I think that it could be helpful to have more studies on the history (or histories) of scholarship on the scrolls, Qumran, and Essenes. For example, yesterday I noticed further books published before 1948 that accept that the "Essenes" came from the Hebrew root 'asah. (E.g., Thomas Bell, 1596, London: "The Essenes, that is workers...")
I have recently reread Edna Ullmann-Margalit's article, "Writings, Ruins, and Their Reading: The Dead Sea Discoveries as a Case Study in Theory Formation and Scientific Interpretation, Social Research 65.4 (1998) 839-70. This is also available online via some institutional subscribers. E.g.: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?index=11&did=39223852&SrchMode=3&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1138281044&clientId=15020&aid=1 In my view, this article makes mistakes and omits important history. For example, we read (p. 840) of a theory that Qumran was a "motherhouse" [her quotation marks]. P. 856: "...de Vaux's archaeology characterizes the site of Qumran as a "motherhouse"" [her ""s]. P. 857 (figure): "de Vaux ruins are motherhouse of religious sect." P. 858: "As we saw, it is de Vaux's archaeological work that interprets the site of Qumran as the motherhouse...." None of these statements is accompanied by a reference. A reader might get the impression that "motherhouse" was de Vaux's word. As far as I know, it was not. Similarly, she criticizes de Vaux (p. 855) for interpreting "monastery" and calls that "anachronistic." Again, no reference provided. I am not aware that de Vaux used the word "monastery." He did use "scriptorium," but then so did, among others, A. Gardiner in J. Egyptian Archaeology 24 (1938) 157-79 of BCE Egyptian writing places. As for the Greek word "monasterion," its first two known appearances are in Philo, De Vita Contemplativa 25 & 30. The article does not quote de Vaux accurately even when it quotes him (p. 852 contend should be content) and presents misspellings. Of course de Vaux can be mistaken-I think he was mistaken, for instance, in considering Jannaeus too late to be the Qumran 'wicked priest"--but de Vaux should first be fairly presented. The article claims, without any reference or justification (p.846): "(The appelation Essene occurs nowhere in that document, however, nor in any of the other scrolls.)" The article is not up to date on Pliny scholarship. After criticizing identification with Essenes and identifying rather than describing in general, the article allows a proposal identifiying with Sadducees (p.863), even though sharing a view on a point of "halakha" (the wrong word in this context, as Qumran mss rejected halakha) only means a shared view; Pharisees and Essenes shared a view of resurrection, reportedly, against Sadducees." Sadducees and Pharisees are presented as "much larger" than Essenes, without reference or justification, though Essenes may have been larger than the Sadducees who were aristocratic and who Josephus wrote persuaded "few." The article tries to have it two ways: acknowledging that DSS issues have been quite contested (Zeitlin goes unmentioned); yet writing often that the Essene identity from the start dominated, preventing other views. It quotes de Vaux's last book as if it represented his views ("presupposiotions") *before* he started to dig. It lacks hisory attention pre-1948. It presumes that some claimed that all scrolls were composed and copied at Qumran--who said that, unidentified. No mention, e.g., of Cross dating some mss pre-Qumran-settlement. It dismisses Essene identity as "emotive" and similar terms. It treats refinements of the Essene history view as somehow suspect, rather than possibly progress. Multiple streams of evidence are treated as a viscious hermeneutic circle, rather than confluent evidence. This list of could be extended. I hope future publications on the relevant history of scholarship--it deserves more careful attention--are better based in the actual history of scholarship. best Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
