays to be of interest to any reader interested in

the interrelatedness of politics, media and the Bible. They will appealparticularly to biblical scholars who, under the sway of postmodernismand cultural studies, have turned their attention to the continuouslymorphing presence of the Bible in popular culture. To those who havenot made that transition, Bach offers encouragement. A decade ago,

Bach tells her readers, I probably would not have dared write aboutplush cucumber puppets named David and Goliath. Now, she asserts,border crossing has become a scholarly necessity. Of course, Bach isan established biblical scholar who has survived the tenure-awardingborder guards of scholarly specialization. And, she confesses, I am drivenmore by exploring intellectual interests than by the constraints of schol-arly training and certification (pp. 1-2). Her essays lunge against those

powerful and entrenched disciplinary barriersthat is the encouragingword to those longing to break outwhile offering incisive commentaryon the biblical pieties and religious imagery that remain strongly conse-quential in media-hyped American political life. A reader may disagreewith an opinion, or recoil at the tone here and there, or resist some ofthe punchy language. But it would be hard to say that Alice Bachs takeon her topics is uninteresting.

Burke O. LongBowdon College

Brown, William P., Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor. Louis-ville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Pp. xii + 274. Pbk. 15.99.ISBN 0-664-22502-0

Browns study is an attempt to build a bridge between ancient ico-nography and the psalmists sophisticated use of metaphor in poetic dis-course. Brown argues first for the importance of poetic imaginationwhen reading the psalms. Too many surveys of the forms, language, andcontexts of psalmody have missed this point entirely; they may help usto understand technically the make-up of a psalm, but they frequentlyfail to help us to appreciate the psalm as poetry with a purpose. Theban on graven images had a most creative effect on Israels literary out-put: instead of depicting the deity and his or her relationship with hu-mankind in sculptures and paintings of wood and stone, Israels poets

7/27/2019 p294

4/15

book reviews 297

and authors found a different creative expression in word-sculpting andword-painting. Instead of using images, they used imagerywhat Browncalls verbal iconography. In biblical poetry, this is made most effective

through metaphor. Metaphors are a type of performative art: by creat-ing new inferences and associations, they evoke new insights and offerthe reader an internal vision which transcends the visible and externalcorrespondences evoked by physical images and idols.

Having outlined his hermeneutical theory, Brown then applies this tothe practice of reading. The first two chapters are an exegesis of twofoundational metaphors in the psalmsrefuge and pathway. Browndeals in his first chapter with the psalms which offer root metaphors of

refuge (for example, rock, wings, sanctuary presence, the cosmicking), and in his second chapter with psalms which reflect the rootmetaphors of pathway (Torah, wisdom, path of salvation, path ofperil). He then brings the two basic metaphors together to form a com-plementary relationship. Refuge is about humans seeking protectionin God, and God dwelling in the sanctuary to offer them the securitythey crave; pathway is about humans making pilgrimage towards that

goal and God being on the move to be with them as they travel. Psalms1 and 2 form an interesting complementary whole in this regardthefirst psalm being about the pathway towards God (Ps. 1:6) the second,about the refuge found in God (Ps. 2:12).

The following two chapters move away from a study of more concep-tual metaphors throughout the whole Psalter to look at individual psalms.The reference to the pathway in Psalm 1 elicits an imaginative accountof the metaphor of the tree in that psalm; an equally interesting ac-

count of the metaphor of the sun in Psalm 19 is given in the subse-quent chapter. Again the two metaphors are woven together, becausethe shared interest in each psalm is of the importance of the Torah. Themost evocative aspect of these two chapters is the various physical iconicreferences to the tree and sun in ancient Near Eastern drawings andcarvings (here Brown produces a number of significant line-drawings asillustrations) which become a way of showing how the psalmists, in their

peculiarly Israelite context, instead sculpt and paint with words.The next two chapters take up other physical metaphors, again fromthe natural order, but, as in the first two chapters, Brown looks at theway these are woven into the fabric of the entire Psalter. The first meta-phor is of water; noting how different psalmists have been influencedby the various climatic changes in Syro-Palestine, relevant psalms arechosen to illustrate where the metaphor is one of the destructive powerof the chaos waters, and where it concerns refreshment through life-giv-

ing rains. The second metaphor is of animals: the negative depictions ofthe lion, serpent, dog, and mythological beasts as the psalmists enemiescreate interesting comparisons with the more positive depictions of the

7/27/2019 p294

5/15

book reviews298

bird, deer, sheep as referents to the protection found in God. Psalms8,144,104 and 148 are read as examples of the various states of relation-ship between humans and the animal kingdom (from hierarchy over the

animals, to dependence upon them, to cooperation with them). Whetherspeaking of the brightest light of the sun, or the sturdy form of the tree,or the waters that both destroy and sustain, or devouring lions and meekdoves, the psalmists landscape depicted through verbal iconographyshows vividly the two aspects of the natural worldas friend and foe.

Chapters 7 and 8 bring together images used by the psalmists of Godhimself. Chapter 7 deals with more personal metaphors, such as thoseof Gods senses (his eyes, ears, face, hand, mouth, voice and breath),

Gods pathos (his anger, hatred, love, compassion, delight and memory),and divine roles (such as king, warrior, parent, teacher). Chapter 8 takesup the more impersonal and inanimate metaphors, such as light, shield,fountain, portion, cup. These two chapters are less satisfying. This is inpart because they develop earlier material, but mainly because a moreextensive treatment of the more complex metaphors is required. This isespecially true in the light of all that Brown has said previously aboutthe ban on images and yet the need to speak poetically about God. Fur-thermore, although the more feminine metaphors are illustrated along-side the more masculine ones, this latter category, so redolent with morenegative, power-based imagery in depicting Israels God, requires a morecritical analysis of whether such rhetoric succeeds and persuades in thesame way as do other metaphors outlined in earlier chapters.

Chapter 9, entitled In Defence of Iconic Reflection, uses Psalm 139as a means of returning to the theme expressed in the introduction,

namely, on the ways in which metaphors about God create new worldsof reality. For this psalmist, the rich use of metaphor reinforces bothpositively and negatively his nearness and his guidance from womb totomb. God is depicted as judge, advocate, scribe, hunter, and attacker;but he is also guide, partner, sun, weaver, creator and procreator. Allthis, within the charge against idolatry at the end of the psalm, show howit is possible to use a rich store of metaphors to point to the many sidesGod without resorting to graven images.

This is a book about how word-painting and verbal iconography inpsalmody is developed in contrast to iconographic practices within theancient Near East. Yet, it seems that, in popular culture at least, the Isra-elites did both. The detailed drawings on the storage jars at KuntilletAjrud and the scaraboid from Tell el-Farah are just two illustrationsoffered by Brown himself (pp. 61-62). If one adds to these illustrationsrecent studies on the plurality of Israelite worship (both official as wellfamilial), it is even more apparent that the psalms were used not onlybecause of their effect on the internal imaginations of individual read-ers but also as means of accompanying the external world of music, ritualand art within the worshipping community. Overall, Browns study takes

7/27/2019 p294

6/15

book reviews 299

a different line: it offers us insights into the ways in which literal iconog-raphy is a means of seeing what is going on outside psalmody, ratherthan accompanying the verbal iconography within it, so that psalmody

is an alternative to image making, rather than a complementary part ofit. Nevertheless, Brown has given us important insights into one half ofthe equation, and, given the renewed interest in Israelite religions morerecently, his book makes a fascinating contribution to the broader pic-ture of psalmody in the ancient Near East.

Susan Gillingham

Worcester College, Oxford

Kamionkowski, S. Tamar, Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Studyon the Book ofEzekiel. JSOTSup Series, 368. London: Sheffield Aca-demic Press, 2003. Pp. xii + 188. Cl. Np. ISBN 0-82646-224-3.

Kamionkowski has written a fascinating book offering a fresh inter-

pretation of one of the most difficult texts in Ezekiel for ancient andcontemporary readers alike: Ezekiel 16. Her thesis is that Ezekiel useschapter 16 to explore gender ambiguities raised by his own and othersexperience of shame, enforced passivity, and humiliations as exiles dealtout by the Babylonians. Her basic argument is that Ezekiel and his gen-eration of exiles felt emasculated, and Ezekiel 16 is Ezekiels way of work-ing through that feeling of emasculation via an exploration of genderambiguities and reversals (p. 7). More specifically, Ezekiel constructs ametaphor whereby the Judean/exilic male community poses as a female(personified Jerusalem) who in turn passes for a male (independent andaggressive) (p. 7). She argues that Israels sin is not just a matter ofbeing unfaithful to her husband, but also of subverting the defined roleswithin that relationship.. .The story is one of confused gender scripts,ensuing chaos and a reordering through the reinforcement of strictlydefined gender scripts (p. 7).

To that end, the first chapter sets the context for her own study ofEzekiel 16, while the second chapter, focusing on metaphor, sets up oneof the key methodological grounds for her studyreading this text asan extended metaphor. As she argues, most commentators on this pas-sage, both ancient and modern, tend to flatten out the metaphors them-selves, confusing the metaphor with reality: The thing signified becomesthe signification itself (p. 54). Her book offers a welcome corrective tothis more traditional way of reading Ezekiel 16, which tends to empa-

thize with YHWH (p. 55) and read Gods graceor loving care for theabandoned and exposed Jerusalem, as well as justification for YHWHsviolent revenge, into the text. As she notes, such commentators not only

7/27/2019 p294

7/15

book reviews300

participate in Ezekiels rhetoric, but also further develop the textsclaims (p. 55). In this chapter of her book, Kamionkowski finds somemetaphorical theorists and theories which work for her, but a stronger

foundation for her study would have been a work which has not yetgained much attention in biblical studies: Metaphor, by David Cooper.He focuses on two areas of metaphor which would have added to Ka-mionkowskis work: a) metaphor as rhetoric; and b) the social effects orfunctions of metaphor, which is precisely what she is trying to do withthe extended metaphor of Ezekiel 16 (and, to a lesser extent, of Ezekiel23).

The third chapter focuses specifically on her thesis of gender reversal

in Ezekiel 16. First, she looks at the exile as a context of shame andgender crisis. This is the weakest part of her study. The gender studiesfrom which she draws are from the general field of psychology, and sheextrapolates from them in ways which are not always entirely convincingor most helpful for her ultimate goals. Here again her work could havebenefited from the burgeoning group of gender studies (such as GenderTrouble,by Judith Butler) that focuses on gender as a social construction(something for which she argues, but which, if pursued further, coulddeepen and strengthen her interpretation). The second part of this chap-ter deals with Mesopotamian evidence for gender confusion as a resultof war. Here she is on more solid ground. Yet the vast majority of herexamples of humiliation of those conquered come from Assyrian notBabylonian records. Moreover, the Assyrians were both notoriously bru-tal, and are usually pictured as the extreme in terms of their treatmentof conquered troops. The biblical evidence she brings to bear helps

mitigate this problem (e.g., Jer. 13:24-27, which pictures the attack onJerusalem as rape, p. 90). This reader would be more convinced of herargument forEzekiels gender anxiety, however, with more evidence fromBabylonian contexts.

The fourth chapter, is, as she herself acknowledges, the heart of thebook. Kamionkowski is at her best when working with the biblical textitself, and here her work shines. In her close reading of Ezekiel 16,Kamionkowski does indeed make a good case for gender reversals in this

text. She provides an innovative and fresh reading of the text which doesjustice to the ways in which both major characters (God and the woman)are portrayed. This reading offers a significant contribution to the fieldof Ezekiel studies in general and to the literature on Ezekiel 16 in par-ticular. Although I remain unconvinced that the gender anxiety of thistext is a projection of Ezekiels own gender anxiety (it is almost impos-sible to get back to what an original author thought, felt, or experienced),Kamionkowskis work has opened the issue of the limits of gender con-struction in a very helpful way. Moreover, her further analysis of Ezekiel23 in the final chapter of the book, as a contrast to Ezekiel 16, is alsohelpful.

7/27/2019 p294

8/15

book reviews 301

In her final chapter, Kamionkowski argues, quite rightly, that the fo-cus in Ezekiel 23 is on hypervirility rather than the emasculation ofEzekiel 16: In Ezekiel 16, the writer responds to A WEAK MAN IS A

WOMAN by shifting the focus away from the emasculated man to thedominant woman. In Ezekiel 23, the writer identifies with YHWH, thejilted lover, and fantasizes that he and his fellow emasculated Judeanswill eventually overcome and come to control the most manly of men,just like YHWH (p. 148). Yet her contrast is a bit overstated. Contraryto her portrayal in this final chapter, there are more connections be-tween the woman of Ezekiel 16 and the women of Ezekiel 23 than she iswilling to grant. Kamionkowski portrays the woman in Ezekiel 16 as a

woman who really acts like a man, and contrasts that with the figure ofEzekiel 23 as one who is more passive, sending for her lovers and receiv-ing them instead of going out and paying for lovers (Ezek. 16:30-34). Tothis extent she is correct. However, she also downplays the ways in whichOholibah (the counterpart to Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16) acts: she lusts,invites, brings lovers in, and slaughters her children, using the sameconstruction Kamionkowski made much over as an inherently masculine

act in her treatment of Ezekiel 16 (see pp. 122-23). Moreover the womanin Ezekiel 16 is also described as a mother, which places her within atraditional female role, indicating that the contrasts between the meta-phorical pictures of the two women is not nearly as sharp as Kamion-kowski would make it. The overstatements, however, do not detract froma helpful reading of Ezekiel 23 as contrasting from Ezekiel 16 in severalsignificant ways, and her reading of Ezekiel 23 represents an additionalcontribution to the field.

This work as a whole exhibits a thorough knowledge of Ezekiel stud-ies in general, as well as her chosen topic, Ezekiel 16 (and Ezekiel 23).Kamionkowski clearly sees the major gender issues in Ezekiel itself. Sheis a careful, close reader, who is able to bring a combination of histori-cal-critical and literary skills to her reading. Her book is a must for any-one dealing with the difficult texts in Ezekiel.

Mary E. ShieldsTrinity Lutheran Seminary

Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Pp. xlvi + 238. Cl. $26.00 or 18.95.ISBN 0-8028-4589-4.

Jodi Magness has written the most insightful book on Qumran archae-ology since R. de Vauxs classic,Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1973).The book is informed, balanced and employs many methods. She is not

7/27/2019 p294

9/15

book reviews302

dogmatic, and explores with insight and reflection, informed by decadesof being involved in dirt archaeology, the issues related to Qumran ar-chaeology. Her book has ten chapters with bibliographical notes at the

end of each chapter.Most significant are the periods of occupation at Qumran. Magnessmodifies two of de Vauxs periods. Note the major periods at Qumranaccording to de Vaux and Magness:de Vaux MagnessIron Age fort (8-7 cent, bce) Iron Age fort (= Secacah)Period la (c. 130-100 bce) no occupation at QumranPeriod Ib (c. 100-31 bce) 100-50 bce to 31 bce

Exodus 31 bce to 8 bce; exodus from 8 to 4Period II (c. 4 bce to 68 ce) the samePeriod III (68-73/4) the same

It is obvious that Magness disagrees with de Vaux on the period whenthe priests first appeared at Qumran and when and what caused the endof the Community near the end of the first century bce. Magness hasoffered reflections, which are sometimes brilliant, for re-considering de

Vauxs conclusions (and it is a pity that de Vaux did not live long enoughto provide us with a final publication; his book reflects his SchweichLectures of 1959).

It is good to see a major study devoted to Qumran archaeology, sincefrom the beginnings of Qumranology de Vauxs position was virtuallyunchallenged (except by Laperrousaz) until the 1980s. (I deem it un-wise to discuss now the controversial hypotheses of M. and L. Lnnqvistpublished in 2002 in Archaeology of theHiddenQumran.) It is imperative

to perceive, at the outset, that de Vaux and Magness agree that Qumranended in 68 ce and that those who lived there were Jews who left theTemple sometime in the second or first centurybce. That alone shouldput an end to the wild speculations by gifted and influential scholars whocame to Qumran only from other fields.

Magness correctly discloses why Qumran cannot be a country villa,fort, caravanserai, or communal center for making papyrus. Although

Qumran is somewhat similar to country manors discovered elsewhere,one must stress its unique features, especially the abundant cisterns, waterchannels, and many mikvaot (baths for ritual cleansing). There is alsono clear area or room for living or sleeping, although these may havebeen on a second floor and reserved for the Master, Examiner, andOverseer. Broshi and Eshel (pacePatrich) seem to be correct to suggestthat the Qumranites lived in the exposed marl caves or up in the lime-stone caves (a mezuzah was found in Cave 8, a reed mat in Cave 10, and

five wooden poles in Cave 17). There should be no doubt that QumranCaves 5 and 4 (A and B) are just west of Qumran and that Caves 7, 8,and 9 can be approached only by passing through the Community. The

7/27/2019 p294

10/15

book reviews 303

sheer geographical proximity of these caves to Qumran and the fact thatthe caves witness to the same period and the exact type of pottery foundin the large kiln prove that these caves contained scrolls and objects that

belonged to those who worked nearby.I fully agree with Magness that the archaeological evidence proves thatde Vaux perceptively interpreted Qumran as a sectarian settlement (p.15). With Magness, I disagree with de Vaux about his dating of aban-donment at the end of the first centurybce. All of us see some abandon-ment. Magness claims that the ten undated bronze coins of Herod theGreat and the 561 silver coins, almost all Tyrian tetradrachmas (datingfrom 126 to 9/8 bce), found in three pots, according to de Vaux be-

neath the level of Period II and above that of Period Ib, were not hid-den in Period II but in Period Ib. She is convinced that in 9/8 bce, orsome time thereafter, Qumran suffered a deliberate, violent destruction(p. 67). The site was abandoned only from 9/8 bce until 4 bce. She can-not explain why the coins were never retrieved and there is no evidenceof destruction in the Qumran area in 9 or 8 bce. She suggests the de-struction is associated with the revolts and turmoil which erupted in

Judea upon the death of Herod the Great in 4 bce (p. 68). However,that is not the date she gives for the destruction. It is the date she givesfor reoccupation (see also the study by R.K. Fenn, The Death ofHerod,that is not mentioned by Magness).

More persuasive for the period of abandonment of Qumran is thevast evidence of burning and destruction from Jericho to Ein Gedi, aswell as nearer Qumran at Ein Feshkhah and Ein el-Ghuweir, in andshortly after 40 bce. Burning and destruction, as at Qumran, have been

found all along the western littoral of the Dead Sea from 40 bce, thetime of the Parthian invasion (as pointed out by many experts, includ-ing Avi-Yonah, Schalit, and Stern). The Parthians, with their cavalry,conquered the eastern portions of Judaea and almost took Jerusalem (cf.1En. 56). Impressive evidence of destruction marred the area from 40 to37 bce, the period of the wars between King Herod and the last Has-monean king, Mattathias Antigonus. I argued inRevuedeQumran (1980)

that this period provides the best explanation for the date of the destruc-tion of Qumran, and not the earthquake in 31 bce that has left cracks inthe buildings and walls.

The coins in dispute could have been buried anytime after 9/8 bceand in Period II, since such coins continued to circulate and are evidentin many strata in and near Jerusalem that end in 70 ce. It seems morelikely that the coins were buried in three jars and known to Jews duringphase II than that the three jars were never found by those who hid them

in 9/8 and then returned only about four years later. Many hoards havebeen found in Judaea; and these usually contain coins that cover manydecades. Most likely, the Qumranites who returned brought these three

7/27/2019 p294

11/15

book reviews304

jars with them, and placed them on the earth above Stratum Ib and justbelow Stratum II (which was their own stratum).

Why did the Qumranites leave and then return to Qumran? Magness

claim that from 40 or 37 to 4 bce is too long a period of abandonmenthas no support from archaeology. Abandonment of Qumran for five years(Magness) as well as 36 years (Charlesworth) would demand living some-where other than Qumran. Perhaps those who had been at Qumran leftand went to Jerusalem and Jericho, where we now know there wereEssenes or Essene sympathizers (recall Jerusalems Essene gate and theostracon that James Strange found that mentions Jericho). Perhaps dur-ing the time of Herod the Great (40 or 37-4 bce) the Qumranites lived

with other Essenes since Herod treated them with respect, because anEssene had predicted his kingship. Essenes and Herod had commonenemies; both vehemently hated the Hasmoneans. In discerning thehistory and archaeology of Qumran one must not think about thousands;only about 150 lived at Qumran at any one time, as disclosed by the sizeof the refectory and the recovery of 1000 dishes nearby in the pantry.

Why did some Qumranites return to Qumran? That is a question

Magness leaves unanswered. Surely, if they had been protected by Herodthe Great, then his death will explain why some now retreated again toQumran. The best historical reconstructions and archaeological expla-nations are those which provide the best and most answers.

Is there any evidence that there was continuity at Qumran from be-fore the earthquake of 31 bce and after it (contrade Vaux and Charles-worth [and most experts])? Magness provides no archaeological evidencefor this assertion. We are presented only unsubstantiated claims: The

inhabitants immediately repaired or strengthened many of the damagedbuildings but did not bother to clear those beyond repair (p. 67). Theadverb immediately is not explained or supported by archaeologicalevidence. One must not confuse the stratification of Jericho (Kenyon)with the so-called stratification of Qumran (de Vaux); the Qumran strataare too frequently impossible to perceive. Magness provides no convinc-ing archaeological data that enables us to conclude that the Community

was abandoned for only five years.Most importantly is the issue of the time when the priests first settledat Qumran. Magness concludes that it was in the early first centurybce:it is reasonable to date the initial establishment of the sectarian settle-ment to the first half of the 1st centurybce (that is, some time between100-50 bce) (p. 65). She is correct to point out that the only undeni-able archaeological evidence for life at Qumran in this period (and notearlier during Iron II) is in the beginnings of the first centurybce dur-

ing the time of Alexander Jannaeus. There are, however, four problemswith her conclusion. First, the appearance of coins from Jonathan (actu-ally Yehoh anan) Hyrcanus (135/4-104 bce) are impressive. The discov-

7/27/2019 p294

12/15

book reviews 305

ery of one coin of this Hasmonean is remarkable, since his coins are veryrare and the leading numismatist, Meshorer, for decades indicated thatJonathan Hyrcanus may not have minted any coins. Meshorer suggested

that Hyrcanus coins did not exist; they were actually coins minted byAlexander Jannaeus (103-76), whose first name was Yehonatan. Meshorerchanged his mind and we now know that the Kohen haGadol or HeverhaYehudim authorized minting of coins by only four Hasmoneans: Hyr-canus I, Aristobulus I, Jannaeus, and Mattathias Antigonus (cf. Adden-dumI in INJ vol. 11). The most numerous coins are those by Jannaeus;for example, Hirschfield recently found over 1500 coins of Jannaeusat Khirbet Mazim just south of Qumran. The coins found at Qumran

(amounting to 1231), moreover, cannot be used as reliable evidence. Indesert sand, as at Qumran, coins move downward into earlier strata, dueto gravity, and upward, due to earthquakes and later human occupation.Coins provide discernible dates only when they are in closed stratifica-tions and found in situ.

The second of the four reasons is that scholars have proved that por-tions of theHodayotwere composed by the Righteous Teacher; and col.

16 (in my judgment) clearly preserves his autobiographical reflections.He thanks God for placing him in a desert, indeed in a land of dry-ness. Such insights reveal that he is no longer in Jerusalem but prob-ably at Qumran. Likewise, Isaiah 40:3 is interpreted uniquely: the Voiceis calling the Righteous Teacher and his followers to prepare a Way inthe wilderness (cf. 1QS 8). Since 1QS was copied sometime between 100and 75 bce, it is obvious that the Rule of the Community is a deposit ofwritings that antedate 100 by decades. This conclusion is confirmed by a

study of the relation of the 4QS fragments with 1QS.The third reason is that research on Midrash Sepher Moses (though

published in DJD in 1999 and 2000, never mentioned by Magness) indi-cates that the movement from which the Qumran Community evolvedoriginated about 200 bce and long before the Maccabean Revolt (thescript is cryptic and only for the Maskil as Pfann demonstrates). If theRighteous Teacher went to the wilderness (and Qumran) sometime be-

tween 152 (the end of the intersacerdotum) and 105 (the end of Hyr-canus reign [cf. H. Stegemann]), then we must account for a minimumof 50 years of pre-Qumran existence for this movement (or sect). Cumu-latively,Midrash Sepher Moses indicates that it is becoming more unlikelythat the movement did not find its way to Qumran until the early firstcentury bce.

The fourth reason is that the first group of Jews at Qumran may havebeen very small, and their modifications of the Iron Age fort (the foun-

dations of which are still visible under the eastern wall) would be minor.If the renovations of subsequent periods were massive, as de Vaux de-tected, then one cannot build hypotheses on the absence of evidence

7/27/2019 p294

13/15

book reviews306

(i.e., what was removed during restorations). I find insightful Magnessclaim that after the abandonment in the end of the first century bce,the process of cleaning cleared out the objects that would have helped

us to identify the function of these rooms during Period Ib (p. 57).There are a few errors in Magness book that should be noted. Procu-rators are confused with prefects (p. 80 [as Josephus did]; procuratorsdid not appear until about 44 ce). Magness claims that the temperaturesat Qumran and nearby range between 55 and 90.5 degrees Fahrenheit;this summer I put my thermometer away when it hit 120 degrees. TheRomans did not read history for fun (p. 39); they read it to developcharacter, morality, and erudition.

Other features of this book are the cause of some unease. So, it is nothelpful to scholars that specialists are quoted but no footnotes are addedto specify the secondary sources. In light of the vast increase in data andmethodology since the late nineteenth century, it is unfortunately thatSchrer is cited on the Testament ofMoses (miscalled the Assumption ofMoses because she follows R.H. Charles [p. 103]) and not a specialist onthis pseudepigraphon today. If one really wants to comprehend Qumran

archaeology and history one should more deeply include the QumranScrolls that are intimately connected with the Community and reveal itshistory (esp. thePesharimand theHodayot). Magness also implies that deVaux considered Qumran a monastery (pp. 15-16). I studied with deVaux; he never called Qumran a monastery and only later, after muchreflection, concluded that the Community was somehow related to thewell-known Essene movement (Magness wisely agrees, p. 43; see also herarticle [written with Amit] in Journal of theInstitute ofArchaeology of TelAviv 27 [2000] 273-85). Magness claims that all methodology was em-ployed; she needs to include ink well typology, arrowhead typology, andforensic anthropology (Zias has found bone pieces in the feces in theQumran toilet in Locus 51 [which antedates 31 bce]; within Qumranspace could be pure or impure). Without a permit from the NationalParks Authority, caves were clandestinely excavated at Qumran; these arenot reported, and will probably never be reported and may be excavated

later as if for the first time (caves 825, 826, 827, 843, 934, 946 [all North-South] and 813, 823, 824 [all East-West]). Unfortunately, Magness in-cludes only perfunctorily (p. 121) the more recent excavations at andnear Qumran (she does not adequately include the work of Magen andPeled that began in 1996 [but, then, most of it has not yet been pub-lished]).

Magness does not claim that she has written the definitive work; sheadmits that no one can do that now (p. 4) with so many realia from

Khirbet Qumran, and related places, still unpublished and unexaminedeven lying sometimes un-catalogued in many institutions, including thecole Biblique, the Rockefeller Museum, the Amman Citadel, storerooms

7/27/2019 p294

14/15

book reviews 307

in Germany, and elsewhere. Also, there are many aspects of Qumranarchaeology which will always remain confused and uncertain. de Vauxused the same locus number for a room, regardless of levels of stratifica-

tion. He left no section of the ruin unexcavated and accessible for newmethods, except for the southern and northern terrace that have beenexcavated rather recently (and not discussed by Magness). Despite thefact that the final report on de Vauxs excavations has not yet been pub-lished, Magness has served scholars well by stressing the importance oflocal pottery in Roman Palestine and focusing on debatable areas of deVauxs synthesis. She wisely concludes that the Community was Esseneand that Locus 30 was used for some type of writing activity as proved by

the benches (too narrow for reclining [and demanded by the lengthof the Scrolls, like the Temple Scroll, I would add] p. 61) and inkwells.Magness rightly points to the pottery that is characteristic to Qumranand its kilns (p. 89). The tall cylindrical jars found in Cave 1 are uniqueto Qumran and are conspicuously absent in the vast amount of potterytypes found, for example, in Herodian Jericho and in Jerusalems Up-per City.

Worthy of discussion is Magness claim that women, though only afew, were present at Qumran; the remains of two adult females werefound in the western section of the cemetery (she rightly agrees withZias that the women and children found in the southern fringes areBedouins). Also deserving further discussion (and controversial) isMagness conclusion that Ein Feshka and Ein el-Ghuweir are not relatedto the sectarian community at Qumran (p. 223). She misses the fact,pointed out to me at the site by de Vaux in 1969, that a long wall, run-

ning southward, did connect Qumran and Ein Feshka (see de Vaux, PlateXXXa).

Unfortunately, as Magness stresses, all the data that is necessary fordiscerning and comprehending Qumran archaeology is still not available.With her, for example, I wonder why de Vaux dated the massive towerto Period Ib while Humbert and Chambon place it within Period Ia. Whatis the explanation for the numerous sophisticated architectural elements

(column drums, a frieze, a cornice, a voussoir [remains of an arch], anda console [an archs spring stone]) that antedate the earthquake?Following Reich, Magness rightly corrects de Vaux by pointing to ten

mikvaot at Qumran. She shows how Qumran is different from Herodspalaces or fortresses at Jericho, Herodium, Masada, and Hyrcanium, fromthe mansions in the Herodian Quarter of pre-70 Jerusalem as well as themassive royal villa being excavated at Ramat Hanadiv in lower Galilee.What is evident, sometimes abundant in these buildings, and absent from

Qumran are Greek inscriptions on shards and especially interior decora-tions (in contrast to the villas, at Qumran there are no mosaics, frescoes,or use of stucco). This is basically true, but Humbert has revealed that

7/27/2019 p294

15/15

book reviews308

ETS A has been found at Qumran, and P. Donceel-Vote in 1994 pub-lished mold-made lamps from the Roman period. Other important ar-chaeological data are found in catalogues edited by Peled, Sussmann,

and Roitman. It is jejune to criticize Magness for not discussing the cos-metic vessels, fibulae, jewelry, spindle whorls found at Qumran; the an-nouncement of the discovery postdates her book and they were not foundin a meaningful stratum and in situ. They were found in the Qumrandump.

We have much more archaeological data available concerning Jewishsettlements before 70 now than before 1959 when de Vaux polished hisearlier book in French; hence, it is wise to explore ways to update, sup-

port, and even correct the brilliant synthesis of de Vaux. Clearly, Mag-nesss book is a masterful study that should be read by all interested inQumran archaeology and the history of Jews before the destruction ofthe Temple in 70 CE. Her work should not be assumed to be categori-cally definitive but fruitfully dialogical, as she intended.

What is the most important aspect of Magness book? I think it is theminute examination of data, especially in chapter five. She eventually,

and wisely, supports the consensus communis that Qumran was the centerof the Essene movement. With this book, Magness moves into the frontranks of Qumran archaeologists.

James H. Charlesworth

Princeton Theological Seminary