bi
Aca
lArch A Publicationof the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch
Treasures from
the
aeol
ost
Volume49 Number 3
Israel
Museum
September1986
AMERICAN SCHOOLS
OF
ORIENTAL RESEARCH
ADMINISTRATIVE PA 19104 (215)222-4643 OFFICE,ASOR,4243 SPRUCESTREET,PHILADELPHIA, James A. Sauer, President Eric M. Meyers, First Vice President for
Publications William G. Dever, Second Vice President for Archaeological Policy GeorgeM. Landes,Secretary KevinG. O'Connell,Assistant Secretary Charles U. Harris,Treasurer Gough W.Thompson, Chairmanof the Boardof Trustees Norma Kershaw,Directorof Tours Susan Wing, Bookkeeper Catherine Felix, StaffAssistant
W.E AlbrightInstitute of ArchaeologicalResearch(AIAR). P O. Box 19096, 91 190 Jerusalem,Israel. SeymourGitin, Director Thomas E. Levy,Assistant Director JosephA. Callaway,President First Vice JoyUngerleider-Mayerson, President Carol Meyers,Second Vice President KevinG. O'Connell,Secretary-Treasurer BaghdadCommittee for the Baghdad School. McGuireGibson, Chairman Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 1155East 58th Street, Chicago, IL60637. American Center of OrientalResearch
ASORNewsletter; JamesA. Sauer,Editor Biblical Archaeologist;EricM. Meyers, Editor Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research;WalterE. Rast, Editor Journalof Cuneiform Studies;Erle Leichty,Editor
(ACOR).
P. O. Box 2470, JebelAmman, Amman, Jordan. David W McCreery,Director Gough W.Thompson, Jr.,President LawrenceT. Geraty,Vice President Nancy Lapp,Secretary Anne Cabot Ogilvy, Tfeasurer
LSOF
Fri
0)C /6
4h4~
Cyprus American Archaeological
ResearchInstitute (CAARI). 41 King Paul Street, Nicosia, Cyprus. Stuart Swiny, Director Charles U. Harris, President Lydie Shufro, Vice President Ellen Herscher, Secretary Andrew Oliver, Jr., Tfeasurer
Damascus AdvisoryCommittee. Giorgio Buccellati, Chairman Center for Mesopotamian Studies, University of California, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024.
Biblical Archaeologist P.O. BOXH.M., DUKESTATION,DURHAM,NC 27706 (919)684-3075 Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), a nonprofit, nonsectarian educational organization
with administrativeoffices at 4243 Spruce Street,Philadelphia,PA 19104. Subscriptions.Annual subscriptionrates -are$18 for individuals and $25 for institutions. There is a special annual rate of $16 for students and retirees.Subscriptionorders and correspondenceshould be sent to ASORPublications Office, P.O.Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Single issues are $6; these should be orderedfrom Eisenbrauns,P O. Box 275, WinonaLake,IN 46590. Outside the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada,add $2 for annual subscriptions and for single issues. Second-classpostagepaid at Philadelphia, PA 19104and additionaloffices. Postmaster:Send addresschanges to ASOR SubscriptionServices, Department BB, P.O.Box 3000, Denville, NJ 07834.
Editor Associate Editor ExecutiveEditor Assistant Editor Book Review Editor Art Director AdvertisingDirector ResearchAssociate
EricM. Meyers LawrenceT. Geraty MartinWilcox KarenS. Hoglund PeterB. Machinist LindaHuff KennethG. Hoglund KathrynE. Dietz
EditorialAssistants Thomas Grey Melanie A. Arrowood Nephi W BushmanII StephenLarson Lue Simopoulos StephenGoranson EditorialCommittee
LloydR.Bailey
A. T.Kraabel
BaruchLevine JamesFlanagan Carole Fontaine David W.McCreery VolkmarFritz Carol L. Meyers JackSasson SeymourGitin David M. Gunn Neil A. Silberman JohnWilkinson Composition by LiberatedTypes,Ltd., Durham, NC. Printedby PBMGraphics, Inc., Raleigh,NC. Copyright? 1986by the American Schools of OrientalResearch.
Advertising.Correspondenceshould be addressedto the ASORPublicationsOffice, P.O.Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706 (telephone:919-684-3075). Biblical Archaeologist is not responsible for errorsin copy preparedby the advertiser. The editor reservesthe right to refuse any ad. Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. EditorialCorrespondence.Article proposals, manuscripts,and editorial correspondence should be sent to the ASOR Publications Office, P.O.Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscriptsmust be accompaniedby a self-addressed,stampedenvelope.Foreign contributorsshould furnish international reply coupons. Manuscriptsmust conform to the format used in Biblical Archaeologist,with full bibliographicreferencesand a minimum of endnotes. See recent issues for examples of the properstyle. Manuscriptsmust also include appropriate illustrations and legends.Authorsare responsiblefor obtainingpermission to use illustrations.
iblical
aeoo
Arc
Si
Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research Volume 49 Number 3 A
t September 1986
BA Portrait
133
140
Giovanni Battista Belzoni Donald P Ryan andSyria Sources fortheHistoryofPalestine Literary The Dead Sea Scrolls: Part 1, Archaeology and Biblical Manuscripts Michael Wise TheMuseumTrail
155 Page155
166
N E• E• IUJ)N U C M NiH
COHCON'IJIKI "I• I nri CO)N
rAT ATHC KAI
•
ro
Il
QlH Ic J NT1rAI TEII'I,
y lNKBAhCIAEIA AEC
A.y'rOC
KA .ll tiOC(
(1e)l'ON
IC ANI
KyN
EIC
A N
A
I'IEAII
T HNN N .
KA)I
182
WasByzantine Herodium a Leprosarium? JosephZias BiblePassages Enigmatic Gehenna: The 'Ibpographyof Hell Lloyd R. Bailey
I1N
)Y r MhM, 4y C(TAl'I" o
Why Study the Septuagint? Melvin K. H. Peters
IAN*
A yrcoy roAINONCI'HC ION f-N1)i on J• l A I(-'.c (.-. riu r()l icoyNrA., NTECOI () yN'l'Jh rl N (.I) I11OAI roy KAI K J'l"EJ• Jl N () N" I'(•C` nE1JNTEcOIo HIYXH KA•I K I TOC rl
174
(-)N
I1O/~ElIT(DN(ONN
H rx M 1( .NA (NiN IiE-AoY("
y']tDzll ho yY.(()K(DLI•N N H I
,u yl
187
(jA
N A IK
in the The Symbolsof Power:Aspectsof RoyalPropaganda
UnitedMonarchy Keith W Whitelam
r HC
N A•y" cI N-. N)•IO [ Il roC KyNHCOy f-I.CA r•'l rI(I'u )N (j-N() DN I ln l
OTiTO KAl
KA c i[1I(
'Ikeasuresof the Holy Land:Ancient Art from the Israel Museum JohnK. McDonald
OC I ()('Y
lN•YTOy
O1(C)
AA.hT(J)'-(.XO)H
N(IL))N
(-.
Io
A.AMOCT(DAA•Y•IA N 'I MH KE I MC KA.TE N xoHNCC KAJIOYA(N M(--CyTr-rN (I) CE N
oIM•AI no K--l ;'1 CrEO CKH
IAyCC(DCFEXEr't (jillTAA.TOCA.NA.I y x H N MfdY(E I HN e nir ICr- r"t"r(--N (DAN It" soyCAl IKAi I NCCN "I
M
ri
Sc y NcN O)CYNHC
( N F K( N'Io()Y)NO .Ar KA. rTo (A N
MhA'TOC
r-y(()(--
(
AyrOy N M C=CU
O'IiCY IK H () II C OH g K ITEMH)Y(-I y4()ON MHE Jk s"() • N A, Jk"I'() AKA,
Ii
KlIrilArC(')Y yKAiNHA. I-•1M(-i NM I I( y-l'lh i MA(CAhC(-N(L)III( I1-O AhN"i'AhCT .hNX"iN IN N MH" (OA(ISON'I U) Ill N (:p Iflh K(:44)AIIN9 N(AhIAIL)" K()N b('ll KAhl'l()PI Nh('(" IICIINe OyM('(PYVc FA.A()t(( •y-
-,r, K,,A•C,,N
130 131
Introducingthe Authors Fromthe Editor'sDesk
Frontcover:Carvedfrom a single piece of ivory,this elegant box is decoratedin high relief with the figuresof lions and sphinxes. It dates between the thirteenth and twelfth centuries s.c. and measures 7.5 centimeters high. (IDAM38.816) Back cover:Hadrian, who ruled the Roman empire from A.o. 117 to 138, was immortalized in this bronzestatue from TellShalem. The head measures 37 centimeters high and the breastplateis 52 centimeters in height. (IDAM75-763; IDAM 75-764) Photographsare courtesy of David Harris.
Biblical Archaeologist is published with the financial assistance of the Endowment for Biblical Research,a nonsectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church.
Page174
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTISEPTEMBER 1986
129
Authors the SIntroducing
ri
Donald P.Ryan
JohnK. McDonald
Michael Wise
Keith W.Whitelam
;r''7
' -
JosephZias
Melvin K. H. Peters
Donald P. Ryan is a Research Associate in the Department of Anthropology at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington. Interested in Egyptian archaeology and the history of archaeology, he has been actively involved in research in the field and has published on the topic of ancient fiber industries. Recently, when studying Egyptian cordage housed in the British Museum, he examined a rope from the tomb of the Egyptian pharaoh Seti I. In the course of tracing the background of this rope he became interested in the man who had discovered it, Giovanni Battista Belzoni. His portrait of this colorful figure from Near Eastern archaeology in this issue of BA is the product of that interest. Michael Wise is a doctoral candidate at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, where for his dissertation he is analyzing several questions involved with the composition of the Temple Scroll from Qumran. During the past year he was Lecturer in Aramaic at the
130
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
LloydR. Bailey
Institute and he is presently Instructor in Old Testament at Trinity College in Deerfield, Illinois. John K. McDonald is Assistant to the Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. He has done graduate work at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and has published a number of articles in various journals. He has also traveled extensively in the Middle East for the purposes of research and excavation, and as a lecturer on numerous tours to Egypt. Keith W. Whitelam, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Manchester, is today a Lecturer in Old Testament Studies in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Sterling in Scotland. He has been researching various aspects of royal ideology and propaganda for the past few years, and is currently devoted to exploring new approaches to the study of Israelite history. He has authored The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979)
and has just completed a joint monographwith RobertB. Coote titled The Emergence of Israel in Historical Perspective, which is being published by Almond Press in Decatur, Georgia. Melvin K. H. Peters received his Ph.D. in Ancient Near Eastern Languagesfrom the University of Toronto.An Associate Professor of Religion at Duke University, he recently became the Editor of the Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. His aim is to publish a critical edition of the Coptic version of the Bible, andhe has alreadycompleted three volumes of it-A Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch: volume 5, Deuteronomy (1983); volume 1, Genesis (1985);and volume 2, Exodus (1986)all published by Scholars Press.
Joseph Zias is Curator of Antiquities with the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums in Jerusalem. His research interests are mainly in the field of physical anthropology,particularly paleopathology, the study of ancient disease. He is currently involved in an extensive survey of the skeletal collections housed in the remaining monasteries of the Judeandesert in an attempt to determine the health status of the Byzantine population. LloydR. Bailey is an Associate Professorin the Divinity School of Duke University. He received his Ph.D. from the HebrewUnion College-JewishInstitute of Religion in Cincinnati and has published numerous books and articles. He was also the editorof the Old Testamentarticles of The Interpreter'sDictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976).
illuminated by archaeological finds. Our series on the literary sources for the history of Palestine and Syria Edzitor's continues with the first half of a bibliographicalessay on the Dead Sea Scrollsby Michael Wise. (Readerswill recall s the 1986 diggingseason drawsto a conclusion that these essays are intended to serve as an entree for andBiblicalArchaeologist approachesthe end students and laypeoplewho want to extend their study of of its forty-ninth consecutive year of publica- a certain topic.) Melvin Peters invites us to study the tion, a number of observations are in order. Septuagint.His knowledge and his engagingstyle assure First,despite many threats and fearsof continuing terror- that no one who reads his article will find it possible to ism in Europe and the Middle East, hundreds of young underratethe Greek Bible. college-age men and women carried out their plans to Donald Ryan'sportraitof Giovanni Battista Belzoni, explore their common links with the past by participat- early-nineteenth-centuryexplorer-archaeologistof Egypt, ing in an archaeological dig. Many of these were ASOR- shows just where archaeology was a century and a half sponsored and -affiliated, on both sides of the Jordan agowhen interest of Westernersin the Middle Eastwas in River and in Cyprus. Although it was not business as its infancy. It provides a stunning contrast with Keith usual, because so many students and tourists stayed at Whitelam'sprovocativeessay on the symbols of powerof home, it was a fitting testimony to America's commit- the periodof the United Monarchy,understoodthrougha ment to continue scientific exploration in a part of the contemporary archaeological and social-world perspecworld they consider to be so important. tive. Similarly,JoeZias attempts to understandthe literSecond, the end of summer 1986 marks the begin- ary sources pertaining to Byzantine Herodium through ning of the first American tour of some of the treasuresof the new paleopathological evidence of human remains. the IsraelMuseum. Openingat the MetropolitanMuseum Finally,LloydBaileyexploresthe meaningand symbolism of Art in New York in September, moving to the Los of Gehenna, one of the places in Jerusalem'stopography Angeles County Museum of Art in early April 1987, and that has so important a place in Jewish and Christian then concluding at the Houston Museum of Fine Arts in theology. October 1987, the exhibition is highlighted in a special In sum, the world of the Bible comes alive in the BA pictorial with text by JohnMcDonald. I encourageour pages of BA once again, as new insights are juxtaposed readersto attend this impressive presentation of some of with more familiar and tried approachesin the effort to Israel'smost famous artifacts-the discovery of many of understand the ancient Near Eastern setting of people which, by the way,was made possible by America'sinter- and places known to us through sources held dear by est in the heritage of the Bible. All of us in ASOR generations. congratulatethe people who havemade this tour possible and who have preparedthe artifacts for exhibition. This issue of Biblical Archaeologist is particularly strong in demonstrating American scholarly commitEric M. Meyers ment to the written word, which has been so richly Editor
From
the
Desk
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
1986
131
American Schools of Oriental Research November 22-25, 1986 Atlanta, Georgia In conjunction with the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion, the 1986 annual meetings of the American Schools of Oriental Research will be held in Atlanta, Georgia, at the Marriott Marquis. During the special session on Jordanian archaeology, which will feature Jordan in prehistory and Roman and post-Roman Jordan, the implications of recent fieldwork will be discussed. SeveralJordanian archaeologists will present their work to ASOR members. The subject of the plenary session is "The Present and Future of Archaeology in Jordan." The speakers are Dr. Moawiyeh Ibrahim of Yarmouk University and Dr. Nabil Khairy of the University of Jordan, with an introduction by Dr. Ghazi Bisheh of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities.
(must be received by November
PREREGISTRATION
5)
(must be received by November 7)
Name
Name First
Last
Middle
State
City Office
Phone
Institution
Spouse's ANNUAL
First
Last
Address
Address
Mailing
Home
HOTEL REGISTRATION
Zip
State
City Name of additional
Phone
person(s)
sharing
Zip
room:
(for badge) name
(if registering)
MEETING
Check-in
1986 Membership
Category
Membership
time is 4:00 p.m.-Check-out
Arrival Date:
Time:
O AAR
O Regular
$25
D SBL
D Student
$10
Departure
O SP Associate
D Retired
$ 10
You must be registered
SP Member
D Nonmember
$45
D Student
$15
Nonmember
D Retired Nonmember
$15
D Spouse
$10
Please charge
dues are paid currently
for 1986 may register at member
to qualify
a.m./p.m. for these special
rates.
AND RATE.
$54.00 $60.00 $275 $275
Sitting Hospitality Conference Conference
One bedroom Two bedroom no connecting bedroom bedroom in suite $400 $475 $425 $500 $475 $550
PLEASE NOTE Late arrivals after 6 p.m. require a first night's deposit (room plus 8% tax) or an accepted credit card number (American Express, Diners, MasterCard, VISA). Deposit is refundable only if hotel is notified 48 hours before arrival date.
my credit card.
O VISA
Card Number
D MasterCard
Expiration
D American
2-Bay 2-Bay 2-Bay 4-Bay
rates.
a.m./p.m.
Time: for the AAR/SBL meeting
Singles Doubles/Triples Suites 2-Bay Parlor
Other type of registration
whose
Date:
PLEASE CIRCLE TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION
ID #
O ASOR
NOTE: Only members
time is noon.
Type
Total Enclosed
Date
or Accepted
Plus 8% Tax
Credit
Card #
Express Expiration
Signature of cardholder on behalf of those listed above I am enclosing a check DO NOT SEND CASH Return with registration
date
Signature
for $ Cardholder's fee to:
name
Please mail to: The Atlanta Marriott Marquis Attn: Reservations Center Avenue 265 Peachtree GA 30303 Atlanta,
SCHOLARS PRESS P.O. Box 1608 GA 30031-1608 Decatur,
Airfare Specials The AAR/SBL have made arrangements MICA, Inc., for substantial discount fares on Delta and American Airlines for the 1986 meetings in Atlanta. through their travel coordinator, in Connecticut), fare. Call 1-800-826-6011 (or 203-678-1040 Through MICA, Inc. you can receive a discount of 5% off any Delta or American Airlines promotional Monday-Friday, a.m.-5:30 p.m. EST Identify yourself as a participant in these meetings. and fares and will make your reservation. Specialists will provide details on schedules
132
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
9:00
by DonaldP Ryan
Giovanni Battista
iovanni Battista Belzoni was one of the most colorful and controversialcharactersever to appearin the history of Near Easternarchaeology. A man with a varied and somewhat bizarre background, Belzoni was involved in a remarkable series of Egyptian excavations and collecting operations that would further the aims of scholastic interest in Egyptduring the nineteenth century.His years as an antiquarian also continue to amaze and sometimes shock the scholars of the present. Critics have characterized him as a "villain of archaeology,"a "tomb robber" (Daniel 1975: 69, 155), and "the greatest plundererof them all"(Fagan1975).Others, however, have lauded him as "abovethe general level" of his time (Dawson and Uphill 1972: 25) and "one of the greatest pioneers of archaeology"(Nowel 1982: 11). Born in Padua,Italy, on November 5, 1778,the son of a barber,Giovanni Belzoni grew to be a man of powerfulphysical proportionsandstoodat least six feet six inches tall. Not much is known about his early life, but he apparently studied hydraulics in Rome and had at one time considered a monastic career.As a consequence of the Napoleonic invasion of Italy,Belzoni chose to leave his country in 1803 and traveled with his brotherto seek a new life in England. Strongman T'Ifaveling Belzoni quickly found work in London at the Sadler's Wells theater where he was hired to play various theatrical parts that took advantageof his size (such as giants and Hercules) and to give demonstrations of his amazing strength. Often billed as the "Patagonian Sampson," Belzoni traveled
BELZO
*
_
throughout the British Isles performingas a strongmanat fairs and other exhibitions. The climax of his act was usually the "humanpyramid,"at which time he would .ron a frame susto twelve heavy iron people support up pendedfrom his body and would then proceedto stroll effortlessly about the stage.Belzoni was a well-roundedentertainer.Apartfromhis strongmanact, he also playedthe musical glasses,performedas a conjurer,and occasionally produceddemonstrations of colorful water fountains.
Beforehe becameinterestedin exploringthepyramids,temples,and tombsof Egypt,theyoungBelzoni,who was an imposingfigureat as a strongmanin fairsandexhibitions. 6 feet6 inchestall,performed At Bartholomew's Fair,a popularannualeventin London,a demonstrationof Belzoni'samazingstrengthwas witnessedanddepictedin thisdrawingbyGeorgeCruikshank.
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLDGIST/SEPTEMBER
133
Above:Oneof Belzoni'smoreambitiousprojectswas themovingof statueof RamessestheGreat,whichwasat thecolossalfragmentary the time mistakenly known as the YoungMemnon,from the area of Thebes in UpperEgyptto England.In this reproductionof the watercolor by Belzoni, the sculptureis shown being slowly inched across the Thebanplain. FromBelzoni 1822.Right: The so-called Young Memnon as seen today in the BritishMuseum. Courtesyof the Department of EgyptianAntiquities, The British Museum.
Adventuresin Egypt Belzoni's career as a showman might have continued indefinitely had it not been for a chance encounter with an agent for Mohammed Ali, the pasha of Egypt, while traveling through Malta. The pasha was at that time recruiting Western technicians to assist in the development of Egypt's industry and agriculture. Belzoni recognized an opportunity to exploit his knowledge of hydraulicsin the form of an innovative waterwheel that he hoped to sell to the pasha as a revolution in agricultural efficiency. The year 1815, then, found Belzoni and his wife Sarahin Egypt.Despite almost a yearof effort,he was unsuccessful in convincing the pasha to buy and use his invention. It was after this disappointment that Belzoni'sarchaeologicalstory really began. In 1816Henry Salt (1780-1827) arrivedin Egypthaving been appointedto the position of the English consul general to Egypt. Before departing England, Salt was strongly encouraged to collect Egyptian antiquities for the British Museum, an activity with which he would soon be veryinvolved.It was at aboutthis time that Belzoni
134
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
Left:A bust of Giovanni Battista Belzoni that was presented to the British Museum on the two-hundredthanniversaryof his birth. Photograph by the author with permission from the Department of EgyptianAntiquities, The BritishMuseum. Right: Portraitof Belzoni in native garb. This appearedas the frontispieceof one of his books on his adventuresin Egyptand Nubia (Belzoni 1820a).
met an amazing Swiss travelerby the name of JohnLewis Burckhardt'who tantalized him with tales of a gigantic stone head, which lay upstream at Thebes, and a huge buriedtemple, which remainedeven furthersouth. Nearly penniless after the rejection of his waterwheel, Belzoni successfully sought a commission from Salt and Burckhardt for the British Museum to retrievethe stone head that was called the YoungMemnon? Given explicit and carefulinstructions,Belzoni traveledsouth to Thebes and accomplished the difficult task of removingthe immense stone monument to the banks of the Nile, from which it would eventually be transported.Over two weeks were necessary to inch the Young Memnon's head to its destination at the Nile's edge while dealing with a variety of uncooperativeofficials and obstinate workmen? With the stone head secured, Belzoni ventured farther south to see the temple described by Burckhardtat Abu Simbel and then returned to Thebes to excavate at
the Kamrnak Temple and in the West Valley of the Kings. At the latter location he discovered the tomb of Ay, who briefly succeeded Tutankhamun to the throne of Egypt. Across the Nile at Karnak, he uncovered a large and significant cache of stone statues, which he claimed for export, and then returned to Cairo.4 It did not take long for Belzoni to become wellacquainted with the nationalistic competition that was blatantly apparent between rival countries in their quest to collect the most, and the best, Egyptian antiquities for their countries' collections. The French were collecting at Karnak at the same time as Belzoni, who had aligned himself with the British, and a great deal of social friction was regularly exchanged. Only a few years earlier, in 1798, the French had invaded Egypt and were repulsed three years later by the British: The long-standing rivalry between the two nations remained intact and intense in Belzoni's day, especially when it came to the matter of
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
135
Belzoni and members of his expedition were the first-known Westernersto enter the temple of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel. This copy of Belzoni's watercolor of the temple interior was originally published in his Forty-four Plates Illustrativeof the Researches and Operationsof Belzoni in Egyptand Nubia (1820b).
acquiring antiquities. It was not uncommon for one party or another to engage in devious measures to disrupt the work of their rivals. Officials could be bribed to be uncooperative with Belzoni, and workmen could be convinced not to work for him. Artifacts collected or claimed by one faction could be clandestinely mutilated by another or destroyed during unguarded moments. Threats of violence were not irregular. Belzoni's second journey to Upper Egypt took place in 1817, also under the sponsorship of Henry Salt. Digging continued at Karnak and also in the cemeteries of the west bank of Thebes. On another trip further south Belzoni made a wax model of the portico of the Isis temple at Philae and eventually returned to Abu Simbel. Belzoni personally began uncovering the entrance to the long-buried temple of Ramesses II with the assistance of some English travelers, after finding the local inhabitants there unwilling to participate. After about two weeks of removing many tons of sand, Belzoni and his party became the first Westerners known to have penetrated this monument. Sketches were produced, plans were drawn that indicated the in situ position of the few portable artifacts that were discovered, and an attempt was made to record the temple's inscriptions. Returning to Thebes, Belzoni made perhaps his most acclaimed discoveries during October of 1817.As the first man known to excavate in the Valley of the Kings, Belzoni uncovered five tombs in a short period of just a few days.6 Most noteworthy was his discovery of the tomb of Seti I (the father of Ramesses II), which is arguably one of the most beautiful tombs ever to have been found in Egypt.
136
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
Overa periodof two yearsBelzoni and an artist admirably took detailed measurements and recorded Seti's tomb with watercolors and casts, being the first to completely do so in an Egyptianroyaltomb.? Another tomb was found in the adjacentWestValley of the Kings,not farfrom the tomb of Ay.Belzoni'suse of a batteringram to gain access throughthe sealed entrance of this tomb is rarelyforgivenby his critics. Belzoni'sactivities in Egyptduringthe following two years were no less varied and productive. In 1818 he became the first Europeanto enter the pyramidof Chephren at Giza. That same year he caravanned across Egypt's EasternDesert in a successful effort to locate the site of the ancient port of Berenice on the Red Sea. Still another adventure involved Belzoni in the removal of an obelisk from Philae. His detractors are quick to point out that Belzoni'sfirst attempt to place the obelisk aboarda northbound boat concluded with the obelisk in the river.The obelisk was "fishedout"of the Nile and can be seen today in Britain. Tired of the stress from harassment and the danger that regularly occurred in the life of an antiquities collector in the early nineteenth century,Belzoni decided to leave Egyptin 1819.Beforedeparting,however,he traveled extensively in the WesternDesert, searching for various sites mentioned by classical commentators. Visits were made to oases and also to the Fayyum. In September of that yearan embitteredBelzoni left Egyptonce and forall to returnto Europewith a largecollection of antiquities? After leaving Egypt,Belzoni became reunited briefly with his family in Padua, Italy. He had sent two stone
As thefirstmanknownto excavatein the Valleyof the Kings,Belzoniuncovered five tombsinjustafew days. statues of the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet to the city as a gift, for which the local officials struck a special medal in his honor. Returning to England in 1820, Belzoni was considered a celebrity among London's social elite and a popular guest of the literate and wealthy. Very conscious of his curious past, Belzoni strove to be recognized and remembered as an antiquarian of distinction rather than a former traveling circus performer. In London he quickly began recording his adventures in a tome entitled Narratives of the Operations and Recent Discoveries within the Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and Excavations, in Egypt and Nubia; and of a Journey to the Coast of the Red Sea, in search of the ancient Berenice; and another to the Oasis of Jupiter Ammon (Belzoni 1820a). The book and its accompanying volumes of plates (Belzoni 1820b and 1822) became very popular and went through several printings and translations. In 1821 Belzoni exhibited his paintings and casts from the tomb of Seti I in a large exhibition held at the Egyptian Hall in Piccadilly, London. The exhibition also included models of the Chephren pyramid and the Abu Simbel temple, as well as a large collection of assorted artifacts and mummies. Indeed, the contents of the exhibition certainly demonstrated an eclectic appreciation by Belzoni of the ancient Egyptian culture. Along with the more dramatic models and artistic objects that were displayed, Belzoni exhibited such "mundane" objects as baskets, ropes, sandals, and other items representing daily life in ancient times (Belzoni 1821). The contents of this exhibition were sold the following year. In 1823 Belzoni's adventurous spirit directed him to search for the source of Africa's Niger River. Traveling first to northwest Africa, Belzoni contracted dysentery on his way to Timbuktu. The strongman antiquarian died on December 3, 1823, and was buried near Gwato, Benin. Archaeologist or Plunderer? Critics are quick to cite as evidence of incompetence several incidents that Belzoni freely describes in his Narratives. The battering ram incident, tales of crawling through mummy-choked passages, and the wet Philae
obelisk arefrequentlynoted examples. On a less personal level, Belzoni is often criticized as one of many participants in a great"rapeof the Nile,"a term used to describe the wide-scale collecting and exportation of artifacts from Egyptian soil during the nineteenth century. It should be pointed out, though, that during Belzoni's time, a trade in antiquities was rapidly developing and immense quantities of Egyptian artifacts were made available by the indigenous population of Egypt. The modern national pride of Egypt in its past was barely evident at that time. A number of Europeanmuseums have, in fact, marvelous collections of Egyptian antiquities as a result of Belzoni and others; these collections have assisted greatly in the foundation of modern Egyptological research.1 Regardingcompetency,few archaeologicalstandards existed during the nineteenth century to which one could fairly compare Belzoni's work. There are many examples of much less conscientious excavators well over a hundredyears after his work. He can be respected for his skills in recording monuments, his exploratory enthusiasm, and for stimulating a great interest in ancient Egypt in the general public of his day. Seen in the context of his time, Belzoni's activities in Egypt are understandable,if not admirable.His colorfulpersonality and the nature of his extraordinarydeeds will no doubt continue to stimulate scholastic debate for many generations to come. Notes 'Also known as Sheikh Ibrahim,Burckhardt(1784-1817) was a scholar of Arabculture and the Arabiclanguageand traveled extensively in the Near East. 2The great stone head, discoveredin the mortuary temple of Ramesses II (called the Ramesseum), was mistakenly believed to portraya youngerversionof the same king represented in two nearbycolossal seatedstatues known to early travelersas the colossi of Memnon. The head is actually a fragment of a huge statue of Ramesses II. 3The head of the Young Memnon can be seen today on exhibit in the Egyptiansculpturegalleryof the British Museum (EA 19). 4Fora description of Belzoni'swork at Karnak,see Traunecker and Golvin 1984:119-27. 5Withthe creation of LakeNassarbehind the Aswan Dam, the temples at Abu Simbel were completely dismantled and relocated to higher ground to escape the rising waters during the 1960s. See Gerster 1966 and 1969. 6Belzoniuncoveredthe following tombs in the Valleyof the Kings:KV-16,the tomb of RamessesI;KV-17,the tomb of Seti I; KV-19, the tomb of Mentuherkhepeshef;KV-21, the fomb of two women;andWV-25,a tomb whose occupantsareunknown. 7For descriptions and comments concerning Belzoni's work in the Valley of the Kings, see Hornung (1983: 13) and Romer (1981:51-88). 8The obelisk is now at the Bankes estate, Kingston Lacey, Wimborne.
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
137
9Duringhis work in Egypt,Belzoni had frequentmisunderstandingsregardinghis workingrelationshipwith Salt. Belzoni considered himself a self-employedcollector for the glory of Britain while Salt maintained that Belzoni was merely an employee working under his auspices. Belzoni took greatpride in his efforts andbecame exceedinglydefensivethroughoutthe rest of his life when others took credit for what he felt were his triumphs. 'oMany of the earliest obtained objects in the British Museum Egyptian collection can be directly or indirectly attributedto the effortsof Belzoni. The majorityof two or three majorcollections by Salt can also be found in that museum; his other collection was sold to the French.(Fora gooddiscussion of the contributionsof Belzoniand Saltto the BritishMuseum, see James 1981.)The extensive collections of BernardinoDrovetti (1776-1852),a rivalof Belzoni, can be foundin Turin,Berlin,and the Louvre. Bibliography Belzoni,G. B. 1820a Narrativesof the Operationsand Recent Discoveries within the Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and Excavations, in Egypt and Nubia; and of a Journeyto the Coast of the Red Sea, in search of the ancient Berenice;and another to the Oasis of JupiterAmmon. London:JohnMurray. 1820b Forty-fourPlates Illustrative of the Researches and Operas tions of Belzoni in Egyptand Nubia. London:JohnMurray. 1821 Description of the EgyptianTomb,Discovered by G. Belzoni. London:JohnMurray. 1822 Six New Plates Illustrativeof the Researchesand Operations of Belzoni in Egyptand Nubia. London:JohnMurray.
Clair,C. 1957 StrongMan Egyptologist.London:Oldbourne. Daniel, G. 1975 A Hundredand FiftyYearsofArchaeology.London:Duckworth. Dawson, W R., and Uphill, E. 1972 Whowas Whoin EgyptologySecondedition, revised.London: EgyptExplorationSociety. Disher, M. W. 1957 Pharaoh'sFool. London:Heinemann. Fagan,B. 1975 The GreatestPlundererof Them All. Pp.95-236 in The Rape of the Nile: Tomb Robbers, Tourists,and Archaeologists in Egypt.New York:Charles Scribner'sSons. Gerster,G. 1966 Saving the Ancient Temples at Abu Simbel. National Geographic 129:694-742. 1969 Abu Simbel'sAncient TemplesReborn.National Geographic 135:724-44. Hornung,E. 1983 Talder Konige.Zurich:Artemis. James,T. G. H. 1981 The British Museum and Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Publications. Mayes,S. 1959 The Great Belzoni. London:Putnam. Nowel, I. 1982 Das LebenGiovanniBattistaBelzoni. In Entdeckungs-Reisen in Agypten 1815-1819by G. Belzoni. Translatedby I. Nowel. Koln:DuMont Buchverlag. Romer,J. 1981 Valleyof the Kings. New York:William Morrowand Co. Traunecker,C., and Golvin, J.-C. 1984 Karnak:Resurrectiond'un site. Fribourg:Office du Livre.
Excavations 1961-1967 inJerusalem Volume I A.D. Tushingham 528 pp., illustrated book (paper) with 39 unbound sheets of maps, plans, and sections, in box. $145.00 (Canadian)
This new publication presents the results of the British/Canadian/French excavations in and around the Old City of Jerusalem. The work is devoted to the excavations in the Armenian Garden on the Western Hill, and the "Third Wall" site north of the city. It includes studies of the imported ceramic wares (and local imitations), and of the weights from all sites. Accompanied by plans, sections, figures, plates, and coin studies. The new information provides evidence from which the historic topography of the city, from the late Israelite monarchy to Turkish times, can be ascertained and leads to modifications of some interpretations now generally held. Please add $12.00 per book for postage and handling. Publication Services, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Canada M5S 2C6
138
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
RO M
A.S.
VAN
DE
A.S.
VAN
DER
OUDE, WOUDE,
General
Editor
General
Editor
THE WORLDOF THE BIBLEis a vade mecum of material for the Bible student, with sections by internationally known Dutch scholars ... Each section and subsection of the work has good bibliography, including recent as well as classical titles."
IN ONE VOLUME, this is the most detailed, compact, current... and authoritative survey available of the geography, archeology, languages, and history of the ancient Near East... and the textual history and the institutions of the Bible." -JACK FINEGAN
-WRILLLAM
SANFORD LASOR
THE WORLD OF THE BIBLEis a mine of valuable information, well presented, which certainly ought to be in every college and university library, and indeed in every household where Bible study is taken seriously. It covers such a very wide range that there is probably no one, however talented and well- read, that could not profit from its use r DENIS BALY
Cloth, $34.95
N•
1
II EEIzss
WM.B. EI•D•
SrIN PT3I,
At your bookstore, or write: B. EERDMANS CO. PUBLISHING JFWM. 5 JEFFERSON AVE. S.E. / GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49o03
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
139
LiterarySourcesfor the Historyof Palestineand Syria
The Dead Sea Scrolls Part
1
and Biblical Manuscrip Archaeology byMichaelWise mong the literary sources for the history of Syria-Palestine unearthed in tablet, epigraphic, or manuscript form during the past century, the Dead Sea Scrolls occupy a position of paramount interest and importance. This paper will consider the historical importance of these intriguing texts. After a discussion of the archaeology of the site of Qumran and of the discovery of the various caves, the biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls will be reviewed. (A
140
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTISEPTEMBER
second article, to be published in a subsequent issue of BA, will deal with the nonbiblical manuscripts, which comprise the vast majority of texts from the Dead Sea caves.) Archaeology Some time after the initial excitement generated by the first publications of the Dead Sea Scrolls, joint excavations were undertaken at the site of Qumran, which was
connected by a comparison of pottery with the scrolls from the caves, by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan,the Palestinian Archaeological Museum, and the Ecole ArchdologiqueFranCaisede Jerusalem.From 1951 to 1956, five campaigns were conducted (de Vaux 1953a, 1954a, 1954b, 1956, 1959, 1973), during the course of which four basic occupational levels were distinguished at Qumran, and a smaller, evidently related, installation to the south, cAin Feshkha, was discovered.The discoveries associated with the lowest level were dated to the
Jericho*
Jerusalem
Qumran
WadiMurabbacat
period of approximately 700 to 600 B.c.
Some centuries later,duringthe perioddesignatedas a Ia, very modest beginning was made that can only be datedby relativechronology to slightly beforethe time of John Hyrcanus (135-104 B.c.). No new architecture is associated with period Ia. PeriodIb witnessed a greatly enlargedsettlement in which the buildings acquired virtually final form. The main features included a large courtyard, a two-story tower, so-called assembly rooms, storerooms, and workshops, most notably what has been identified as a potter's workshop. Most striking was the number of cisterns
Masada
Artist'sreconstructionof the settlement at Qumranduringperiods Ib and II. The scene is viewed from the east, looking toward the west. Caves,some of which contained scrolls, are situated in the surroundingcliffs of this dramatic landscape. The drawing is based on an illustration fromNew BibleAtlas (Wheaton,IL:Tndale, 1985),which used a model of KhirbetQumran at the PittsburghTheological Seminaryas its guide.
BIBUCAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
141
(nine) and the highly developed water system, which seems to have providedmore water than living requirements demanded(Schulz 1960;Wood1984).An aqueduct was built to catch winter rainwater,which was carriedto various cisterns as it wound its way between buildings. Deposits of animal bones between large sherds or pots were found in the spaces between buildings (see Zeuner 1960). The significance of these deposits is unclear and varioushypotheses haveattemptedto explain them (compare de Vaux 1973: 14-16, note 3). Based particularlyon the evidence of coins found at the site, some scholars would dateperiodIbto no laterthan the time of Alexander
-
I.
Ar
L?
*~??
Jannaeus (103-76 s.c.), and perhaps as early as the reign of
JohnHyrcanus.The remains suggest a fiery destruction, whether in the earthquakeof 31 s.c. (deVaux 1973:23) or at the time of the Parthianinvasions of 40 to 37 s.c. (BarAdon 1977: 18-20). After what seems to havebeen a short hiatus, the site was resettled in period II, the last significant period of occupation. The general plan and principal elements of the settlement were only slightly modified. It is to this period that the remains of the famous"scriptorium"were dated, consisting of tables and broken inkwells that had evidently fallen to the ground at the collapse of their second-floorlocation (Metzger1959, 1960;Pedley 1959). The dating of periodIIis largelybased on the hoardof 561 silver coins that was buried between 9/8 s.c. and 1 s.c./
A.D.1. Evidence of violent destruction accompanied by burning, as well as the presence of iron arrowheads, suggests that this period ended in Juneof A.D.68 with the advance of the Roman armies associated with the First Jewish Revolt. The Romans apparently occupied the site with a small military post for a brief period, perhapsonly until the fall of Masadain A.D.73. This brief span is known as period II; it marks the end of the site's use with the possible exception of the occupation of Jewishguerrillas during the Second Jewish Revolt in A.D.132 to 135.' In addition to the buildings at the site of Qumran, a cemetery was identified about 50 yardseast of the ruins. Based on the few pottery sherds found, it was contemporary with the settlement; it contained the bodies of men, women, and children. The number of the tombs (1,100)seems too high in relation to the number of inhabitants that the buildings could service, raising questions about the precise connection between them. This is not the only cemetery known from this region and period-a second, with a similar arrangement,has been identified at cEnel Ghuweir,about 20 kilometers south of Qumran. Also found at this site was a large elongated building, which, together with the cemetery, seems contemporary with QumranperiodsIb and II (Bar-Adon1977:18).Taken with the building installation from cAin Feshkha, and the expected identification of yet another contemporary site near En-gedi,we arriveat a total of at least four sites
142
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
The two inkwells on the right were discoveredin the so-called scriptorium, while the example on the left was found nearby The smaller inkwell in the center is made of bronze;the two largerones are of terra-cotta.Courtesyof the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums.
in the region of the Dead Sea that date from the same period. This suggests we should be cautious about the identification of the Qumran site with the Essenes living along the Dead Sea whom Pliny described (see Bar-Adon 1977: 24, note 3). The stimulus for the archaeological work at the site of Qumran was of course the discovery of manuscripts in the caves located nearby. The first scrolls were taken from a cave, later known as cave 1, by bedouin in 1947 and, after their existence became known, efforts were made by authorities to determine their exact provenance. Cave 1 was thus identified and excavated beginning in February of 1949 for about one month. Many text fragments were found, along with cloth and wood fragments, olive and date stones, leather phylactery cases, and, significantly, pottery sherds with exact counterparts at Khirbet Qumran. From this time competition began between the authorities, who were concerned with preserving manuscripts and recording findspots, and the bedouin, who would sell them, often in pieces in order to make a better profit, to locate additional caves bearing manuscripts. Thus, in February of 1952 bedouin found cave 2 and sold some fragments found therein, prompting systematic investigation by authorities of this cave and all the rock cliffs in the Qumran region (Reed 1954; de Vaux 1953b, 1962). Cave 2 was the first of the caves in the rock cliffs; cave 3 was discovered during the consequent explorations by authorities. Subsequently two additional rockcliff caves bearing manuscripts came to light: cave 6, discovered by the bedouin in 1952 (de Vaux 1962: 10, 26), and cave 11, breached by these same indefatigable desert dwellers in 1956 and thereupon excavated by pursuing authorities. In addition to these natural caves, six caves carved
Left:Approximatelyat the center of the Qumransettlement was a building with an elongated room (measuringabout 13 by 4 meters)on its second story In the ruins of this room excavatorsfound two brokeninkwells and plastered tables and benches. Scholarshave debated over the identification of the room;a popularhypothesis is that it served as a scriptoriumfor the Qumrancommunity This drawing is an artist's interpretationof how it might have looked originally Drawing by LindaHuff and MargaretReid. Right: Fragmentaryplaster-on-brickconstructions fromthe so-called scriptoriumhave been reconstructedas a long table and bench. Courtesyof the IsraelDepartmentof Antiquities and Museums.
artificially out of marl terraceshave emerged:caves 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10.By farthe most important of these, cave 4, was discovered by the bedouin and then officially excavated in September of 1952 (de Vaux 1977). This cave contained portions of hundreds of manuscripts, many showing evidence of deliberate destruction in ancient times. This same campaign of 1952 was successful in identifying another manuscript-bearingartificial cave, cave 5. It remained for the campaign of 1955 to discover caves 7, 8, and 9. Cave 10,which was uncoverednear cave 4, contained no manuscripts, only an ostracon inscribed in Hebrew. In summary, hundreds of caves in the region of Qumran have been explored, of which over thirty show evidence of human habitation in the period in question. Elevencaves containingtexts of varioussorts are included in these; the most notable, in terms of volume of manuscript material, are caves 1, 4, and 11. Biblical Manuscripts Among the hundreds of manuscripts that have emerged from the caves of the Qumran region are numerous biblical scrolls and fragments. The number of texts of each book so far identified is listed in the accompanying chart. Only the book of Esther is thus far unattested among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is also interesting to note most frequently that the fourbooks of the Old Testament quoted by the New estament (Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah)arenumerically very prominent here. It is not an exaggerationto say that the discovery of these biblical materials has had a revolutionary impact study, particularly in the area of upon Old Testament Critical matters have also been powertextual criticism. fully affected. Texts such as 4Q Sama (Cross 1953), 4Q
Books of the BibleRepresented in the Dead Sea Scrolls Genesis(15)* Exodus(15) Leviticus(8) Numbers(6) Deuteronomy(25) Joshua(2) Judges(3) Ruth(4) Samuel(4) Kings(3) Isaiah(19) Jeremiah(4)
Ezekiel(6) MinorProphets(8) Psalms(30)" Job(5) Proverbs(2) Ecclesiastes(1) Songof Songs(4) Lamentations(4) Esther(0) Daniel(9) Ezra-Nehemiah (1) Chronicles(1)
*Numbersin parenthesesindicatehow manytexts of the book
havebeenfound.
"'SeeSanders1965forlocationof publications. Note:This chartfollowsSanders1973:136.Forslightlydifferent figuressee Verm~s1977:201.
Samb (Cross 1955), 1lQ Paleo-HebrewLeviticus (Freedman 1974; Freedman and Mathews 1985), and 1Q Isaa (amongmany see Kutscher 1974with Qimron 1979)have all been very revealingin these regards?Eventexts of less obvious significance, such as 4Q Qoheleth (Muilenberg 1954), have critical impact. Critical and textual matters will be more fully discussed later.Fornow,the readermay gain insight into the historical significance of the biblical manuscripts from Qumran by a consideration of one group of manuscripts-the Psalms. The most complete of the Psalms manuscripts is known as 11QPsa,though even this is not fully preserved
BIBICAL ARCHAEOUGISTISEPTEMBER1986
143
(Sanders1965; Yadin 1966). Its contents comprise fortyone of the biblical psalms, mainly from the fifth book of the Psalter, as well as previously known apocryphal Psalms 151, 154, and 155? In addition are the earliest known Hebrew text of Sirach 51:13-20, 30b, three previously unknown psalms, and a ten-line prose supplement about David's writings. Interestingly, the newly discoveredHebrew versions of Psalms 151, 154, and 155 lack the so-called sectarian vocabulary familiar from some extrabiblicalDead Sea Scrolls. They thereby fail to support the thesis of some scholars (forexample, Delcor 1958; Philonenko 1959), advanced of course before the discovery of the Hebrew versions, that they were composed by the authors of the Qumran sectarian materials. It is entirely unclear how these psalms found their way into medieval Syriacmanuscripts. Of the three previously unknown psalms, Sanders entitled the first a "pleafor deliverance."It mentions the "evilinclination"(yetserrac)familiarfrom rabbinicliterature and contains other Mishnaic Hebrew lexical items. The secondof these psalms,a praiseto Zion, is an irregular acrostic, also using some Tannaiticvocabulary.The third psalm is clearly related to Jeremiah10:12-13 and Psalni 135:7. Because the verses seem to be more logically orderedhere than in the biblical texts, Sanderssuggested
that this "hymnto the creator"is in fact a copy of the text from which the Jeremianic material derives (Sanders 1965:89). Most scholars date the texts' composition later, however, to the late Persian or early Hellenistic period (Polzin 1967). The canticle known from Sirach 51 is an acrostic poem markedly different from that found by Schechter in the Cairo genizah (anotherhoard of manuscripts from the Near East that date to a period later than the Dead Sea Scrolls), and differs also from the text reflected by the versions. Its presence in a group of psalms evidently attributed entirely to David is intriguing and may confirm the previous suspicion that Jesus ben Sira did not write that portion of Ecclesiasticus. -
Period Ib 'Ki
*1
(I~
Period II
The
Pottery Qumran and
A
Two large iars that might have been used to store scrolls. The iar is from cave 1. The other jar is on the left. which has a flat lid. from Qumran period II and has a square piece of limestone as a lid. Courtesy of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums.
144
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
of
Khirbet the Caves
considerableproportionof the potteryfoundat Khirbet Qumranseems to be of local manufactureand may be connected with the "potter'sworkshop"discoveredat that site. The local manufacturelends a sort of monotony to the pottery and misled the early excavators into somewhat exaggeratedstatements as to its uniqueness. Actually, on the whole the ceramic developments at Qumran largely parallelthose at other contemporaryPalestinian sites that havebeen excavated.It differsmost strikingly in the virtual absence of importedwares. The potteryof periodIa (approximately150-103 B.C.E.) cannot be distinguished from that of Ib (103-31 B.C.E.), nor is there much of it. In additionto the ubiquitous cylindrical jarsof periodIb,the most characteristicpottery consists of
.~
or
~?c~ ~(d~U
tanm~D w4(DIHt~~n" tIr~ltif j~~m~ Iro'lb~'rV'~ r~nQyj~A w~
~~j~ tn~it WJ"W~
1M3
l'rint
Ltwtm t~Vr4 .pttAJ w 11M -'b*""flnJvf~~t+*~t
~
rm ub.2
siwn
3'cm
~ ~ ~
4~
1~71
11t~
rtvY
'11*~ t~i~yyN i
~,~r~ii~
y
*vr v
%%tfV ymniA a
~
m4',j#,t
~
~
w' ij';v ,)n
rau~?-r ajs
~j~a
,,aia?i
4 ta'. *"ut_~oh1 'Pit
~S
r
V
#z
~s r'
'rnv
r
.~I?rg~Zn\)UM ~,?ndvsdnu~l A segment of the Psalms scroll from cave 11at Qumran. ~n cc~nAnCu~lflfl?anu Courtesyof the Israel Department of Antiquities and tvcrl~urrrJ~~c~?~~
r? ?
'L~~'P~
d~-,~ ~kflbn~~
Museums.
o077ng
42. plate 1973, KleeVux
andII;noneseemstohavecontainedwaresofIbonly.Since, accordingto the potteryanalysis,the occupationof the with that cavesbothbeginsandendscontemporaneously of the khirbet,the ineluctableconclusionis thattheywere organicallyrelated.Thus the centralsignificanceof the It offersa confirmationof the dating potteryis underlined: analysisandstudyof the PeriodII (4 B.C.E.-A.D.68) is characterizedby the follow- of the scrollsreachedbycarbon-14 smaller are which molded manuscripts. a with beakers, edge; ing:plates cAinFeshkhaseemsto coincidewith Qumranperiod than those of Ib and are generallyribbed;and Herodian IIbasedon potteryfinds.Itmaybe thoughtsignificantthat lamps. here the cylindricaljarsof the latter site were not eviFor period I1 (A.D. 68-73?) the ceramic remains are denced.Ceramicsof bothmajorperiodsof occupationat Roman with the in military limited, scarce, keeping very Qumranhavebeenfoundat cEnel Ghuweir. occupationof thathorizon. For furtherdiscussionof the pottery,readersmay Exploration of the caves yielded plentiful pottery remains-in cave1 alonewerefoundat leastfiftyjarsand consulttheexcavationreportsbydeVaux(inparticularsee lids,threebowls,onepot,onejuglet,andfourlamps.All of de Vaux1973).A generalcontextforsuch a consideration the materialfrom the caves has exact counterpartsat may be built up with the aid of Paul Lapp'sPalestinian Qumran-thereare essentiallyno pieces earlieror later. Ceramic Chronology,200 B.C.-A.D.70 (New Haven:AmerSomecavescontainedpotteryparallelto both periodsIb icanSchoolsof OrientalResearch,1961).
the following:ovoidjarswith a strengthenedneck;plates with a simple outline, lacking the later molded edge, beakersof large size, flared,and with a fine wall, and Hellenisticlamps-since manytypesof potteryarecommonto IbandII,the lampspresentthe clearesttypological distinction.
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
145
The prose composition in column 27 of I1Q Psa avows that David wrote 3,600 "psalms,"as well as 450 "songs,"and specifies the liturgical occasions for which the "songs"(but not the "psalms")were written. Numerous questions are raisedby l1Q Psa.Scholarly studies have centered around Psalm 151 (Skehan 1963; Brownlee1963;Wigtail 1983)and the previouslyunknown psalms (Dupont-Sommer1964;Delcor 1967),but broader issues remain that require much further study (Sanders 1974). For example, the order of the psalms in llQ Psa differs from that in the Masoretic text; at least once (Ps 145) it evidences a different recension or version of the canonical psalm. Some smaller groupings of psalms, such as the Songs of Ascents and the Passover Hallel, which are viewed as units by the Masoretic text, are scatteredin the Qumrantext. Furthermore,the discovery 160 150 Seleucid/Roman Rulers
120 11i o
130 io
140
175 17o
of numerous other Psalters not in the Masoretic tradition and additional exemplars of the above-mentioned apocryphal psalms (as well as others not previously known or attested in translation form)4 argues that some explanation for the textual oddities other than idiosyncratism must be found and may question the "canonical priority" of the Masoretic text. Although most of these texts are unpublished, some idea of their bearing on these questions can be gained from published descriptions. Text 1LQ PsApa (van der Ploeg 1965) is a collection of apocryphal psalms and Psalm 91, all quite badly damaged. The apocryphal psalms contain numerous citations and allusions to biblical psalms. Because the text of Psalm 91 varies markedly at points from the Masoretic text and ancient versions, it is called a recension by van der Ploeg. A fragment of Psalm
0
90 o70
100
80
60
50 45
First Triumvirate Antiochus
M~il H
Caesar)
Crassus. (Pomrnpey.
IV Epiphanes
Dernetrius JuL
175 170
140
150 o
i160o
Palestinian Rulers
I130
i120
110
*
90
1o00
70
0
50
o60
45
m U Aristobuwus
Maccabeus
Jucas
us Caesar assassinated
VII Sidetes
Antiochus
I
Jonathan Simon John Hyrcanus
Alexancer
Jannaeus
m
Alexandra
I
Aristobulus
I
I
I
175 17
170 eI0 g'a
160
150
130
140
120
110
1
100
90
70
80
50
60
45
People and Events 0
Antiochus
IV aesecrates
Alexander JannacuLs
ernmpleiMaccabear l Revolt begins
n civil
war
with Pharisees. who are aided 0
Death of Judas Maccabous *
by Demrnetrus Ii Eucaerus
*
Jerusalem S
175
170
160
150
140
I
160
beseiged
VII S detes Caesar corines to Syria 0
120
110
100
90
80
70
50
60
45
0
Period la folinding of settlement, time of John Hyrcanus (?)
I
150
I
140 I
I
130.
120
I
Note Alldates follow The History of the JewmshPeople n the Age oJesus T Clark. Ltd. 1973-1986)
146
by Antiochus
S
John Hyrcanus destroys Samar tan temple on Mt Geriz'm forces the Juda zation of Idumea
130
Events atEventsat Qumran umran
175 170
Forces of Aristoculus II besieged by Ptolemy on Temple mount falls on Yom Kippur loss o&Jewish autonomy
Simon ano nted High Pr est, Strategos Ethnarch (Jewish autonomy)
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGISTISEPTEMBER
110 o
Period Ib beg ns marked by building of Alexander Jannaeius
I
100
I
90
80 @ I
I
at
70
time
60
?
50 45 "
Chnst by Emile Schuirer(3 volumes, revised and edited by Geza Vermes and others. Edinburgh T &
1986
l
89 known from another manuscript contains verses 20-23, 26-28, and 31, differing sufficiently that its publisher suggested it is a more ancient version of the psalm than that known from the Masoretic text (Milik 1966). Manuscript 4Q Psb begins with Psalm 91 and continues to Psalm 118. Significantly, Psalms 104 through 111 were not found between Psalms 103 and 112 and are not contained in this manuscript (Skehan 1964). Another Psalms scroll exhibiting an arrangement of Psalms that differs from the usual is 4Q Psq (Milik 1957: 245-55). In this text Psalm 33 immediately follows Psalm 31 and, additionally, may be a different recension. Scroll 4Q Psf is some fifty years older than 11Q Psa, which also contains that text's apostrophe to Zion (Starcky 1966). It also includes three other apocryphal psalms of the same genre, which follow columns containing much
of Psalms 107 through 109. Finally, another Psalms scroll from cave 11, known as 11Q Psb, contains in its six fragments parts of the "plea for deliverance" known from 11Q Psa, has Psalms 141, 133, and 144 in that order, and includes a short composite poem related to Psalm 118 known also from 11Q Psg (van der Ploeg 1967). The text agrees both in content and order with 11Q Psa, showing that these were not arbitrary in that text. In addition to these so-called deviant Psalms scrolls, there are many that are apparently identical to the Masoretic text. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of all of these texts is to point out that the Psalter as we usually know it was perhaps only one variant in the centuries immediately preceding the turn of the eras. Further analysis aimed at explaining the rationale both of their arrangement and selectivity, as well as that of the MasoA.D.
40
1
39
20
J
0
0
20
10
30
0
50
40
70
l
Augustus
80
90 95
Nero
M
Tiberius
Vespasian
Caligula I
40
30
20i
0
o
20
10
30
S Hyrcanus II
4 40
Claudius
50
80 I
90 95s
Pontius Pilate Herod the Great
I
Herod Agrippa I
Archelaus
Roman Procurators
Antigonus
Philip Herod Antipes
P
40
I
30 •9
I
20 ""
0
10
I
I
I
I 30
20 0
0 Herod, aided by Roman general Sosius. takes Jerusalem from Anligonus
I
I
40
g9
I
50 M
Ministryof John the Baptist
I 60
of Herod the Great's building
0 Conversion of Paul
* Birthof Jesus of Nazareth
0
* Josephus in Gallee 0
comes to head with embassy to Gaius
Civil war in Jerusalem. Vespasian
razes all of Judea except Herodium fortresses, thus presumably e of un endingifehifeof oran
At death of Herod Agrippa I. all Palestine ruled Roman directly by pr~cratos
Fall of of Masada ?Fall Masada
procurators
40
30
10
20
0 0
0
10
20
Period IIbegins, approximately
30
f
30
20
50
contemporary with Herod the Great's death
0
10
0
70 I 80 I 90 95
* Renod IIends, destruction at hands of Roman forces during FirstJewish Revolt
Period Ib ends either with Parthian invasion (40 a c ) Or earthquake (31 e.c )
40
40
90 95
Gessius Florus robs Temple, beginning of FirstWarwith Rome
0 "Jewishquestion" in Alexandria
0
80
8
Antonius Felix, procurator
* Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth MPeriod
I 70
Period IIl,Roman militaryocaJpation
10
20
30
40
96 50
70
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
80
90 95
147
retic text, promises to shed considerablelight on various questions of historical and biblical interest. For one attempt to do this, see Wilson 1985(especiallypages63-138). The Dead Sea Scrolls and History When one surveys the contents of the caves discovered nearthe site of Qumran,one point is clear regardingthese scrolls and the history of Syria-Palestine:The scrolls (both biblical and nonbiblical) have very little to say about "political"historys There is little discussion of names, dates, battles, and movements of the sort we find, for example, in the writings of Josephus. Rather, if we seek to apply these texts to historical research,we must ask differentsorts of questions. The greatest relevanceof the Dead Sea Scrolls is to be found in the areasof cultural and intellectual history, including biblical research. We have already pointed out particular examples of these while discussing individual texts. Here it will suffice to indicate merely some (butby no means all)6of the general areas of historical research that the scrolls can inform. Forconveniencewe shall note some particularapplications in the areas of Second Temple Judaism, Old Testament study, and New Testamentresearch. Second 'IThmple Judaism.It has long been known that the period of Second TempleJudaismwas a time when many groups or sects characterized by particular ideologies abounded.At one time or another the authorship of the scrolls has been attributed to virtually all of the known groups,whether Sadducees,Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, or others. Indeed,it is also possible that some or all of the scrolls were written by now unknown sectarians, or that the scrolls represent a portion of the librarypresumably attached to the temple at Jerusalem7The answer to the question of authorship is obviously of the greatest significance for their use as historical source material, but here it is enough to indicate that a majority of scholars favorthe hypothesis that the scrolls were written by the Essenes. If this is correct we learn a great deal about this hitherto poorly documented groupof Jews.(Fora succinct discussion of the problem of authorship, see Vermbs 1977:116-30, where much bibliographichelp is also to be found. Readersshould also be awareof the collection of Greek and Latin texts commenting on the Essenes, which has been helpfully compiled in Adam 1972. Fora refutationof the Essene hypothesis, see Golb 1980, 1985.) Linguistically,the Dead Sea Scrolls providea wealth of information on the languagesof Palestine in the period around 220 B.c. to A.D. 100 (compare Fitzmyer 1979:
38-46). The texts written in Hebrew are far more numerous than those in Aramaic and give us some insight into the Hebrew of that period from which little other evidence remains (forgrammar see Qimron 1976). The texts, with only a few exceptions, seek to write in Late Biblical Hebrew, but not infrequently colloquialisms betray the author's own Hebrew, which is closer to
148
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
1986
Mishnaic Hebrew.The differences between the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and that of the slightly earlierBen Sira(around180 B.c.)are also instructiveand may indicate that the Hebrew language changeoverfrom Late Biblical Hebrew to Mishnaic Hebrew was partially connected with religious/political events (Rabin1958).At the same time morphologicaland phonological isoglosses between the Hebrew of certain Dead Sea Scolls and the Samaritan tradition (Ben-Hayyim1958),8as well as textual affinities between biblical quotes in the scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch, combine to suggest that the so-called Samaritan schism took place much later than the time of Ezra,
TheDeadSeaScrollshavelittle to say aboutthe "political" historyofSyria-Palestine. as was once supposed. Other lines of evidence indicate this also, but the linguistic data add considerable weight to the argument, so it is not the least of the historical implications to arise from the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Aramaic texts also have had an impact in a varietyof areas(forgrammarsee Fitzmyer 1971:193-227; for a collection of texts with discussion see Beyer 1984). They have given rise to a reexamination of the history of western dialects of Aramaic, especially literary Jewish forms. In matters of detail, the texts have providedactual evidence for forms previously postulated to explain later developments in the language? Since parts of the New
Testament arose in an Aramaic-speaking milieu, the Aramaic texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are of great importance forresearchhere (Fitzmyer1979:1-19, 85-113). The question of why some of the scrolls were written in Aramaic while others had Hebrew as their medium is intertwined with the question of authorship and the sociology of Palestine in this period and has not received a satisfactory answer (but compare Rabin 1976: 1029).•10. Another aspect of Second Temple Judaismthat has been illuminated by the Dead Sea Scroll material has been the study of the religious calendar.Manyof the texts evidence a solar calendarof 364 daysin contradistinction
Textualstudyof the Old hasbeen Testament revolutionized by thescrolls. to the lunar calendar of rabbinic Judaism.There is good reason to believe that this was not merely a sectarian calendarbut one that may have helped structure certain portions of the Old Testament, particularly the late priestly literature (Jaubert 1955; Vanderkam 1979). A Architecturalremains of the Qumransettlement lie exposed in a desolate setting near the Dead Sea. Clearly visible are the stepped cisternsor ritual bathingpools and the curvingaqueduct that brought water into the site.
good basic discussion of the calendar of the scrolls is provided by Talmon (1958). A particular application of this aspect of study of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been Jaubert'sattempt to use the notion of a solar calendar to solve a classic problem of gospel interpretation (Jaubert 1965).This problem, of course, is the different calendars evidenced by the Synoptic gospels, on the one hand, and John on the other. On the whole, Jaubert'ssolution has receivedonly limited acceptance.A good referencesource for a select bibliographyon questions pertaining to the calendar is Fitzmyer (1977: 131-37). The Dead Sea Scrolls are of premier importance for the study of Jewishlaw duringthe Second Templeperiod. Foremost among the scrolls in this regardmay be the Temple Scroll, the Damascus Covenant, and the Rule of the Community (all of which will be discussed in the continuation of this article to be published in a future issue), but many smaller texts contain phrases and even single words that throughanalysis can revealhalakot (for example, Baumgarten1976).Although full-scale studies of the halakah are still desiderata, areas constituting some of the major halakic concerns have been mapped out and some fairly thorough studies carried out (for example, Schiffman 1975 on Sabbathhalakot and Schiffman 1983 on laws of testimony and witness). On the whole, the texts represent traditions distinct from what is known from rabbinic sources, operating on different principles to some extent. The most obvious difference between the halakic texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the rabbinic materials is that the former derive halakah by exegesis only; evidently they had no oral law.It should be noted that there is a curious connection between the halakah of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the medieval Jewish groupknown as the Karaites(Golb 1957a, 1957b;Wieder 1962). One last areaof study of Second Temple Judaismfor which study of the scrolls from the Dead Sea has had fructifying results may be briefly indicated. The discovery of portions of known apocalyptic texts - for example, Enoch, the Testamentsof Leviand Naphtali- along with the discovery of unknown apocalyptic books, and the clear resemblance to apocalyptic thinking found in such scrolls as 1QS have helped catalyze research into this genre of Judeo-Christian literature. In particular, the Dead Sea Scrollsprovidea greatlybroadenedbackground, offering opportunity for insight and research into the milieu of apocalyptic such as never previously existed. (For indications of some of the lines of research thus facilitated, see Barr 1975: 22-23 and Russell 1964: especially 36-69.) Old ThstamentStudy. Moving to the realm of Old Testament studies, the Dead Sea Scrolls have had a major impact on textual criticism, as the readerwill probably alreadyhave fathomed. They have also greatly advanced the study of Hebrew and Aramaic paleographyand have
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
149
i oYts 1iljt~ni~ll4tr I" Xvi
$X~~
't'
Fragmentsfrom a scroll of the book of Daniel (1QDana)found at Qumran. Courtesyof JohnC. Thever.
ut
r
affectedcritical studies. We shall examine each in turn. In Old Thstamentstudies, the Dead Sea Scrolls have revolutionized textual research. Previously scholars of the Hebrew text had to be content with medieval manuscripts, supplemented of course by study of the versions such as the Septuagint and SamaritanPentateuch. With the discoveryof the scrolls, the barrierto the Hellenistic and Romanperiods fell away,and texts both agreeingand disagreeingwith the standardHebrewMasoretic text are part of the cache. Where readings in given books differ from the known Hebrew text, they have been found to agreewith various different streams of textual tradition. The fact that all the major versional types of texts are alreadypresent in the Qumranmanuscriptshas naturally led to attempts to explain in particularthe emergence of the Masoretic, Septuagintal,and Samaritantext families. Three basic positions have emerged (Ulrich 1984: 62224). The first, known as the theory of local texts, was first adumbrated by Albright (1955) and later developed by Cross in particular (1964, 1966, 1972-all these, along with other articles central to Old Testament text criticism, are collected in Cross and Talmon 1975).Basically this theory argues for the emergence of different text forms in Babylonia, Palestine, and Egypt. The second basic position was proposed by Talmon, who suggested that the key to the survival of a given text type was "its acceptanceby a sociologically definable integratedbody" (Crossand Talmon 1975:325). The inference would then be that many text types disappearedin ancient times. The third position has been championed by Tov, who reasonedthat the scrolls do not confirm the existence of given text types at all. Rather, they suggest that the Masoretictext, the Septuagint,and the SamaritanPentateuch are representativemerely of three texts, since on the whole they cannot be described as typologically differentiatedin the same way as, forexample, the Byzantine text type of the New Tstament (Tov 1981a, 1982). Recedingone stage from the transmission of the biblical text, some would see the Dead Sea Scrolls as throwing
150
1986 BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGISTISEPTEMBER
light on the actual composition of biblical books. For instance, it can be shown that the Chronicler (who compiled the books of Chronicles) utilized the books of Samuel as one source. What is perhaps surprising is that he evidently utilized a text of this book closer to the ancestor of 4Q Sama than to the Masoretic text. The existence ot this text can also be adduced from Josephus (Ulrich 1978:especially 151-64). Some studies representative of the way the scrolls can be applied to textual criticism include Wernberg-Moller1964, Morrow 19721976, Orlinsky 1959, and Greenberg 1956. Hebrew (and Aramaic) paleography has similarly been affectedby the Dead Sea Scrolls, since priorto their discovery there were virtually no Hebrew texts predating the Middle Ages. The standardreference source for the study of the scrolls' paleographyis the masterful article by Cross (1961),which further developed the programmatic approach of Albright (1937, 1949). Birnbaum's work is also of great importance (1957, 1971).Utilizing the scrolls in tandem with other documents such as the Elephantine papyri, the Wadi Daliyeh contracts, and texts from Murabbacat,along with firmly dated inscriptions and inscribed ossuaries, scholars have been able to construct a typological continuum. This typology is based on the evolution of letter shapes and allows approximate periodization of known documents as well as aiding in the more accurate formulation and analysis of several script types. As an example of the study of a particularlyinteresting script from this period, known as the paleo-Hebrewscript, the work by McLean(1982)may be recommended. Related to paleographyis the study of ancient scribal techniques such as ruling, spacing, paragraphing, and revision. These matters are of broader interest than the scrolls alone, since the scrolls represent examples of ancient scribal approachesthat conceivably affected books of the Old Testament in their transmission. Forthis reason the two-volume work of Martin will repaystudy (Martin 1958), though many new texts have been published since it appearedand might affect some of its conclusions. The bearingof the texts from Qumran on Old Testament critical matters has been alluded to in our discussion of certain texts. Here several lines of inquiry can be indicated, more or less arbitrarily,as examples. The short text of Jeremiah, as found in the Septuagint, which is
about one-eighth shorter than the Masoretic text, has been found in Hebrew form among the scrolls, which also attest to the longer form. The shorter form may represent an earlier recension of Jeremiah (Tov 1981b). With regard to the book of Job, the fact that 42:12-17 is missing from the epilogue of 11Q Targum Job (to be discussed in the coming review) seems to support some recent studies that suggest that the prologue (chapters 1-2) and epilogue (that is to say the prose portions of the book) are linguistically late and may have been added quite recently in that book's history. Mertens (1971) analyzed the vision of Daniel 10 through 12 on the basis of the Qumran texts, and his is but one of numerous works that explore the striking conceptual and linguistic ties that the book of Daniel has with the Dead Sea Scrolls. With respect to the Psalms, we have discussed the varying order and contents of some manuscripts from caves 4 and 11. This and other factors have led some scholars (for example, Sanders 1972) to the conclusion that the canon of the Hagiographa may still have been open-ended in our period. If so, insight may then be gained into the process by which the Masoretic canon, which reached final status after A.D.70, was formed. In some cases the scrolls have functioned as heuristic devices leading to negative conclusions. For example, Kaufmann has studied the compositional patterns used in the Temple Scroll, which seem to mirror those used in the formation of the biblical text of the Pentateuch, according to classic literary criticism. It is his conclusion that the complexity and variety of these patterns, in a text where we can test them such as 11Q Temple, render higher criticism extremely tenuous (Kaufmann 1982). These examples may give some idea of the range of applications of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Old Testament critical studies. New 'Tstament Research. When we turn to the New Testament, the scrolls are most informative in regard to the Jewish background. A general survey of the effects of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls on New Testament studies can be found in Vermbs 1976. Other important general works concerning the relationship between these two bodies of material include Stendahl 1957, Black 1961, Murphy-O'Connor 1968, and Charlesworth 1972. The two-volume work by Braun (1966) is also very important. The first volume attempts to discuss each book, chapter, and verse of the New Testament in terms of parallels from the Qumran texts. The second volume is a very useful thematic discussion of such topics as Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness, predestination, and eschatology. For a select bibliography of works dealing with the New Testament in light of the scrolls, see Fitzmyer 1977: 124-30. Conclusion The Dead Sea Scrolls, found in an obscure region of Palestine, constitute a source for the history of that country,
the importance of which is hard to exaggerate. Matters of language, law, paleography, and currents of thought have been greatly affected by study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The text, and perhaps even the formation, of the Old Testament can be studied in ways never before possible. The documents of the New Testament, or their authors, arose almost entirely in the same milieu as did the documents and authors of the scrolls. I have surveyed here primarily the archaeology of Qumran and the caves, and the biblical manuscripts contained in the caches. Interesting as this is, in many ways the nonbiblical texts connected with the scrolls are even more fascinating. And that will be the topic of part two of this survey. Notes 'De Vauxsuggestedthat this was the case based on several dated coins and a supposed referenceto Qumran in a papyrus from the Wadi Murabbacat(number 45, line 6). It should be noted, however,that the readingof the line in the papyrusthat mentions Qumranis uncertain and the context is broken.Even if one concedes his readingand renderingof the "Fortressof the Hasidim,"the facile identification of the otherwise unknown toponym with KhirbetQumranmay be questioned. 2The abbreviations used to designate the manuscripts found at Qumranfollow a system utilized in the series Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert. See the first volume of that series (Barthdlemyand Milik 1955) for a complete listing of these abbreviations. 3The latter two were formerly known only from medieval Syriac manuscripts.Fora collation see Noth 1930. 4Accordingto a paperpresentedandabstractedfor the 1984 annual meeting of the Society of BiblicalLiterature,the unpublished 4Q380 and 4Q381, though quite fragmentary,together represent more than fifteen works of this type. In some cases, accordingto author Eileen Schuler,they preserveheadings like those of the biblical Psalms, attributing the works to figures such as Obadiah and Manasseh. This paper has now been incorporatedin Schuler'sdissertation (see Schuler 1984). SWiththe possible exception of the Pesharim,of course. 6Some apprehension of the scope of application of the scrolls can be had by a brief perusal of the tables of contents of any of the standardbibliographies. 7It is here that the significance of the Copper Scroll is so great. If this text can be linked with the Temple,which seems quite possible, then the connection of some or all of the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Templebecomes farmore plausible. One may suspect that the logic of this is compelling enough to haveinfluenced some of the suggestedlater datesforthe Copper Scroll. 8Particularlystrikingarethe use in common of the endings -kmh, -hmh (in place of the usual BH, -km, -hm)and the use of penultimately accented forms such as the imperfect tiqtoli (accordingto the orthography)at times (usually?)for the BH tiqteli. It is importantto addthat these forms occur not only in sectarian documents but also in those usually considered nonsectarian-compare lhmh at 11QPsaPlea:2. 9Twoexamples arethe appearanceof rwt "run"in 11QTgJob 33:2, intermediatebetween Old Aramaicrwd (spelledrws) and
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
151
Middle Aramaic rht, and the root cbc "haste"(1QGenAp3:7, 20:9),a developmentbetween Official Aramaiccbq and Middle Aramaic
cb'.
'0oRabin's explanation is basically that Hebrewworks were for the readingof Palestinian Jews,while Aramaic works were intended for the broaderaudience of those Jews who did not know enough Hebrewto readliteraryworks in that languageprimarily Jews of the eastern Diaspora. This view, if correct, would have interesting implications when one considers that the AramaicliteraturefromQumranis not, by anyview, entirely nonsectarian.One exampleof a work that is as sectarianas 1QS, but written in Aramaic, is 4Q Amram (published in Milik 1972b;see also Kobelski 1981:24-36).
BibliographicResources of
immense literature generated by the Because of thetheDead Sea Scrolls in the
past forty years, study and since space (and expertise) limit the breadth of this overview,many aspects of the study of the scrolls can be mentioned only in passing. The reader who wants to pursue a given tangent more fully is directed to the standardbibliographicresources:Lasor(1958),Jongeling(1971), Burchard (1957, 1965), and, for publications in modern Hebrew,Yizhar (1967).A number of journals,principally Revue de Qumran and Beth Mikra, publish ongoing bibliographies.A veryuseful, recentpublication is the workby Fitzmyer (1977a).Additionally the readermay desire some description of the many as yet unpublished texts. In addition to Fitzmyer,the works of Baillet (1956),Benoit (1956), Cross (1980:30-47), andMilik (1959a:20-43) arehelpful in this regard.
Bibliography Adam,A. 1972 Antike Berichte i.ber die Essener.Berlin:Walterde Gruyter.
Albright,W E 1937 A BiblicalFragmentfromthe Maccabaean Age:The Nash Papyrus.Journalof Biblical Literature56: 145-76.
1949 On the date of the ScrollsfromAin Feshkaand the Nash Papyrus.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 115:10-19.
1955 NewLighton EarlyRecensionsof the HebrewBible.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 140:27-33. Baillet, M. 1956 Le travail d'ddition des fragments manuscrits de Qumran. RevueBiblique 63: 49-67. Bar-Adon,P.
1977 AnotherSettlementof the JudeanDesertSectat cEnel Ghuweir on the Shoresof the Dead Sea. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research227: 1-25. Barr,J. 1975 JewishApocalypticin Recent ScholarlyStudy.Bulletin of the JohnRylands University Libraryof Manchester58: 9-35. Barthelemy,D., and Milik, J.T. 1955 Qumran Cave I. Series: Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert I.
Press. Oxford:Clarendon Baumgarten,J. 1976 4Q Halakhaha,the Lawof Hadash,and the PentecontadCalendar.Journalof Jewish Studies 27: 36-46. Ben-Hayyim,Z. 1958 Traditionsin the HebrewLanguage,with Special Referenceto
152
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
the Dead Sea Scrolls. ScriptaHierosolymitana 4: 200-14. Benoit, P 1956 Editing the Manuscript Fragmentsfrom Qumran. The Biblical Archaeologist 19:75-96. Beyer,K. 1984 Die Aramiische Texte vom Toten Meer. G6ttingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht. Birnbaum,S. A. 1957 The Hebrew Script. Part 7Tho:The Plates. London:Palaeographia. 1971 The Hebrew Script.PartOne: The Text.Leiden:Brill. Black, M., editor 1961 The Scrollsand Christian Origins.Chico, CA:ScholarsPress. 1969 The Scrolls and Christianity.London:S.P.C.K. Braun,H. 1966 Qumran und das Neue Testament, two volumes. Tiibingen: Mohr. Brownlee,W. 1963 The 11QCounterpartto Psalm 151, 1-5. Revuede Qumran4: 379-87. Burchard,C. Meer.Berlin: 1957 Bibliographiezu den Handschriftenvom bToten Topelmann. Meer.Berlin: 1965 Bibliographiezu den Handschriftenvom bToten Topelmann. Charlesworth,J.H. 1972 Johnand Qumran.London:Chapman. Cross, E M. 1953 A New Qumran Biblical FragmentRelated to the Original HebrewUnderlyingthe Septuagint.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 132: 15-26. 1955 The Earliest Manuscriptsfrom Qumran.Journalof Biblical Literature74: 147-72. 1961 The Development of the Jewish Scripts. Pp. 133-202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East:Essaysin Honor of William FoxwellAlbright,editedbyG. E. Wright.New York:Doubleday. 1964 The History of the BiblicalText in the Lightof Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert. HarvardTheological Review 57: 281-99. 1966 The Contribution of the QumranDiscoveries to the Study of the BiblicalText. Israel ExplorationJournal15:81-95. 1972 The Evolutionof a Theory of LocalTexts.Pp. 108-26 in 1972 Proceedings:IOSCS and Pseudepigrapha.Editedby R. Kraft. Missoula, MT:ScholarsPress. 1980 TheAncent Libraryof Qumranand ModernBiblical Studies, second edition. GrandRapids,MI:BakerBook House. Cross, E M., and Talmon,S., editors 1975 Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversity Press. Delcor, M. 1958 Cinqnouveauxpsaumesess~nien?Revuede Qumran1:85-102. 1967 L'Hymnea Si6n du rouleau des Psaumes de la grotte 11 de Qumran.Revuede Qumran6: 71-88. Dupont-Sommer,A. 1964 Explication des textes-hebreux decouverts a Qoumran: le psaume h~breu extra-canonique.Annuaire du College de France64: 317-29. Fitzmyer,J. 1971 TheGenesis Apocryphonof QumranCave 1:A Commentary, second edition. Rome:BiblicalInstitute Press. 1977 TheDead Sea Scrolls:MajorPublications and ToolsforStudy. Missoula, MT:ScholarsPress. 1979 A WanderingAramean:CollectedAramaic Essays.Missoula, MT:ScholarsPress. Freedman,D. N. 1974 VariantReadingsin the Leviticus Scroll from QumranCave 11. Catholic Biblical Quarterly36: 525-34. Freedman,D. N., and Mathews,K. A. 1985 The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (1lQpaleoLev).Winona
Lake,IN: American Schools of Oriental Research. Golb, N. 1957a The Dietary Laws in the Damascus Covenant in Relation to those of the Karaites.Journalof Jewish Studies 8: 51-69. 1957b Literaryand Doctrinal Aspects of the Damascus Covenantin Relation to those of the Karaites.Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series 47: 354-74. 1980 The Problemof the Origin and Identificationof the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124: 1-24. 1985 WhoHidthe DeadSeaScrolls?BiblicalArchaeologist48:68-82. Greenberg,M. 1956 The Stabilizationof the Textof the HebrewBible,Reviewedin the Light of the Biblical Materialsfrom the JudaeanDesert. Journalof the American Oriental Society 76: 157-67. Jaubert,A. 1955 Lecalendrierdes Jubil~set de la secte de Qumran:ses origines bibliques. VetusTestamentum3: 250-64. 1965 The Date of the Last Supper.Staten Island:Alba House. Jongeling,B. 1971 A Classified Bibliographyof the Findsin the Desert of Judah, 1958-69. Leiden:Brill. Kaufmann,S. 1982 The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism. Hebrew Union College Annual 53: 29-43. Kobelski,P. 1981 Melchizedek and Melkireshac. Washington,D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Kutscher,E. 1974 The Languageand LinguisticBackgroundof the Isaiah Scroll (1Qlsaa).Leiden:Brill. Lasor,W 1958 Bibliographyof the Dead Sea Scrolls 1948-1957. Pasadena, CA: FullerTheological Seminary. Martin,M. 1958 The Scribal Characterof the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 volumes. Louvain:Publications Universitaires. McLean,M. 1982 The Use and Developmentof Paleo-Hebrewinthe Hellenistic and Roman Periods.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,Harvard University. Mertens,A. 1971 Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Textevom TotenMeer.Stuttgart:VerlagKatholischesBibelwerk. Metzger,B.M. 1959 The Furniturein the Scriptoriumat Qumran.Revuede Qumran 1: 509-15. 1960 When Did ScribesBeginto Use WritingDesks? Akten des XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress1958:355-62. Milik, J.T. 1957 Deux documentsinedits du desertde Juda.Biblica 38: 245-68. 1959 TenYearsof Discoveryin the Wildernessof Judea.Naperville, IL:Allenson. 1966 Fragmentd'unesource du psautier (4QPs89). Revue Biblique 73: 94-106. 1972 4Q Visions de cAmramet une citation d'Orig~ne.Revue Biblique 79: 77-97. Morrow,S. J. 1972- 11QTargumJobandthe MassoreticText.Revuede Qumran8: 1976 253-56. Muilenberg,J. 1954 A Qoheleth Scroll from Qumran. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 135:20-28. J.,editor Murphy-O'Connor, 1968 Paul and Qumran.London:Chapman. Noth, M. 1930 Die flinf syrisch uiberliefertenapokryphen Psalmen. Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft48: 1-23.
Orlinsky,H. M. 1959 Qumranand the Present Stateof Old TestamentTextStudies: The SeptuagintText.Journalof Biblical Literature78: 26-33. Pedley,K. 1959 The Libraryat Qumran.Revue de Qumran 2: 21-41. Philonenko,M. 1959 L'Origineessenienne des cinq psaumes syriaques de David. Semitica 9: 35-48. Ploeg, J.,van der 1965 Le psaume XCI dans une recension de Qumran. Revue Biblique 72: 210-17. 1967 Fragmentsd'un manuscrit de psaumes de Qumran (11QPsb). Revue Biblique 74: 408-12. Polzin, R. 1967 Notes on the Dating of the Non-MassoreticPsalms of 11QPsa. HarvardTheological Review 60: 468-76. Qimron, E. 1976 Diqduq hal-Lashonha-clbrit shel Megillot Midbar Yehudah. Jerusalem:HebrewUniversity dissertation. 1979 E. Y Kutscher,The Languageand Linguistic Backgroundof the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa):Indices and Corrections.Leiden: Brill. Rabin,C. 1958 The Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew. Scripta Hierosolymitana 4: 144-61. 1976 HebrewandAramaicin the FirstCentury.Pp. 1007-39 in The Jewish People in the First Century,volume 2. Edited by S. Safraiand M. Stern.Assen/Amsterdam:VanGorcum. Reed,W 1954 The QumranCavesExpeditionof March,1952.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 135:8-13. Russell, D. S. 1964 TheMethodand Messageof JewishApocalyptic.Philadelphia: Westminster. Sanders,J.A. 1965 The Psalms Scrollof Qumran Cave 11. Series:Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert of JordanIV.Oxford:ClarendonPress. 1972 Torahand Canon. Philadelphia:FortressPress. 1973 The Dead Sea Scrolls:A QuarterCentury of Study.Biblical Archaeologist 36: 110-43. 1974 The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa)Reviewed.Pp. 79-99 in On Language,Culture,and Religion: In Honor of EugeneA. Nida. Editedby M. BlackandW.Smalley.The Hague:Mouton. Schiffman,L. 1975 The Halakhah at Qumran.Leiden:Brill. 1983 Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code. Chico, CA: ScholarsPress. Schuler,E. 1984 4Q 380 and 4Q 381. 7WtoCollections of Noncanonical Psalms Unfrom Qumran:Addition, Translationand Commentary. published Ph.D. dissertation,HarvardUniversity. Schulz, S. 1960 Chirbet Kumrfin,cen Feschchaund die bukeca:Zugleich ein archiologischer Beitragzum Felsenaquiduktund zur Strasse durchdaswidi Kumrin. Zeitschrift des Deutschen-Palihstina Vereins76: 53-58. Skehan,P 1963 The ApocryphalPsalm 151. Catholic Biblical Quarterly25: 407-09. 1964 A PsalmManuscriptfromQumran(4QPsb).Catholic Biblical Quarterly26: 313-22. Starcky,J. 1966 Psaumes apocryphesde la grotte 4 de Qumran. Revue Biblique 73: 353-71. Stendahl,K., editor 1957 The Scrolls and the New Testament.London:S.P.C.K. Talmon, S. 1958 The CalendarReckoningof the Sect fromthe JudaeanDesert.
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
153
ScriptaHierosolymitana4: 162-99. Tov,E. 1981a The TextCritical Use of the Septuagintin Biblical Research. Jerusalem:Simor. 1981b Some Aspects of the Textualand LiteraryHistory of the Book of Jeremiah.Pp. 145-67 in Lelivre de Jerimies:Leprophkteet son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by P. Bogaert.Leuven:University Press. 1982 A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls. Hebrew Union CollegeAnnual 53: 11-27. Ulrich, E. 1978 The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Missoula, MT: ScholarsPress. 1984 Horizons of Old TestamentTextualResearchat the Thirtieth Anniversaryof QumranCave 4. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46: 613-36. Vanderkam,J. 1979 The Origin, Character,and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar:A Reassessment of Jaubert'sHypotheses. Catholic Biblical Quarterly41: 390-411. Vaux,R. de 1953a Fouille au Khirbet QumrAn:Rapport pr61iminaire.Revue Biblique 60: 83-106. 1953b Explorationde la regionde Qumrmn. RevueBiblique60: 540-61. 1954a Fouilles au Khirbet Qumran: Rapport Prdliminaire sur la Deuxibme Campagne.Revue Biblique 61: 206-36. 1954b Chroniquearchdologique:KhirbetQumran.Revue Biblique 61: 567-68. 1956 Chroniquearchdologique:KhirbetQumran.Revue Biblique 63: 73-74. 1959 Fouilles de Feshka:Rapportprdliminaire.Revue Biblique 66: 225-55. 1962 Archdologie.Pp. 3-36 in Les 'PetitesGrottes'de Qumran,by M. Baillet,J.T.Milik andR. de Vaux.Series:Discoveriesin the
JudaeanDesert of JordanIII.Oxford:ClarendonPress. 1973 Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Schweich Lecturesof the BritishAcademy,1959.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. 1977 Archdologie.Pp. 3-28 in Qumrdn Grotte 4 II, by R. de Vaux and J.T Milik. Series:Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert VI. Oxford:ClarendonPress. Vermbs,G. 1976 The Impactof the Dead Sea Scrolls on the Study of the New Testament.Journalof Jewish Studies 27: 107-16. 1977 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumranin Perspective.Philadelphia: FortressPress. P Wernberg-Moller, 1964 Contribution of the Hodayot to Biblical Textual Criticism. Textus4: 133-75. Wieder,N. 1962 The JudeanScrolls and Karaism.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Wigtail,D. 1983 The Sequence of the Translationsof ApocryphalPsalm 151. Revue de Qumran 11:401-08. Wilson, G. 1985 TheEditingof the Hebrew Psalter.Chico, CA:ScholarsPress. Wood,B. G. 1984 To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research256: 45-60. Yadin,Y 1966 AnotherFragment(E)of the Psalms ScrollfromQumranCave 11 (11QPsa).Textus5: 1-10. Yizhar,M. 1967 Bibliographyof HebrewPublicationson the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1948-1964. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press. Zeuner, E 1960 Notes on Qumran.PalestineExplorationQuarterly92: 27-36. Largenumbersof jewelrypendantsin a wide arrayof materialsand styles first
LATEBRONZE
in Palestine in theLateBronze appeared
PALESTINIAN
S-
archaeological and scientific study of the
PENDANTS
100types,sheds pendants, representing
innovation inacosmopolitan age -
25.00 c
_ --
JSOT/ASOR Monographs, 1 xx + 184pp + 25 plates
importantnew lighton foreignrelations, of control,religious t Egyptian et and artisticsyncretism,socio-economic stratification,and technological innovation. Most of the Late Bronze pendant
andpassedin typesweremass-produced andout of fashion,thus providinga relativelytightchronologicalsequence. Since almostall the typesare relatedto Egyptianor Syrianvarieties,they are
E.McGovernPatrick ISBN 0 905774 90 6 _35.00/
Age(ca. 1550-1200BC). This detailed
valuable for cross-cultural dating. The author personally examined al-
most the entirecorpusof morethan 800
=are e \NN
well-dated Late Bronze pendants which fully catalogued and illustrated. Since Beth Shan contributed over half of the examples, many of which are unpublished, the stratigraphy and dating Scriteria for this major site are reviewed.
is Research McGovern Specialist
_
T
wo..
in Archaeoceramics at the Museum ,Patrick Science Center for Archaeology Applied (MASCA)at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
JSOT Press, The University, Sheffield SIO 2TN, ENGLANDII Eisenbrauns, P.O.B. 275, Winona Lake, IN 46590
154
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
Tre
as
of
Holy
ures the
Land:
Ancient Art the
Israe
from
Museium
by JohnK. McDonald
Fragments of large humanstatuesmadeof chalkyclay werefoundin the 1930sin the earliest strataof ancientJericho(Tell es-Sultan).Thisheadand partsof the bodyof a plaster statuewerediscoveredin the layersof what became utipper Neolithic knownas the Pre-Pottery head B period.Thelife-size (measuris 15 21 ing by centimeters)flat in the when backand almostdisk-shaped examinedinprofile.Delicatelymodeled
facialfeaturesinclutde archedeyebrows,a small nose,roundedcheeks,and a smallpinchedmouth. Theareaof the eyeshave beencut out and inlaidwith commonMediterranean seashells.Dark-brown paintedlines encircletheface in a radialdesign that resemblesthestonemaskfrom the Nahal HemarCave.(IDAM 35.3289)
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST(SEI'EMBER1986
155
autumnnearlytwohundred objectsfromthecollectionsof S theIsraelMuseumareon exMuseumof hibitattheMetropolitan Artin New York.Afteropeningon 25,theexhibitionwillrun September
This slightly oversized(26.5 by 17 centimeters),limestone mask is the largest Neolithic Pre-Pottery . stonemaskeverfound in Israel.It was discoveredonly a few years ago in a cave located on the bank of Nahal Hemar, a dry riverbed in theJudeanDesert.After the initial discoveryof the cave by bedouins in 1983, the Israel Departmentof Antiquitiesbegan excavationsthat uncoveredthreestrata of the Pre-PotteryNeolithic B period, which date to the seventh millennium B.c. Recoveredartifactsinclude seashells,basketry,textilefragments,clay and bonefigurines, and this startlingmask. The back is hollowed out and thereare threemajoropenings-two uneven circleswere removedfor the eyes and the small mouth is shown open with four teeth carved in both the upperand lowerjaws. A small pointed nose (which has been restored) and prominentcheekbonesadd to its starkbut arrestingnature. Tracesof red,green, and white paint appear in variousplaces, as well as a painted radial design. Eighteenirregularlyspaced holes along the edge may have been used to attach ornamentsor to fasten it to a garment. How the mask was originally used is unknown but it almost certainlywas of cultic significanceto some early inhabitantsor visitorsof theJudean Desert. (IDAM 84-407)
156
IIIII 1( Al. AR( IIA!LO1.1,I'I/I.
'II.Ml
R 1986
throughJanuary4,1987, andwill then travelto the LosAngelesCounty Museumof Art in earlyApril andto the Houston Museumof Fine Arts in late Octoberof 1987. The materialfor the exhibitionwas chosenchieflyfor its aestheticimpact, but with archaeological significance very much a corollarycriterion.It is thereforea largeandan eclecticshow representingartifactsfromthe tenth millenniumB.C.throughthe mid-seventh centuryA.D. A carefulselectionof the finestworkshas been madeto reflect the rich historicalandculturalperiods within that broadrange. Some of the highlightsincludea sicklehandleof the Natufianperiod
(tenthmillennium B.C.)fromHaNahal Caveanda rarelimestonemask(seventh millenniumB.C.)fromthe recentexcavationsof the Neolithic cavesiteof Nahal Hemarin the JudeanDesert.
A spectacular hoard of Chalcolithic
in 1961in a artifactswasdiscovered remotecavein theNahalMishmar in thecavehave canyon.Excavations fromtheBarKokhba revealedremains period(secondcenturyA.D.)and the
lateChalcolithic age(fourthmillennium a.C.).Thegroupingof objectsand the
animal-head standard shown here are
partofthe416copperobjects fromthe
Chalcolithic hoard, making the treasure
thelargestgroupofcopperobjectsever foundin theancientNearEast.The hoardhasprovidedinvaluableinsight intothestudyofancientmetalworking and has greatly expanded our knowledge
of theChalof theartandiconography 27.5 measures colithicage.Thestandard centimeters long. (IDAM 61-88)
T
1
heChalcolithic period(4500-
3150B.C.)is amplyrepresented by ivorystatuettesfromthe Beershebaarea,culticvesselsfromGilat, anda sizableselectionof material fromthe NahalMishmarcopper treasure(seeThomasLevy'sarticle The ChalcolithicPeriod"in the June 1986BA).Fromthe Earlyand MiddleBronzeAges(3150-1550B.C.) come the superblyburnishedand carinatedbowl from the Beth-yera., human-headed Tellel-Yehudiyeh warejugfromJericho,a pottery house-modelfromArad,andgold peg figurinesfromrecentexcavations at TellGezer.
vase Duringthe 1930to 1931excavationsof the cemeteryatJerichothis unusualanthropomorphic was uncoveredand soonbecameknownas a masterpieceof Canaaniteceramicart.It is a high-footed kraterofa distinctivepotterytypeknownas Tell ware,whichis characterized el-Yehudiyeh bya series ofpuncturesin the clay thatarefilled in with white chalk.Frequentlythepuncturesarearrangedto formgeometricpatternsof decoration.In this case theyhave beeningeniouslyusedto suggesthair, is almosta eyebrows,andbeard.Theface represented caricaturewithexaggerated facialfeaturesof curving eyebrowsthatextenddown to the cheekbones,a long thin nose,a narrowbeard,and hugeschematic earsthatalsoserveas handlesto the vase. Thevase is 21 centimetershigh and datesfromthe eighteenth to seventeenthcenturiesB.C.(IDAM321366)
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOWDGISTISEFPTEMBER
157
BronzeAge(1550-1200B.C.)is especiallystrongin materialfromthe sitesof Beth-shean, rheSDeir Late The jewelryfromPetrie'sexcavationsat the lattersiteis the finestto el-Balal,andTell
el-CAjjul. haveemergedfromCanaanitelevelsandincludespendants,bracelets,andevenornamentalfliessimilarto thoseconferredfor valoramongthe Egyptianmilitaryduringthe EighteenthDynasty.The larger-than-life, fromDeir el-Bala (nearlyfifty havebeenfoundto date)reflectssomewhat pottery,anthropoidsarcophagus eerilythe practicecommon in the EgyptianDeltaof burialin cartonnagecoffins.Similarfindshavebeen madeat Lachish,Tellel-Farcah South,andBeth-shean,but those fromDeir el-Balabareespeciallyimpressive.
Thisbasaltorthostatwas originallyincorporatedinto the rightdoorjambof the entranceto the largeOrthostatTemplein the LowerCity of Hazor.Theorthostatwas notfoundin situ;it was discoveredin a deeppit underthefrontwall of the temple porchwhereit had beendeliberatelyburiedundera pile ofstones.Theprofilefigureofa reclininglion has beenexpertly carvedin bas-reliefon one ofthe longsidesof the slab while its head,chest,andfrontpaws have beencarvedalmostin the effect,on one of the shortends.Thecrouchinglion wouldhavepresenteda powerfulimage round,creatinga three-dimensional and is datedto themid-secondmillenniumB.c.(IDAM67-1654) to thetemplevisitor Theorthostatis 91by 182by 60 centimeters
158
1986 ARCHAEOLOGISTISEPTEMBER BIBULICAL
Discoveredwith a potter'swheel in a building at Hazor that may have been used as a potter'sworkshop,this thick ceramic mask was formed by hand like a shallow bowl and was roughlyfinished. Stylized eyebrowsframe the large empty eye sockets,while the nose, mouth, and pointed chin are more delicately shaped in relief The ears, which protrudefrom the sides of the head, were separatelymodeled in clay and attached to the mask. Because the mask is only 14 centimetershigh, and thereforecould not have been worn by an adult, it may have been used to cover the face of a statue or was displayed by hanging from somesurface.Threepairs ofholes, one at the top a.ndtwo at the sides, were used to attach the mask. It was found in area C at the site and dates between the fourteenthand twelfth centurieslH.. (IDAM 67-:1.95)
Somefifty anthropoidsarcophagiwere discoveredduring excavations of the cemetery at Beth shean. This lid is one of a few that were representedin the exaggeratedmanner that has been called the grotesquestyle. The facial featuresand decorationson the clay lid were createdby both modeling and appliqudtechniques.A headdressof two horizontalbands above a row of projecting knobs has been comparedto the headgear worn by the Sea Peoplesdepicted on the Egyptian reliefsof RamessesIII. The clay lid dates to the twelfth or eleventh centuriesB.c. and is 63.5 centimeterslong. (IDAM P1431) BIBLICAL ARCILALEOLOG ISTiSUL•U1ET.R
1986
15')
ot surprisingly,the Iron Age (1200-539 B.C.)materialisvaried dating to the eighth centuryB.c., were once in substanceandquality.Alongside probablyinlaysfor elaboratewoodfirmiture the delicatelycarved,semiprecious thathas not beenpreserved.A verticalrow gemstonesbearingHebrewnames recalls of the repeatingsacred-treemotif arethe sculpturalivorycarvingsfrom decorations in the which in turndiffercomof Temple of Megiddo, descriptions from the only slightlylater Solomonin 1Kings6:29-32.(IDAM33.2565) pletely ivory inlaysunearthedat Samaria. Delicatelycarvedin an openworkplaqueis These objectscontrastsharplywith a sceneofa sphinxwearingtheflattened such bizarrecreationsas relatively doublecmwnofEgyptwhileit stridesthromugh the cult standsfromAshdod pottery a thicketof lotusblossoms.(IDAM33.2572) andTaanach.Yetthey areall partof ThecommonancientNearEasternreprethe legacyof the IronAge.
IntricatelycarvedivoriesfromSamadria,
sentationof animalsin combatis the subject wherea lion, in a of anothercomposition, ratherawkwardposition,is attackinga dyingbull.(IDAM33.2552)
Thisobject,of unknownprovenance,is th the RomanperiodfromIsrael.Twenty-om on one sidewith laurelbranchesand on ta fromamphorae.In the centeris sprninging aroundthe baseof the domeis a friezeofe lampwouldhave beensuspendedby chai dome.Thehandlefor carryingthe lampi: beenpoured.Thismold-madelamp mnea first centuryA.D.(IMJ71.82.298)
T
Utk
1D6
R 1936 1BIIIBLCAL ARCHflAEORDGLl?ST/?EIT''EMBEN
_A
he middle of the Second
TemplePeriodis scarcelyrepresented,possiblybecauseof the precariousnatureof Seleucidruleand the Hasmoneannationalresurgence. Yetdespitethe paucityof remains (includinga bronzebowl, an incense shovel,andan Achaemenidrhyton, which arein the exhibit)we know thatthe foundationsof normative Judaismwerebeinglaidat this time. The transitionfromHellenism to Romanhegemonycanbe feltin the contrastof suchwonderful worksas a bronzeandsilverpanther fromAvdatandclassicalsculptural worksin bronze,stone,andivory afterthe victoryof Pompeyin 63 B.c. From this laterperiodthe most impressivework of artis the bronze statueof HadrianfromTellShalem nearBeth-shean.It wasa chancefind
Slargestand most beautifulpottery lamp of nozzlessurrounda square that is decorated other three with vine leaves and tendrils , rdome crowned by a large rosette,and even pillars with voluted capitals. The isattached through the three holes in the next to the hole into which oil would have res35 centimetersin width and dates to the
andformsthe centerpieceof a gallery devotedto classicalandclassically inspiredworks.The artisticandreligiousinroadsmadeby the Romans aresymbolizedby two sculpturesof divinities:Kore(Persephone)from Samaria,andNemesisin the formof a griffinfromErez,in the vicinityof whichtherewasbelievedto have beena templeraisedin her honor, possiblyby Romansoldiers. IndigenousJewishartfromthe Second Temple Period (539 B.C.-A.D.
70)includesa superbmultiple-nozzle potterylampandtemplefurnishings froma synagogueat En-gedi.There arealsomosaicsfromthe sitesof KissufimandBeth-shean,with the latter supplyinga detaileddepictionof an arkwith Torahscreen,menorot, shofar,andincenseshovel.
Nemesis, the goddess of vengeance, has been assimilated with her attribute the griffin in this marble sculpturefrom Erez in the northwesternNegeb. The griffin's right paw restson the Nemesian wheel offate. A Greek inscription appears on the socle of the statue: "Year522. I, Mercurios,son of Alexander, dedicate [this statue] during my priesthood."The date given in the inscription correspondsto A.D.210/211. The cult of Nemesis was widely practiced in Roman Egypt; soldiers may have introduced the cult to inhabitants of Israel in their movement to pagan urban centers along the Mediterranean coast. It is believed that a temple dedicated to Nemesis existed somewhere between Ashkelon and Gaza. The sculpture measures 48 by 53 centimeters.(IDAM 57-866)
From the remains ofa sixth-century-A.D. synagogue at En-gedi come two unusual bronze objects. Although the solidly cast menorah is rathercrudely made, it is important because it is one of only two three-dimensionalmenorahsthat have been discovered in ancient synagogues. Thefunction ofthe pyxis, which is hammered in two parts out ofa sheet of bronze, is unknown. The objects were discovered next to a semicircular niche in the north wall of the synagogue, which housed the Ark of the Law. Both are 14.5 centimetershigh. (IDAM 70-612; IDAM 70-1746)
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
161
~c~'E~7~it cl ~ ~ t' I? ~ r?
'I
r
,* ?C ;
~Ir
.f!
"t
c4~
I
?L
Pontius Pilate,theRomanprefect ofJudeafromA.D.26to36,
C r r, ri
1'
I
r
C - ~
~ v
t~ '. ?
~~ ~ECf~p
;~uq.j
?~
r
eI
`U
?~ZI'
u f\, 'r
~
r
tr ~
it~~c;Ei: or
r?1? ~'L~*~
t
~
r
~ `yr~~'tPAt;lt C~II
t~i
~ur :I
t~l??,
'L
t
-6: ,?
~
I?
f
C ~?h6 r ~J~'
~
I? 3L.
~u u ,
=~LI;I~*rr~I E;f?~L:e.~[~i~j~4 ~S~R~j~f~ C?* Ik r: '?-~CPI*~C~ '* t i?r ~~sC *?
~CCIP,
is knownfrom the New Testamentas the person who authorizedthe executionoffJesusand is also mentioned in the works of the ancient historianJosephus.Until the dis~iic~j covery of this inscribedstonefrom Caesarea,however, no contemporaneousarchaeological,numismatic,or epigraphic evidence corroboratedhis existence. This unique stone was found during the excavationsof the theaterat Caesarea, which had been built by Herod the Greatand later transformed into a fortress.It had been reusedin a reconstruction phase as a step, and part of its inscriptionwas damaged at that time. The remainingLatin inscriptionreads: ". .. TIBERIEUM . . [PO]NTIUS PILATUS/. . . [PRAEF]ECTUSIUDA[EA]E."It probably relatedto a building (the Tiberieum)that was erectedby Pontius Pilate in honor of the EmperorTiberius.The stone measures 82 by 65 centimeters.(IDAM 61-529)
"Hitherwere brought/The bones of Uzziah/King ofJudah./Do not open!"Thisfunerary inscriptionis the only known ancient artifact that contains the name of a king of Judah. It was found overfifty years ago in the Russian Orthodoxmonasteryon the Mount of Olives and thereis nothing known of its originalprovenance other than it was discoveredat the end of the nineteenthcentury. This 1Y? Aramaic inscriptionof Uzziah, who is describedas a leper king in 2 Chronicles26:23, dates between thefirst century B.c. and thefirst centuryA.D.ratherthan to the time of Uzziah (the eighth centuryB.c.). Uzziah'sremainsmay have been removedfrom their original grave during the expansionofJerusalemat the end of the Hasmoneanperiod or during the reign of Herod the Great. This stoneplaque, which is approximately35 centimeterssquareand 6 centimetersthick,probably was used to seal the new burial niche or was set in the wall above the niche. (IMJ68.56.32)
~me~a~j~ ,,
C?
6
v
!w
r Z
r I
*=
162
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
~?
I
a
5
r~iris ''
H
'I;I;1 4
cl1
:-? *?
~~p~ L
Excavated near the TempleMount in Jerusalem, this first-century-B.C.stone originally formed part of a parapet on a building at the southwest corner of the Templeenclosure. Its inscription reads "tothe place of trumpeting"and is followed by another word, of which only two letters and part of a third have survived. The complete translation can be read several ways depending on the identification of the final letter. One suggestion is "tothe place of trumpeting to de[clarej]," which may referto the tradition recordedby Josephus of a priest who sounded a trumpet to mark the approach and close of the Sabbath. Another reading, "tothe place of trumpeting to dis[tinguish],"may reflecta referencein the Mishnah of blowing the trumpet three times to announce the separation of the Sabbath from the rest of the week. The stone measures31 by 84 by 26 centimeters. (IDAM 78-1415)
1
.i rLI.?a,
I?
, Lt,
" I
FI
r ~?c~-
mportant epigraphicmaterialis Salsoon display.The earliestinscribed pieceis the "Houseof God"ostracon fromthe excavationsat ancientArad;in the finallinethe writerrefersto the which is the oldestrefer'BeitYahweh," enceto the Templein Jerusalem.From the earlysixthcenturyB.C.area number of semiprecioussealsprovidingvaluable onomasticinformation.One in particularnamesan unknownprincess, Maadana,a daughterof a kingof Judah. Fromthe SecondTemplePeriodcomes an inscriptionmentioningthe "placeof trumpeting,thatpoint alongthe southern edgeof the Templeplatformfrom which the startandcloseof the Sabbath wereannouncedby a trumpetblast.A epitaphforthe leper first-century-B.C. Uzziah of Judah(769-733B.c.) King carriesan Aramaicinjunctionnot to open the king'sossuary.A blockfrom CaesareamentioningPontiusPilateis the sole contemporaryevidencecorroboratinghis existence.The Siloam hoard,a troveof JewishandTyrian shekels,includescoins datedshanat alephandshanatbethsignifyingyears one and two (66 and 67 A.D.)of the
FirstJewishWar.Finally,severalof the DeadSeaScrolls-a parchmentfrom Masadacontainingportionsof the Psalms,andtheHabakkukcommentary fromQumran-serveas a codato the exhibition.
-.~~r
;I
.tV wr' ~1
rn4'
w
_
-
er
*l~y? 1'I
?~
Found during the excavations of the fortressof Masada, these manuscript fragments contain portions of the book of Psalms. They date to before A.D.74.
This beautifully crafted, bronzepyxis was purchased by an antiquities dealer in 1950. At that time it contained some forty Tyrianand Jewish shekels and was believed to have been found in the Siloam area ofJerusalem. Many of the coins were individually sold by the dealer until ProfessorA. Reifenbergpurchased the pyxis and remaining twelve coins. The association of these particular coins is significant because it indicates that Jewish shekels were circulated at the same time as late Tyrianshekels, a fact that was unknown to numismatistspreviously. The pyxis is 9 centimeters high and has a diameter of 7.5 centimeters.(On loan from the Reifenbergfamily, Jerusalem)
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
1986
163
Eighteen ossuaries,including this unusualexample, werefound in a burial cave on the southernslope ofMount Scopus.Allfour sides of this first-century-B.c. stone vessel were elaborately decorated with architecturalfacades and doorways. The unfinished back and some of the details missingfrom the short sides indicate that the decoration was abandoned before completion and that the ossuary was probably never sold. Its incomplete state, however, reveals the various stages of the stonecutter'swork. Still visible are the initialfine incisions made by the artist to delineate the area to be decorated, which were followed by the carving of the main lines of the design, and then the completion of the details and final polishing. The vaulted lid appears to be slightly larger than the ossuary base and was probably originally created for another similar ossuary. The ossuary without the lid measures47 by 81 by 40.5 centimeters. (IDAM 74-1508)
Israelhasboth welcomedandtolerateddiversecultures, any of Israel'srenownedand most painstakingly tellsfigureprominentlyin the exhibition. which haveleft an unmistakableimpressin the material Sexcavated record.Much of the oldestmaterialis culticin nature,but Indeed,so manyof the objectsarefromcontrolledexwith the comingof the Israelites, the importanceof cult cavationsthat it hasbeenpossibleto organizea numberof wanedandthe periodof personalpiety andthe written the displaysasarchaeological clusters,the chiefones 1 wordcameto the fore.The beingthe ossuariesfromAzor, I the coppertreasurefrom primacyof the writtenword NahalMishmar,the shrineof is the hallmarkof Judaism, She exhibition is accompanied by a fully illusthe stelaefromHazor,glass Christianity,andIslamandis Strated catalog (280pages,79 color plates)written our inheritancefromthe land andpotteryfroma tomb at by the curatorialstaff of the IsraelMuseum and pubof Israel.The exhibitionis MishmarHaemek,anddolished by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New thus morethan a surveyof mesticandfunerarymaterial York.The contributorsare as follows: the artof ancientIsrael.It inJerusalem. fromexcavations of E. Soher Curator Uri Avida, Rodney Hellenisleadsthe viewerup to and Theseclustersareimportant tic, Roman,and Byzantine Periods Sea Scrolls Curator of the Dead Broshi, Magen becausethey provideviewers beyondthat momentwhen a of Israelite and Curator Michal Dayagi-Mendels, that for material with context significantchangeoccurredin PersianPeriods the way mankindviewedhis they mightotherwisefind YaelIsraeli, Chief Curatorfor Archaeology relationshipwith himself, perplexing. Professor YaakovMeshorer, Curator of Numisthe world,andGod, matics others, A simpleenumerationof Prehistoric Periods the ramifications of which we of Curator Dr. Tamar Noy, the highlightsof Treasures of Curator of Chalcolithic Senior Miriam Tadmor, arestillstrugglingto absorb. theHoly Landdoesnot conand Canaanite Periods uncanhint at the or even vey The catalog is divided into nine historical sections Acknowledgment ny powerof this materialto with a tenth devoted to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Each evokein eachof us a desireto Legendsfor the photographs section includes an introductoryessay, comparative in this articlearebasedon know moreof our cultural photographs,and map. It is available in both a hardcover and a paperedition. informationprovidedin the andspiritualorigins.Perhaps All photographs in this articlearecourtesyof David exhibition morethanany otherland, catalog. Harris. 3
ExhibitionCatalog
164
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGISTISEfTEMBER
1986
Thislimestoneplaque,datingto thefifth centuryA.D.,was usedasprotectionagainstthe evil eye. Carvedin a gabled design,a centralniche is flanked by two architectural menorahs,indicatingthe ownersof the plaque were K Jewish. The circularhollow in the middle of the • hollowsat niche,as wellas thethreesemicircular the top, were originallyinlaid with mirrors thatwereintendedto distractand wardoffthe
evileye.Oneofthemirrors hasbeenpreserved
9
in place. Theplaque,which measures31.5by 27.5 centimeters,was coveredwith a lightcoloredslip;tracesofredpaintappliedoverthe
S
Sslip
still remain. Its provenance is unknown.
(HebrewUniversity2473)
65 Originallypart of a statuettethat was approximnately centimeters high,thiscastbronzebustisofa youthwhosehead is slightlyorientedto therightand who is lookingdownward, probablyat somethingthat was held in his righthand. The of Greekprototypes ofthefourthcentury nortraitis reminiscent but is a Roman work to thefirst century dating probably B.c. A.D. Unfortunately, theprovenanceof the bustis unknown,but it isprobablethatit camefroma majorRomancenterin Israel suchas Beth-shean orSamaria.It ispreservedto a heightof (IMJ77.25.997) 15.5centimeters.
I
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTSEPTEMBER1986
165
e
of Symbols
Power ike historical scholarship of the Bible in general, the study of the United Mon-
archy (about 1000 to 922 B.C.E.)has too often been preoccupied with merely giving an account of what happened-thereby yielding a purely descriptive, chronological, and essentially political history that has concentrated on only a few leading individuals. I believe that we need to broaden our view of this important period of Israelite history by attempting to understand its events within their social context. In the present paper I would like to look at one response of the Davidic kings to the strains and conflicts occasioned by their rule: their use of royal propaganda-the dissemination throughout the social system of a set of symbolic forms by which the dynasty expressed its right to rule. In doing this I will use the available archaeological record of the period as much as possible. Unfortunately, this record is not great. Therefore, I will also make use of the analogies that can be found in the rich deposits of cultural anthropology. Propaganda The popular conception of propaganda as the attempt by an individual or government to trick an audience into accepting lies needs to be recast for the present paper. Propaganda is de-
166
fined here as the process by which a particular worldview (ideology) is disseminated to a specific audience. It is most effective when that worldview reinforces or confirms beliefs or attitudes already held - although often the audience. unconsciously-by Thus, in analyzing propaganda, it is very important to identify the audience being addressed, and Taylor (1979: 21; see also Foulkes 1983: 9) has pointed out that one cannot speak of propaganda unless a link between the propagandist and the audience can be established. The Importance of Propaganda to the State The period of the United Monarchy spans the transition of early Israel from a loose confederation of groups into a state.' Cultural anthropology has shown us that the ability of a prestate polity to evolve from a chiefdom to statehood (and then survive) is largely dependent upon its ability to achieve legitimacy. A common way for a state to maintain control, and thus legitimize itself, is through the use of force. But another method, which is usually less costly and more politically efficient, involves the use of symbolic forms-that is, propaganda. Jones and Kautz pointed to this important factor in the survival of early states:
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
Aspects of
Royal Propaganda
in
the
United
Monarch BYKEITH WHITELAM
Whether the control exercised is benevolent or malevolent, it appearsto be a universalfeatureof any hierarchicalpolity that the perceptions of how interests are best served are constantly manipulated by those who monopolize power.It is the success or failure of rulers in convincing those being ruled that may ultimately determine the success or failure of the history of individualpolities, regardlessof the
nature of that rule or the motivations of the rulers.(Jonesand Kautz 1981b:20) History provides many examples of regimes that constructed elaborate symbolic universes to justify their monopoly and manipulation of power. Roman architecture, for example, is an outstanding example of the use of monuments for selfjustification (Brilliant 1974; Han-
Drawing of an entryway with Proto-Aeolic capitalson pilastersthat has been reconstructed at the Israel Museum. According to Yigal Shiloh, this style of capital is one of the two most characteristicarchitecturalelements of public buildings during the period of the United Monarchy.Drawing is by Linda Huff.
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
1986
167
The UnitedMonarchyruledan agrariansociety,wheremostof thepowerwas held by an urbanelite.Much of itspropaganda musthave beenfor thisaudience. nestad 1979; Thomson 1977: 55-67). Negligence of symbolic manipulation, on the other hand, can bring reversal and even defeat (compare Thomson 1977: 38). The account of Rehoboam's rejection by the north in 1 Kings 12 is a paradigm of political insensitivity and the failure of the threat of force by the state. In the ancient Near East the worldview that a state or city-state disseminated in order to legitimize itself frequently centered on one member of a ruling elite, the king, who was powerful and wealthy and who had a right to rule by virtue of divine connections (Oppenheim 1979: 112). Various media were used to express this view, including coins, seals, steles, and monumental architecture such as palaces and temples. The different types of media used had to be matched to the needs of different audiences. For instance, consider the nature of the political power-structure of agrarian societies and, particularly, early agrarian states. Power is invested in the hands of a relatively small, usually urban, elite. The struggle for power is between factions of the elite (Lenski 1966: 211) and so the greatest concentration of propaganda is directed at this restricted audience. The elite form the most serious threat or potential threat to the king and royal family and therefore much propaganda is aimed at this elite audience in order to reiterate and reinforce the right of the king to rule and the need to deny counterclaims to the throne. This is particularly true of the written or inscribed material in societies with restricted literacy. Hannestad (1979: 362) noted that although coinage was used by later Roman emperors, especially Caesar and Augustus, to reach wide audi-
168
ences, the coinage of the final phase of the Roman Republic reveals the struggle for power between great families. The symbols of state began to disappear from coins after 130 B.C.E. and were eventually omitted altogether. From this point on the choice of symbols and legends were dictated by private politics as the great families struggled for supremacy. Hannestad also pointed out that many of the allusions were subtle, and therefore were only comprehensible to those with some education. As an aside, it is worth considering that the private seals of monarchic Israel may well have served similar motives and have been aimed at a similarly restricted audience. If this is so, then these seals functioned as status symbols in competition with claims to political and economic status from other leading families. Royal Propaganda in the United Monarchy During the Davidic monarchy the reality of royal rule, legitimized by divine sanction, had to be communicated both internally and externally, and both to an elite and a general audience. Because the monarchy operated in an agrarian society, much of its propaganda must have been for the benefit of the elite. Although present evidence does not make it possible to say much about written propaganda aimed at this audience, let me mention one example. The narrative complex in 1 Samuel 9 to 1 Kings 2 represents an official royal interpretation of events in defense of David aimed at an elite audience in the main centers of power (Whitelam 1984). Despite its subsequent incorporation into the canon and change of literary context,
it is still possible to discern in this
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
writing an attempt to legitimize the Davidic dynasty through a defense of the founder and his successor in response to charges and suspicions, whether real or imagined (McCarter 1980, 1981; Whitelam 1984). The skillful concentration on the clash of personalities within the royal court and their dramatic dialogue would act as a counter to any real or potential threat to Davidic power. The fate of Saul and his family or supporters, along with the summary executions of the usurpers Absalom and Adonijah, provided ample warning to the urban elite or those at the royal court who might have designs upon the throne. David's retort to Abishai's urgings to kill Saul carried an explicit threat to all potential rivals: For who can put forth his hand against the Lord'sanointed, and be guiltless?. . .As the Lordlives, the Lordwill smite him; or his dayshall come to die;or he shall go downinto battle andperish. (1Samuel26:9-10) The announcement of the death of Absalom by the Kushite runner carried a similar threat (2 Samuel 18:32). Clearly, this royal perception and presentation of personalities and events were intended to secure the throne of David and were directed at a restricted, rather than general, audience. Let us look now at one of the most striking ways that royal ideology was disseminated to a wider audience, including the elite, and examine how the message worked. As is typical of a society following its transition to statehood (Haas 1982), the time of the early monarchy under David and, particularly, Solomon was a period that saw the development of Israelite monumental art and architecture (Dever 1982:
The acropolis at Hazor with its impressive Solomonic fortificationgate and casemate walls would have communicated the strength and power of its inhabitants by its sheer size and fine architecturalexecution.
270). Royalfortifications, templepalace complexes, and public buildings would have displayedbefore a wide audience, both internal and external, the might, power,and wealth of the king and his court. The sheer size of the structures would have denoted assurance and power,and their visibility and simplicity would have communicated to all levels of society. The classic examples of the effectiveness of this type of material are the pyramidsof Egyptand the monumental art and architecturethat celebratedthe glory of Rome and its Caesars. Forthe United Monarchy,the well-known casemate walls of the Solomonic period at Hazor,Megiddo, Gezer, T11lBeit Mirsim, BethShemesh, and T1l Qasile, along with others of less certain date at Shiqmona, Arad,and T11lel Kheleifeh (Dever 1982:289), clearly display immediate images of strength, power, and military might denoting protection for the population and offering a warning to external threat. This real and symbolic display of power was especially important at border fortifications because they defined the areaunder the king's protection. The importance attached to royal
One of the largest examples of Israelite city fortifications is from the IronAge remains of Khirbetel-Marjameh.The city's isolation on the eastern slopes of the Ephraimitehill country must have enhanced its symbolic significance of royalpower. Drawing is by L. Reetmeyer.
fortifications is reflected in the biblical traditions (forexample 2 Chronicles 17:12,26:9-10, and 27:4) as well as the archaeologicalrecord. Khirbetel-Marjamehrepresents a striking and immediate symbol of royalpower."Oneof the largest Israelite city fortifications so far discovered"(Mazar1982:173), its isolation on the eastern slopes of the Ephraimite hill country must have served to enhance its symbolic significance. The same might be said of Khirbet Abu et-Tweinon the western slopes of the Hebronhills overlooking the Shephelah (Mazar1982: 174-77) or the fortifications of the Negeb dating to the IronAge (Cohen 1979). The focal point of royalfortifications, which display the military might and ability of the king to defend state territory,is the city-gate. The splendid Solomonic city-gates at Hazor,Megiddo,and Gezer are the finest examples of this important symbolism of royalpower.In the case of the gates at Megiddo and Gezer, the visual imagery is ad-
vanced by their skillful construction with finely worked ashlar blocks, whereas the Hazor gate was constructed with unhewn fieldstones (Aharoni 1982: 196).The enormous size of the gates (approximately19 to 20 meters long and 16 to 18 meters wide), particularlywhen constructed with such fine lines as providedby the ashlar masonry,would have presented striking visual images to a very wide audience. The Iron Age gate at Dan, attributed by the excavator to JeroboamI, was even larger (29.5 meters long and 17.8 meters wide) than these splendid constructions (Biran1975:319). The promise of protection from external threat and the guarantee of internal peace and stability so necessary for fertility and prosperity in an agrariansociety conveyedby these forms, would have been continually reinforced (see, for example, Psalms 72 and 89). The simplicity and immediateness of these visual images should not be allowed to obscure less tangible or less immediate significance
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTISEPTEMBER
169
Plan and isometric reconstructionof the IronAge fortressat Khirbet Abu et-Itvein.
conveyed by these constructions. The gateway, usually the weakest link in urban fortifications, provided the essential link and marked the boundary between the rural hinterland and the city as the political, economic, religious and judicial center. If the state is thought of as a set of concentric circles of power, then the outer limits were marked by border fortifications, while city-walls, and more specifically the gate, marked off an important area of urban, and so royal, power within those limits. The judicial significance of the gate in Israelite society is well known since there are frequent references to the administration of justice, usually by the elders of the town, "at the gate" (Genesis 23:10, 18; Deuteronomy 21:19 and 22:15; Ruth 4:1-12; Amos 5:10, 12, 15; Zechariah 8:16). The economic significance of the gate is less well understood. The rural population (comprising peasant, nomad, and bandit groups) was also closely tied to and dependent upon the regional and interregional economy centered upon the city. The urban center provided the regional market for local agricultural and
170
pastoral produce, as well as a market for the spoils of bandits and bedouin taken in raids. More importantly, many urban centers, particularly in the lowlands, were located on longdistance trade routes. It was this international trade, particularly in luxury goods, that was the foundation of the prosperity of the royal house and the urban elite. Any disruption to this trade not only undermined royal power but also had serious consequences for rural communities, as the collapse of eastern Mediterranean trade at the end of the Late Bronze Age shows (Coote and Whitelam, in press-a, in press-b). Entrance through the gate symbolized the acknowledgment of the location of the economic and political center of the region. As such, these constructions were important symbols within the royal symbolic universe and were in every respect symbols of power. The urban building program marked the politically significant center and made known the presence of the state. It defined the symbolic relationship between the ruler and the ruled. The distance between the ruler
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
and the ruled, the nonegalitarian and exploitative relationships of early agrarian states, was further emphasized by royal symbols of power within the cities in the form of monumental buildings that dominated most urban centers. Further reinforcement was provided by the fact that seemingly fine ashlar masonry was reserved for royal buildings (Aharoni 1982: 204). Shiloh (1979) has demonstrated that the two most characteristic architectural elements of public buildings during the monarchical period were ashlar masonry and the so-called Proto-Aeolic capital. All the capitals at the major royal sites of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, Samaria, and Ramat Rahel are found in connection with splendid ashlar masonry comprising significant parts of well-planned complexes at these sites from the tenth century B.C.E.onwards. Palace and temple complexes are the most important visual symbols of royal power and indicate more precisely the location of the center within a stratified society. Even so, other public buildings fulfill similar symbolic functions, thus strengthen-
Palaceand temple complexesare importantvisual symbolsofpower.
0
loin.
Above: The focal point of royalfortifications is the enormous city-gate, which would remind visitors of the ruler'smilitary strength. At Megiddo (left)and Gezer (middle) the Solomonic gates were constructed in finely worked ashlar masonry, therebyreinforcing the visual image of power and skill. The Solomonic city-gate at Hazor (right)was built with unhewn fieldstones. Left:The Solomonic gate at Gezer Courtesyof William G. Dever
ing the attitude-forming environment. Reade (1979: 331) described the Assyrian palace as "amassive corpus of personal propaganda."It is significant that the exteriors of the massive structures were relatively simple except for decoration at the entrances. Entry to the interior and throne room with its elaborate decorations was restricted to the courtly elite (Reade 1979: 335). The visual image presented to the widest audience (who saw only the exterior) was simple and immediate, while the most elaborate and subtle iconography in the interior of the building, with its complex message, was directed to a restricted elite audience in much the same way as written propaganda. Similarly, Carol Meyers (1983) has described how the major visual message of the Solomonic temple was conveyed by a fortified exterior that reinforced the ideas of strength and power seen in other monumental architecture. The dwelling place
Above: Variationsof the ProtoAeolic capital. Drawings from Shiloh 1979.Right: Restored position of Proto-Aeoliccapitals on engagedpillars fromSamaria. Drawing is afterThe Buildings at Samariaby J. W Crowfoot and others (London:Palestine ExplorationSociety, 1942).
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
171
of the deity was restricted to the king and his cultic functionaries. This expressed more than anything else how the king was at the sacred center, while the rest of the population was only related to this through the monarch. The large twin pillars of Jachin and Boaz at the entrance provided the visual link to the unseen grandeur within. Understanding their symbolic value becomes all the more important from such a perspective because they represented to the world at large that which existed unseen within the building. The temple, then, provides a location for ritual central to the legitimacy of the dynasty. It defines the sacred relationship of the center, thereby providing symbolic legitimacy to the royal elite. The immense investment of resources involved in producing and maintaining such monumental religious structures clearly indicates their social and political significance as symbols of legitimacy in agrarian states. As with the city-gate, the economic significance of the temple should not be overlooked, since its courtyards provide the location for markets. More importantly, the temple also functions as a treasure storehouse. This again conveys the notion of the king as the central symbolic figure; the treasure is the result of gifts conveyed from rulers and peoples in all parts of the world to the king and his god, Yahweh, or the profits from the international luxury trade. The symbolic significance of the temple-palace complex as a treasure store is illustrated in the incident when Hezekiah provided the Babylonian envoys of MerodachBaladan with a conducted tour: And Hezekiah welcomed them, and he showed them all his treasure house, the silver,the gold,the spices, the precious oil, his armory,all that was found in his storehouses;there was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them. (2 Kings 20:13;see also Isaiah 39:2) As we have seen, such monumental
172
architecturewith its complex internal iconographyis multifunctional, symbolizing the power,wealth, might, and right to rule of the king. Yet its various forms of media are aimed at different audiences. It is commonly asserted on the basis of the description of Solomon's buildingprogramdescribedin 1 Kings that the imagery and symbolism used to adornthe temple-palace complex was derivedfrom Phoenician craftsmen and was, thus, of foreign origin. The general conclusion drawnfrom this is that the temple represents an alien intrusion into Israelite society. Ahlstrom (1982:36), however,believes that the Solomonic temple may well be an Israelite contribution to the architectureof the ancient Near East. The text of 1 Kings 5 through 11strongly conveys the notion of the king as the central symbolic figure and Jerusalem,his capital with its royalsanctuary,as the divine dwelling place and center of the cosmos. There is no reason to assume, however,that the iconography incorporatedinto these buildings was not chosen by the Jerusalem court to portrayits vision of the royal symbolic universe. The biblical text emphasizes how the temple, as center, drawsraw materials and foreign labor from the surrounding areas (1 Kings 7:13).In the same way,the queen of Shebais drawnto the center to witness for herself the display of wealth and wisdom (1 Kings 10).This tradition clearly illustrates the extent of the symbolic power of the center emanating to ever-distantboundaries (1Kings 10:6-7, 24) as both the queen of Sheba and the fleet of Hiram (1 Kings 10:10-11,25) bring luxury items from the ends of the world. This is highlighted in the staggering list of materials and luxuries transported to Jerusalemfrom distant parts (1 Kings 10:14and following). The trade in horses and chariots conducted through the Solomonic kingdom to surroundingkingdoms further enhances this notion of the
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
center. This, rounded off by a list of Solomon's foreign wives (1 Kings 11), illustrates the extent of his political and economic influence. Conclusion This textual tradition and the archaeological evidence for the monarchic period bear out the view of Shils that the center of social order has "nothing to do with geometry and very little to do with geography" (1975: 3). The symbols of power described in the text and those preserved in the archaeological record locate society's center and affirm its connections with the divine realm. The royal symbolic universe of the early Israelite monarchy must have been conveyed by many different forms of communication aimed at different audiences. These symbols of power penetrate different levels of society with varying degrees of success. It is fair to assume that political, economic, and ideological influence decreased proportionately with the distance of the village from the capital or other urban centers. The greatest concentration of symbolism was aimed at the urban elite, who posed the most powerful threat, whether real or potential, to the occupant of the royal throne and his dynasty. The various forms of propaganda reinforced the right of the king and his family to rule, while the unambiguous displays of military power and wealth, linked to divine legitimacy, acted as a warning to any potential threat from within or without. Although we do not have a complete picture of the mechanics by
which it was disseminated, the effectiveness of the royalpropaganda meant for external consumption is clear in the reportof the visit of the queen of Sheba to Solomon's court: The report was true which I heard in my own land of youraffairsandof your wisdom, but I did not believe the reportsuntil I came andmy own eyes had seen it; and, behold, the half was not told me; your wisdom
and prosperity surpass the reports which I heard (1Kings 10:6-7)
Dever,W.G.
1982 MonumentalArchitecturein Ancient Israelin the Periodof the United Monarchy. Pp. 269-306 in Studies in Notes the Periodof David and Solomon, 'There are many anthropological edited by T Ishida.WinonaLake: studies that proveuseful in understandEisenbrauns. ing the development of the state. The Foulkes,A. P. most important studies of early state for1983 Literatureand Propaganda.London: Methuen. mation can be found in Service and FrickF. Cohen (1978),Claessen and Skalnik 1985 TheFormationof the Statein Ancient (1978, 1981),and Jonesand Kautz (1981a). Israel. Decatur,GA: Almond. Frick (1985)has recently producedan J. Haas, important monographon the formation 1982 The Evolutionof the Prehistoric of the Israelite state that utilizes anthroState. New York:Columbia Univerpological material. The complex processsity Press. es involvedin the transition from preHannestad,N. state polities to an Israelite state are dis1979 Rome-Ideology and Art. Some Discussed in Coote and Whitelam (in press). tinctive Features.Pp.361-90 in Powerand Propaganda.A SympoHauer (1984)has also investigatedthe sium on Ancient Empires,edited by of studies of importance anthropological M. T. Larsen.Copenhagen:Akadestate formation for understandingthe misk Forlag. rise of the Israelite monarchy. M. Harris, more a detailed study of the 2For 1980 CulturalMaterialism. The Struggle narrativeas defensive propagandaaimed for a Science of Culture.New York: at the urban elite, see Whitelam (1984). VintageBooks. Hauer,C. 1984 FromAlt to Anthropology:The Rise Bibliography of the IsraeliteState.Paperpresented Aharoni,Y to the Society of BiblicalLiterature, 1982 TheArchaeologyof the Holy Land. Southeast Section, March 1984. Fromthe PrehistoricBeginnings to Jones,G. D., and Kautz,R. R. the End of the First TemplePeriod. 1981a The Transitionto Statehoodin the London:SCM. New World.Cambridge:Cambridge G. Ahlstrom, W. University Press. 1982 RoyalAdministration and National 1981b Issues in the Study of New World Religionin Ancient Palestine.Leiden: State Formation.Pp.3-34 in The Brill. Transitionto Statehoodin the New Biran,A. World.Cambridge:Cambridge 1975 Dan, Tel. Pp.313-20 in Encyclopedia University Press. of ArchaeologicalExcavationsin the Holy Land 1, edited by M. Avi-Yonah. Lenski, G. E. 1966 Powerand Privilege.A Theoryof London:OxfordUniversity Press. Social Stratification.New York: Brilliant,R. McGraw-Hill. 1974 RomanArt from the Republic to Mazar,A. Constantine. London:Phaidon. 1982 Three IsraeliteSites in the Hills of Claessen, H. J.M., and Skalnik, P. Judahand Ephraim.Biblical Arche1978 TheEarlyState.The Hague:Mouton. ologist 45: 167-78. 1981 The Study of the State. The Hague: McCarter,P.K. Mouton. 1980 The Apology of David. Journalof Cohen, R. Biblical Literature90: 489-504. 1979 The IronAge Fortressesin the Cen1981 Plots, Trueor False.The Succession tral Negev. Bulletin of the American Narrativeas Court Apologetic. InterSchools of Oriental Research236: pretation 35: 355-67. 61-79. Meyers,C. Coote, R. B., and Whitelam, K. W. 1983 Jachinand Boazin Religiousand in The Emergenceof Israel:Social Political Perspective.Catholic Bibpress-a Transformationand State Formation lical Quarterly45: 167-78. following the Decline in LBATrade. Oppenheim,A. L. In Social Scientific Criticism of the 1979 Neo-Assyrianand Neo-Babylonian Bible: Israelite Monarchy,edited by Empires.Pp. 11-144 in Propaganda N. K. Gottwald.Semeia forthcoming. and Communication in WorldHisin The Emergenceof Israel in HistorVolume 1. The Symbolic Instrutory ical GA: press-b Perspective.Decatur, ment of Early Times, edited by H. D. Almond Press.
Laswelland others. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Reade,J. 1979 Ideologyand Propagandain Assyrian Art. Pp.329-43 in Powerand Propaganda. A Symposiumon Ancient Empires.Editedby M. T. Larsen. Copenhagen:Akademisk Forlag. Service,E. R., and Cohen, R. 1978 Originsof the State. TheAnthropology of Political Evolution.Philadelphia:Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Shiloh, Y 1979 The Proto-AeolicCapital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry(Qedem 11). Jerusalem:Institute of Archaeology, HebrewUniversity. Shils, E. 1975 Centerand Periphery.Essaysin Macrosociology.Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. Taylor,R. 1978 Film Propaganda:Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. London:Croom Helm. Thomson, O. 1977 Mass Persuasionin History.A Historical Analysis of the Development of PropagandaTechniques.Edinburgh:PaulHarriss. Whitelam, K. W. 1984 The Defence of David. Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament29: 61-87.
Moving?
Make Sure BA Moves With You Pleaseattachyourmagazinemailinglabel to this couponandsendbothto:ASOR SubscriptionServices,DepartmentBB,P.O. Box3000,Denville,NJ07834.Besureto includeyournew addresson the form. Thankyou!
Attach Label Here
Name (please print) YourNew Address City State
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
Zip
173
Why Study the Septuagint? Author(s): Melvin K. H. Peters Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 174-181 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3209998 Accessed: 01/04/2010 21:45 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Biblical Archaeologist.
http://www.jstor.org
Why Study the SEP TUA GINT? K. H. PETERS BrMElfl's
he word Septuagint comes from the Latindesignation of the numeral 70, septuaginta, and has been applied conventionally, if somewhat loosely, to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This practice can be traced to a letter written in the late second century B.C.E.by a cer-
tain Aristeas to his brotherPhilocrates. The letter alleges that the Greek Pentateuch was producedat the request of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285247 B.C.E.)by seventy-two elders-six
from each of the twelve tribes of Israel- in Alexandria,Egypt.Philadelphus, having been informedby his librarian,Demetrius of Phalerum, that the royallibrarylacked a copy of the laws of the Jews(eventhough the librarycontained 200,000 volumes), orderedthat a letter be addressed to Eleazar,the high priest in Jerusalem,requesting that elders skilled in translating the law be sent to Alexandriato preparea proper translation. It was by Aristeas and his companion Andreas,among others, that the request was transmitted to Jerusalem.The story states further that, on their arrivalin Alexandria,the elders were taken to the island of Pharoswhere, in seventytwo days, they produceda translation so accurate that when it was readto the Jews,they not only approvedit but also requesteda copy and decided that it should never be revised. Although this account by Aris-
174
teas was exposed as legend as early as 1705, it still provides the point of departurefor all discussions of the origin of the Septuagint.These days, however,it is understood that the origin is not Ptolemy Philadelphus' bibliophile interests but ratherthe liturgical needs of the Jewishcommunity in Egyptin the third century B.C.E.
*
1
U I
"
It
' " "
'
''
, C "• t *t" ("li
<
Cav I It 1
S
C Pty> a
i; K s,
&"A
9 '
V "
Is4
I
I it" ( ,
"r
.k&
and beyond. It is generally
agreed,further,that any history reflected in Aristeas is applicable only to the Pentateuch. The Greek texts of the Prophetsand of the Writings manifest a rangeof characteristics
'
I/i *
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOWDGIST/SEPTEMBER
l
U'
I&1
I
s'
vs ta rt ai
e
I
u
*0t,''.
a'"* s
m
.l
<
[tab
skK*
K(•.g
*
.
.. .*ltl
I
I II "
*raeI'p.
I(.0
t
NJ
- from slavishness to paraphrase,
from abbreviationto expansionand properlyshould be studied as individual units. Initially, then, it should be understood that the term Septuagint is a misnomer; it is used for convenience because it has become traditional. Anyonewho contemplatesstudythe Septuagint must be awareof ing the problems associated with this enterprise.To begin with, several books bearingor including the label Septuagint are availableto the modern reader.Some of these contain materials that are elsewhere classified as Apocryphaand even as Pseudepigrapha(fora definition of these two terms see the article on the Pseudepigraphaby Michael E. Stone in the December 1983 issue of BA, volume 46, number 4, pages 235-43). Even among undisputed Septuagint materials, two versions of the same text are sometimes printedin parallel
('
"
*%
It
| "''t'•/l'l
x
' Ntl • tI~f el h•'If'l'Iv 'I)6t' y.I "<)piirA)ar" i(/• .t"" ", . u<-,?. ,.. ".',- e. .
'
t,
n
I,
'
.('
xy nUi#f
I7
soa e
l(.la~
' "
t* I
"
e
,-o
I
II'
-
ta
!"
aoye
i~
la
se%
1-i'
&r
"
"'--|
"
"• I
~ (~)('t~
()•'• '.
1•4•1•I
0 't"Q~'
) 1
Y
"'[
f
1
•|
"()\?,l'.•(
,t•..
I~l)%k'
#2 3 'se
(7r r r r 4 ito
t<
Ill't
S*t
, (• IKI , IX cv '* AC
?
a.
"
" I J J4.1
1'rn.
BI S.ICA
fly.
s
<*
.
%•
"
6 \ aa . e It'y(* o li
ir
'y
sown 4
k) {}1 nros
o.
h;
4•1•1• N~if~~tlifI ,~--
l
-,ililll..
•,,
.
c.A'Jy•.mi•
)KI• I
wn
ska- l
0 tp
i
Y I*(
s I
'." Is Nk
••l" Ci:O • k k ', i•-~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i[.-i
"1"
, (•.t!
I
,
cAMc
r0
,k
( we &
ol
s.• L
s..
I y,-L
. ,Q,
1 weC•
Codex
A page from one of the great uncials-
*
P~bitfb6?
Alexandrinus.The text is the Decalogue. Takenfrom BritishMuseum. The Codex Alexandrinus(RoyalMS.ID v-viii) in Reduced PhotographicFacsimile (London:Ttusteesof the British Museum, 1915).All of the illustrations in this article, unless otherwise noted, are courtesy of The Collection of RareBooks, Duke University.
?:
I, i' ' ":
?~" ':?
?
.
. 2
U
Bo
"
e oL•
or.el
)L
'
3A1
I
e''%( t "I pt1OvAY s I'Ionasam*<&" s~ae-pS " )1 ".C g ,-vernatu
h S
()1
' I -tlqlr
t I>tU P b%!;1 Il l e (" i -i S
C 'IV
A 3o I
I(A9VSlttI%
g0 I lq'l HLl
I~'
(v~1-o.--s9Yhut
,
As~rs~e av"
, Sy.
, * * *6-rr
I* -o-
co
AI(r(bhi,t
It'
It
I , r:,(: 1 II Ic 'rv I'l'),~r .t'xcotece ,,'•I
•.1
" tN(@so p , o o!•
sg
,
I .'1'
gSI(0T#3lV
' 'n
o
.
"t
*V 1 1 Fc1h, i 4•,}' It1e•II
r t.1O .
e•iie-l --
-
t
I4-c
os
s
OS'43t)C
orfr:e it) I icY''
fl
i
s
rAS* *Ajc 1
lu
eta
* Oi 6.
o
f
N
i
t
t
'
I .%v
'3
u,'•
tt#.cn
IC
t3
(r
ss
AS
(' uiICN
bel.%'6cbyt'P.
I
at
.
f
/ ttN11I
Wtdint';~2
e pa t3r m r %AI;c~s,L
W
.
e.
en
a.Li..Vrry,,
)rjlgrw
??
o
1.9 t.
.i
ra.44pe&Aper" -~ ~I
%
*
cP
%?
Cb
An example of a cursivehand, from the beginningof the book of Judges.Cursivemanuscripts requiregreaterreadingskill than uncials because they often contain abbreviationsor conflations of letters. Illustration is providedcourtesy of the author
"'' '"
'
I
fle
*1
mrtaa
... -9* t-r-L.N
'
columns or succeeding each other on the same page. That is to say, the manuscript evidence for certain books is so divergent that some editors have decided to print two dominant forms of the text. It should also be pointed out that there is no English (or, to the best of my knowledge, other IndoEuropean language) translation of these writings that reflects the reading of a broad sampling of the existing Greek manuscripts. (And there are a lot of manuscripts: more than 100 manuscripts of the Pentateuch and over 750 of the Psalter.) The most accessible and popular English translation, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha with an English Translation and with Various Readings and Critical Notes, gives on its title page neither date of publication nor editor. We are told only that it was produced by Samuel Bagster and Sons of London, who began publishing in 1794. A quick look at its text reveals that it is based on the Greek manuscript B, Vaticanus, in the main. Without making any negative judgment on the quality of the translation into English, it must be said that Vaticanus is only one fourth-century text, and it is a mixed one (as indeed
all manuscripts are);and while it is a convenient point of departure in the printing of a diplomatic or a manual edition, its readings are demonstrably secondary in some instances. On the other hand, the manual
editions, though based on a representative sampling of the uncials (manuscripts written in capital letters), take little or no account of papyri, cursives (manuscripts written in lowercase letters), or versions and they do not supply the reader with a translation or a sufficiently detailed apparatus. Truly critical editions those editions that take into account all known evidence such as papyri, manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations - are available for only a portion of the corpus of the Septuagint. They too do not provide translations. For the person who does not read Greek, studying the Septuagint is a bewildering process, heightened by the fact that there is constant reference in commentaries and monographs to "the"Septuagint. Such a person must rely on a dated translation based on one or very few manuscripts at best or must trust someone who reads Greek to translate either from critical editions, where they exist, or from the limited manual editions. For the person who reads Greek, the latter two choices - manual and critical editions - are the only viable ones; certainly, the latter are always to be preferred. If one resolves the problem of texts and editions satisfactorily, one must yet come to terms with the matters of revisions and recensions. In the early history of the transmission of the Septuagint, three notable attempts were made to revise it. A literal revision was made by Aquila,
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTISEPTEMBER
175
largerCambridgeSeptuagint (as also the portableedition) printed the text of VaticanusB and recordedin its apparatusthe variantsof all the uncial manuscripts and a considerable number of cursives, some daughterversions, and patristic citations. It was much smaller in scope, though perhapsmore carefully done in places, than the largerOxfordof Holmes and Parsons. ModernSeptuagintstudies owe much to the work of Paul de Lagardeand his pupil Alfred Rahlfs. To the former must be credited the principle, now widely accepted, that, because all manuscripts of the Septuagintare mixed, the process of arriving at the original text must accordingly be eclectic. Lagardedid not publish any complete edition of the Septuagint, but his hypothesis for recoveringproto-Septuagintinfluenced directly the course of modern editions and especially the activity of Rahlfs. The first critical edition arrangedon Lagardianprinciples was the book of Ruth edited by Rahlfs in 1922, followed by Genesis in 1926, and Psalms in 1931.Rahlfsdied in 1935 only a few daysbeforethe publication of his manual edition of the entire Septuagintbased on the three majoruncials: VaticanusB, AlexandrinusA, and Sinaiticus (HebrewAleph or S),which to this day is still perhapsthe most widely used edition. Since Rahlf's death, the "Septuaginta Unternehmen der Gottingen Akademie"has continued to produceexcellent full critical editions based on the Lagardianprinciples. It is to these, where they exist, that the serious student is invited to turn. The firstprintedtext of the complete Septuagint PrintedEditions of the Septuagintwith VariantReadings. was included in the great Complutensian The G6ttingen Septuagint: Polyglot printedin Acala, Spain,between 1514and Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Aca1517.This was followed closely in 1518-19 by the demiae Scientarum Gottingensis editum: Part I Genesis (1974); Aldine edition in Venice. Part III, 1 Numeri (1982);III, 2 Deuteronomium (1977);VIII, 1 In 1587, the third great edition of the Old Esdraeliber I (1974);VIII,3 Esther (1966);VIII,4 ludith (1979);IX, I Maccabaeorumliber I (1936, 1967);IX,2Maccabaeorum liber II Testament was published in Rome under the auspices of Sixtus V-the Sixtina Romana. This edi(1959, 1976);IX,3 Maccabaeorumliber III (1960, 1980);X, Psalmi tion, in the main, rests upon the great Vatican Cum Odis (1931,1979);XI,4 lob (1982);XII,1 Sapienta Salomonis codex B (= Cod. Vat. Gr. 1209) with its lacunae (1962, 1980); XII, 2 Sapienta lesu Filii Sirah (1965, 1980); XIII, being filled from other manuscripts. Duodecim Prophetae (1943, 1967);XIV,Isaiah (1939, 1967);XV, The last of the four major editions, produced leremias, Baruch, Threni,Epistula leremiae (1957, 1976);XVI, 1 between 1707 and 1720 in Englandby JohnGrabe, Ezechiel (1952, 1977);XVI,2 Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (1954). was based on Codex AlexandrinusA. The CambridgeSeptuagint: Each of these early editions tried to present A. E. Brookeand N. McLeanand H. St. J.Thackeray,editors: The the text of either a representativemanuscript or a Old Testamentin GreekAccordingto the Textof Codex Vaticanus. groupof manuscripts.None attemptedto providea Volume I, The Octateuch: i, Genesis (1906);ii, Exodus, Leviticus critical apparatus,the concernsbeing practicaland (1909);iii, Numbers and Deuteronomy (1911);iv, Joshua,Judges, not critical. Ruth (1917);Volume II, The Later Historical Books: i, 1 and 2 It was not until 1798, and continuing until Samuel (1927);ii, 1 and 2 Kings (1930);iii, 1 and 2 Chronicles 1827, that the first and truly comprehensive edi(1932); iv, Esdras, Esra, Nehemiah (1935); Volume III, Esther, tion including extensive variantreadingsappeared. Judith, Tobit (1940). It was edited in Englandinitially by RobertHolmes The Oxford Septuagint: VetusTestamentum Graecum cum Varislectionibus. and subsequently by James Parsons. This work, Edidit RobertusHolmes: based as it was on some 300 manuscripts along with evidencefromthe versions,patristiccitations, Volume I: The Pentateuch (1798). and the four great editions mentioned above, reVolume II:Joshua-2 Chronicles (1810). mains in the minds of some still the most complete Volume III:2 Esdras-Canticles (1823). Volume IV:Prophets(1827). repositoryof data about the Septuagint. In the remainder of the nineteenth century, Volume V: the non-Canonical books, 1 Esdras-3rd Maccabees one other majoredition is noteworthy.The syndics (1827). of Cambridge University attempted to provide Manual Editions: both a portable and a larger edition of the SepRahlfs,Alfred,editor, Septuagintaid est VetusTestamentum Graece iuxta tuagint. The former was edited in the late nineLXXinterpretes(Stuttgart:1935). teenth century, the latter in the early years of the Swete, H. B., editor, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septutwentieth by A. E. Brooke and N. McLean. The agint (Cambridge:1887-1894).
Printed Editions of the
Septuagint
176
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
Chapter3 of Gene-
sis from the Com-
,.
.
.
m3%r
'otofeo~emds8s a Adam I'drts artd caraemals.c
ne- aI
*deiro'fbpm -
mip.4,trrv mm'a nbow4?rskr
.
.
at• LaC~.i -pp,
*'umrm98an dbaeneue ic pSr a.'trs h lnds:vadondhr
nm
am
din' dmtbds ade
a,,e
,
e
i m wetA'
, a sne sa
a mm.e
a
,s
we. aosnm
a
se
eama a emem
aeiees
"fearst'domdaedder.
. n
Y
- -
ma w in
S ali ananmll a ern Aaiusb sh ifrhr Ivr~rwpmraUI ,wwsa"rnC Jarrp7.4(nub.da ?
dro'
,,
.I,
,,....-,,-•,4 ,
usn a-ak I-I eam,nu m
pppp
S
Sema
fr
bpb -
-
'&Dwacrtsaoae
_w a
plutensianIblyglot. As is thecasefor all the booksof the the lPentateuch, presentationof the Hebrew(Masoretic), Latin(Vulgate), and Greek(Septuagint) textsis supplementedat the bottomof thepageby an Aramaicrendering(Targum) andits Latintranslation.
- e sam
wm mu* ~.mal.vr a'.mr &eredtexeorbincfp. a r*d spas sirror*wI oe n *r7 f kml mire c. meirw b~aaacomed yianweq .passeq jevs ram m ky a n~mem
aitdarrad Sa
p
"ih
'
I•elmi
•m
elmVem•
raut'&ane'Sman *a~d'neAWnua w'r.Dbdtha'F ad
wu~h. Iv hh wre- , s.nai.at o•. sn
hp
-nsedrmees
ser
I II
ceotrndum.t*ct s -p-
_
IqwKcadi& &'dqdy' waemedftaerb *8 corneanpebe es e.5.
i n at qpn~~n~eeaLhpm _
a
Lp. U$
"ofpy'fl*4Y r"v*I9
,,(l~~'n in eein
'
~~4P3~~B nm
i
atees
p
kr ., 4*., SCLkr
wn
*
asi
*rns 4*e*e*,.W'r
vas**n
r tic .a as , I. r rwrUees. hsApe ,,am ,st s'-h , n aer mw r".74wr" atn qiS ec. armanr L 'usC '8armdide~ctinml e s u•nwue 4sn k)eU~ we r.- rekre, si r pk~ue. quA rire~~n~r IA. Swirmfdc.QOe. meesusam fl Caw diar ptfe 'c&,e doctm shbd afo
ocA
*
p~~q~~wwrrwnr -'l!~C
ID
a•.
wa
ii'
d
IP
i
anpccduwp'
.a.es44ts ouSyvemen sa*e pstas hvlyg~f~lstww. - ~(?cr
*
.
ims.afr.w..w* Bdi
at.. eS
.... awsu inIn'YC
'n4q$d
asi a
W c~nrvrc q awa
..., fl4
b
a.~IL~maa
u flinwi~'nwuwa
rN,,,a.9 IrNrYarrroryisrversror * trn'mua rfrrwrt vr+d Prum4lse
.wttbf
rrfltpr~,n~wt~?trra_?tt yvnwwrp~ rrr ~?J~r~p~rr$ "~~P "'#xtJttCI?!O ~T~j~p!CS rN ~rn
w ~~~nerr~ ubla~~P
pFr~c~u
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
177
a more elegant one by Symmachus, and still another by Theodotion. The characters of these revisions are known and can be distinguished from the "mainstream Septuagint" in some instances. One or another of these revisions, however, seems preferable to the mainstream Septuagint in certain books. Further, some books of the Greek Bible are longer than their Hebrew counterparts, others shorter. We are also aware of the recensional activity of Origen and Lucian, much less of that of Hesychius, and must take account of these factors when we assess Septuagint data. (See the accompanying sidebar on revisions and recensions.) In addition, the idea of a single translation, which is reflected in the legendary account of Aristeas, is not everywhere accepted. Some have questioned the theory of a single translation from which all existing manuscripts diverge, suggesting instead the notion of various local texts (translations) that addressed the needs of specific communities. Some suggest further that the more paraphrastic translations within the Septuagint represent commentaries (Targums) rather than translations. Thus to try to get back to "the"Septuagint is a hopeless enterprise. What all this suggests is that reference to "the"Septuagint should be made with caution, in view of the unresolved issues surrounding it. Some books have been carefully edited and their translational character established. In these instances it seems appropriate to speak of the Septuagint. In others the question is very much open. Despite all of these not inconsequential problems, the study of the Septuagint is an important- and rewarding-activity. The second part of this essay will present the reasons why. Why Study It? I have in fact already touched on several reasons to study the Septuagint: It is intriguing, controversial, early, and in need of scholarly attention.
178
TheSeptuagintis intriguing, early,important,and in controversial, needof scholarlyattention.
of theSeptuagint Revisions/Recensions lthough the impetus for the original translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek came because there were Jews who could no longer understandHebrew,the impetus to revise the Greek came primarilybecause the Greekversionwas co-optedas Scriptureby the emergingChristianchurch (comprised,incidentally,mostly of formerJews)and used polemically against the Jews.In these circumstances, the Jewsbecame alienated from the Septuagint shortly after its adoptionby the Christian church not so much because of their unwillingness to share but because, with disconcerting frequency, additions or mistranslations that clearly favored Christian theology were found in the Greek Bible. The example of translatingas "virgin"what should properlybe "youngwoman"in Isaiah 7:14is well known. The upshot of this situation was that Jewish scholars in the second century C.E.produced editions of the Greek Bible designed to correct mistranslations, expunge Christian additions, and to conform to the canon of Scripture that had by then become normative in Palestine. The earliest of these was done by a certain Aquila, a Greek proselyte and disciple of the famous RabbiAkiba. Aquila'stranslation is distinguished by a precision that borders on the absurd in places, but he was remarkablyconsistent and, in keeping with his aims, quite successful. The edition of Theodotion was not entirely new; he merely took the Septuagintand correctedit accordingto the original Hebrew text. Symmachus, however, provided a completely new translation designed to conform to the existing Hebrew,but at the same time he attempted to producegood, elegant Greek. This intense activity on the Bible by Jews did not escape notice of the Christians. By the third century, they began to fight back. Perhapsthe best example of this is seen in the work of that great scholar of the Alexandrian school, Origen. His most famous contribution was a monumental sixcolumned work-the Hexapla-in which he attempted to lay side by side the Hebrew charactersof the Old Testament, followed, in turn, by a Greek transcription,the versionsof Aquilaand Symmachus(becausethese were accurate reflections of Hebrew),the Septuagint, and Theodotion. Origen employed a series of signs in his fifth column-the Septuagint-to indicate, on the one hand, additions not found in the Hebrewand, on the other, his own additions (drawnfrom other translations) of materials missing from the Greek. He intended that this work would providethe necessary ammunition for Christians in their theological battles with the Jews. Not long after Origen, another revision was made by Lucianof Antioch. While in some respects Lucian seems to have followed a more conservative path, in others he was ratherfree in his treatment of SeptuagintGreek. A third revision is usually mentioned in this connection-the one by a certain Hesychius. We know little about him or his work except that it was made around400 C.E.in Egyptand was mentioned by Jerome. Eachof these revisions/recensionshas, to some degree,left a markon the discipline of Septuagint studies. The task of recoveringa proto-Septuagint cannot be approachedwithout a sensitivity to the possibility that recensional activity could and did affect the contents of the existing manuscripts.
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
1986
Let me now discuss some even more important reasons. First and foremost, the Greek Bible deserves study because it is the earliest translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. To the extent that every translation is a commentary, it is the earliest commentary on the Hebrew Bible. As such, the Hebrew parent of the Septuagint represents a stage in the development of the Hebrew textual tradition earlier than any existing Hebrew witness. Our earliest complete Hebrew manuscripts come from a period some 1,200 years later. Theoretically then, if we could recover a version of the Greek text of the Pentateuch with which we are relatively comfortable, and could utilize a defensible method to retrovert the underlying Hebrew, we would have before us one Hebrew manuscript that represents the Hebrew tradition of the third century B.C.E.
or before.
The science and art of retroversion is thus of paramount importance. This ability is, unfortunately, the privilege of only those who understand well not only Hellenistic Greek and Classical Hebrew but also the translation techniques reflected, minimally, in the book under consideration and, maximally, in each book of the Septuagint. What may appear as puzzling or wrong may simply be a part of the translator's style in that book. Only after matters of translation method have been taken into account is one able to correct obscurities in, or revise completely our understanding of, the Hebrew text. A caution must be added here. The Septuagint has too often been used for what may be called "sensational" purposes. The excessive and often inaccurate citations of the Septuagint in the apparatuses of the standard editions of the Hebrew Bible attest to that fact. When something is perceived to be wrong or puzzling in the Hebrew, it is not unusual for the modern exegete to turn to the Greek to "fix"or "solve"it. Well-intentioned and popular as such
efforts may be, they trivialize the Septuagint both as a literary document and as Scripture and they distract attention from its more permanent value. There are, of course, instances when the Greek text clears up an obscurity in the Hebrew (see the accompanying sidebar on the Septuagint and the Masoretic text),
but it seems unfair to select only those places where it improves the sense of the Hebrew and ignore the many others where it departs from the received text. In the second place, the Septuagint deserves study because in one form or another it was considered sacred by most Hellenistic Jews and
TheSeptuagint andtheMasoretic Text Perhaps the primary reason scholars and exegetes continue to be inter-
ested in the Septuagintis that, in numerous instances, it clarifies obscurities in the Masoretictext-or reflectsa Hebrewtext substantiallyclearerand more logical than the Masoretic text. In the third century B.C.E.there was demonstrablymore fluidity in the state of the Hebrewtextual traditionsthan was the case 500 years later when a definitive text was fixed.Thus, while it is practicalto assume a parenttext forthe Septuagintthat is relativelysimilar to the Masoretic text in most places, it is not alwayswise or necessary to do so. I have space here to mention only a few well-known examples of the superiority of the Septuagintreadingover the Masoretictext. The extant Masoretictext of 2 Samuel 6:5 suggests that David and all the house of Israelwere playing beforeYahwehbbkol ci~ bhro~im:"with all the juniper trees."The Septuagint reads en organois hermosmenois: "with harmonized instruments."Comparisonwith the parallelHebrewtext of Chronicles reveals not only that the Septuagintprovidesa superiorreadingin this case but also that the readingin the Masoretictext is the result of the switching (metathesis)of two letters in the Hebrewwordfor song. In 1 Samuel 10:1,the Masoretic text is demonstrably shorter than the Septuagint text as a result of the well-known scribal errorof writing once (haplography)what appearstwice in the original. The longer Septuagint is widely acceptedas original here. The text that is present in the Greek but not the Hebrew is italicized in what follows:"Hasnot Yahwehannointed you as commander over his people, over Israel?And you shall govern the people of Yahwehand save them from the hand of theirenemies roundabout. And this will be a sign to you that Yahwehannointed you to be commander over his heritage."While the shorter Masoretictext does make sense, the subsequent narrativeis introduced rather abruptly.The Septuagint reading flows more naturally. The final example is perhapsthe best known and most often quoted.The Masoretic text of Genesis 4:8 translates:"AndCain said to his brother,and us go when they were in the field. .. ."The Septuagintaddsafter"brother,""let into the field."Again, it appearsthat the Masoretictext reflects a haplography of the Hebrewwordforfield. In each of the latterexamples,a case can be made for the primacy of the shorter or more difficult text, but in so doing, one enshrines a difficult text and at the same time suggests a secondaryquality to the Hebrewthat is reflected in the Septuagint. There must be placedagainstthis kind of evidence, however,the sort that shows the Greek text at variance with the Hebrew to a degree that is not alwaysor easily reconcilable- the kind of evidence mentioned in the sidebar entitled "VarietyWithin The Septuagint."There are clear examples of Septuagint translatorsbeing influenced by theological concerns or being less or more occupied with grammaticaland stylistic exactness. In such books it is not quite as simple to equate or not equate the parent text of the Septuagint with the Masoretictext.
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
1986
179
Jewish converts to Christianity. It was not a secondary translation to Hebrew but was Scripture. It is quoted extensively, expanded, exegeted, and allegorized in Hellenistic Greek religious literature and thus was the Scripture known to early Christians. It has long been acknowledged that some of Paul's quotations derive from the Septuagint and not Hebrew; in fact, the use of it in the Pauline letters is representative of the place of the Septuagint in New Testament studies. Several studies have been done on this, a leading one having been done by Earle Ellis (Paul's Use of the Old Testament, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957). According to Ellis, Paul quoted the Old Testament ninety-three times, of which thirty-one are in virtual agreement with the Septuagint and only four seem to follow the Hebrew. This is balanced by the fact that Paul diverged from both Greek and Hebrew thirty-eight times. Sixtyseven of the quotations are confined to the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and the Psalter. Whatever explanation is offered for the deviant quotations of Paul, it is clear that the Septuagint was known and used by him, whether in addition to or instead of the Hebrew. A few examples, drawn from Genesis and Deuteronomy where critical texts have been established, will suffice. The Hebrew of Genesis 15:6 runs w~heimin bayahweh wayah.labeha 16 "Andhe believed Yahweh and he reckoned it to him as s.ddqdh: righteousness." In the Septuagint this passage is translated kai episteusen Abram t3 theb kai elogisthe autb eis dikaiosunen: "AndAbram believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Paul's quotation in Romans 4:3 (as also that found in James 2:23) is identical with one group of Septuagint manuscripts, the b group in the G6ttingen system of classification, and virtually identical with the remainder of extant witnesses to the Septuagint. The New Testament quotations and the b group read epis-
180
teusen de..., while the remainder of Septuagint manuscripts read kai episteusen.... What is clear is that Paul, by specifying the subjectAbraham-appears to be following a long-established Greek version of that verse. Similarly, the end of Genesis 2:24 reads in Hebrew wihaycz li~biigr 'e•had:"andthey shall be as one flesh." The Septuagint represents "andthe two shall be as one flesh." The New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 6-16 (as also Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7-8, and Ephesians 5:31), reads without fail the hoi duo-that is, "the two"in every instance cited. It can be argued in both instances discussed thus far that both the Septuagint and New Testament writers made an addition in keeping with the sense of the passages and could therefore have arrive&at the identical readings by accident; but that seems unlikely. The final example makes the case less ambiguously. Deuteronomy 32:43 begins in Hebrew harninziz g6yim cam6: "Praise his people nations." The Septuagint and Paul in Romans 15:10 read euphranthete ethne meta tou laou autou: "Rejoice nations [Gentiles] with his people."
Here, whatever Paul's theological agenda might have been, the reading of the Septuagint, in contrast to the Hebrew, clearly assisted him in making his point. Likewise, the writings of Josephus and Philo and even materials at Qumran reflect knowledge of the Septuagint. The early church fathers, Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, and even Latin fathers such as Ambrose and Augustine, show in their sermons and commentaries that they were using the Greek text in most instances. Evidently, if one wishes to understand the thought of the New Testament or first-century Christianity, the study of the Greek Bible is indispensable. In the third place, the Septuagint should be studied because the Greek Bible in some form constitutes the parent text from which several early versions of the Bible derive - Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian, to name a few. Further, one cannot understand fully the world of the Apocrypha and much of the Pseudepigrapha until one is familiar with the general concerns and content of the Greek Bible. Fourth, and quite apart from its
WithinTheSeptuagint Variety he Septuagintis not a translation but a series of translations,some free, some literal, and others interpretative.Moreover,some units within the Greek Biblearelonger,others shorter,than their Hebrewcounterparts.Listed below arethe most strikingexamples of variancebetween the GreekBibleand the Hebrew Bible: The additions to the books of Estherand Daniel to the Greektext. These include six additions to the book of Esther and, to Daniel, the addition of a Prayerof Azariah and the Three YoungMen, the Story of Susanna, and The Story of Bel and the Dragon.Most scholars agreethat these were not a partof the Hebreworiginal but are examples of theological embellishment of a text done either at the time of translation or later. The Greek text of Jeremiah.This is about one-eighth shorter than the Hebrew. The Greektext of Job.This is shorterby aboutone-sixth than the Hebrew. The books of Samuel-Kings.In general, the Hebrew of these books is considerablyproblematic.It seems fairto suggestthat, in the main, the Greek text points to a Hebrewparent superiorto the Masoretictext. The book of Proverbs.There are a number of Greek proverbsfor which there is no Hebrewequivalent and vice versa.
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
value as a source vis-a-vis the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, conceived broadly, is a repository of the history of the Jewish people in the period following the closing of the Hebrew canon. It contains not only works translated from Hebrew but also materials written in Greek dealing specifically with the fates and fortunes of the Jews. In addition, the Greek version of some books in the Hebrew canon are augmented with materials not yet found in Hebrew. The books of Maccabees, for example, are invaluable for the study of the Hasmoneans. The novels of Judith and Tobit are as patriotic statements as Daniel and Esther. In this respect, the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha share a common distinction in that they provide a cultural backdrop against which the history of the Jews can be understood. In a like manner, the Septuagint, the materials from Qumran, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and to some extent the Targumim, provide the textual tapestry against which the Masoretic textual tradition must properly be viewed. It is being increasingly accepted that these sources reflect not only correctives to the Hebrew but alternatives in some instances. They provide insights into the complexity of the textual traditions before the second century c.E., when a "received text" clearly seems to have been established. Again, an exposure to the diverse readings of the Septuagint serves the necessary, though sometimes disquieting, function of shattering simplistic notions concerning the origins of the biblical text. Many honest, well-meaning persons continue to think of the biblical books as the products of individual authors, for a host of complex reasons, chief among which is the still-prevalent notion of divine supervision of the composition of the Bible. As a result they expect that with enough dili-
get from the present and the closer to the presumed time of composition of the books in question, the greater the degree of diversity among the available witnesses to them. This diversity is already evident in the Bible itself (see, for example, the deuterographs in the Psalms and various other narratives, and the differences in the narratives of Chronicles and Kings); the Septuagint merely continues and highlights it, forcing even the most recalcitrant to come to terms with the possibility-indeed, even the probability-of multiple textual traditions, if not multiple texts. This, alas, only underscores the exclusively human dimension always and everywhere present in the biblical text - a realization that ultimately should occasion celebration, not distress. Finally, and best of all, the study of the Septuagint provides an engaging paradigm for the enterprise known as text criticism. Septuagint Greek, both a parent and a target language, is also a language in its own right. Anyone who engages in the study of it embraces the unusual opportunity to deal with matters of translation, retroversion, and retranslation along with the usual grammatical, syntactical, and morphological concerns. One must wrestle not only with hebraizing but also with atticizing and other such tendencies in the translation techniques of each author. Unlike the New Testament, for example, for which there is no original, the Septuagint demonstrably derives, in places, from a Hebrew text not too far removed, if at all, from our current Masoretic text. On the other hand, the versions made from the Septuagint provide ancient and reliable controls on its text and sometimes may even provide a clue to the origins of a Greek manuscript or archetype now lost.
gence and time it should be possible
Conclusion As demonstrated above, there are many reasons to study the Septuagint, and their relative importance will
to uncover the original autographs. One discovers only after little serious study that the further away we
naturally vary from reader to reader. Anyone who undertakes its study, however, for whatever reason, and despite the difficulties associated with it, will certainly be repaid for the effort. Study Sources GeneralBibliographies Brock, S. P, and others 1973 A Classified Bibliographyof the Septuagint.Leiden:Brill. Wevers,J.W. 1954 SeptuagintaForschungen.Theologische Rundschau 22: 85-138, 171-90. 1968 SeptuagintaForschungenseit 1954. Theologische Rundschau 33: 18-76. (Seealso the Bulletin of the International Organizationfor Septuagintand Cognate Studies 1968-present, which lists Septuagint work published, proposed,or in preparation.) GeneralIntroductions Swete, H. B. 1968 An Introductionto the Old Testament in Greek.New York:KTAV. Jellicoe,S. 1968 The Septuagintand Modern Study Oxford:ClarendonPress. 1973 Studies in the Septuagint:Origins, Recensions and Interpretations. New York:KTAV. Klein, R. W 1974 TextualCriticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran. Philadelphia:Fortress. Tov,E. 1981 The Text-CriticalUse of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem:Simor.
Note Twoterms that the general readermight find unfamiliar areMasoretic text and proto-Septuagint.The formerrefersto a consonantal text of the HebrewBible, with vowels supplied by the Masoretes,a group of rabbinicscribes active in the Middle Ages. The latter refersto the presumed original form of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible as it left the hands of the translators.
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
181
Was a
Herodium Byzantine Robinson positively identified the site as the palace fortress that was built by Herod the Great in the first
Leprosari century
B.C.E.
(Robinson, Smith, and
others 1867:480). Robinson also noted that the site was called in Arabic, Furedis,the diminutive form of the Persianword originally meaning gardenand later corruptedinto meaning paradise.This designation at first seems inappropriatebecause the site is located aside the desolate western edge of the JudeanDesert. Other scholars believe, on the basis of the BarKokhbadocuments where Herodium is referredto as Herodis, that the memory of its original builder, Herod, is preservedlinguistically via a slight phonetic alteration in the Arabic name- Jebel Furadis
(Benoit, Milik, and de Vaux 1961: 296). While the site has never been referredto in the literature as being synonymous with paradise,there may be an alternative explanation, which has been overlookedby generations of scholars, for the origin of this name. View of Herodium, the impressivepalace fortressbuilt by Herod the Great during the first century s.C.E.
BYJOSEPH ZIAS
erodium,the palacefortress built by Herod the Great in the first century B.C.E.,stands out prominently on the edge of the Judean Desert. Its imposing physical aspect, which Josephuslikened to a woman's breast (Marcus1963:324), dominates the bleak, treeless landscape of the surroundingareas. Like many places of antiquity, the site has severalnames. Forexample, from the fifteenth century A.D.onward the site was referred to
by Christians as the Mountain of the Franksbecause it was believed that the defeatedCrusadersof Jerusalem had established a settlement there (Foerster1976: 502).' It was not until the nineteenth century, however, that the American explorer Edward
182
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
Empress Eudocia's Leprosarium Empress Eudocia (died in 460 c.E.),
wife of the Byzantine emperor Theodosius, was known, along with the royal family, to have exerted considerable influence over Christianity on a wide scale. Numerous churches, monasteries, and hostels were established during their long reign (Hunt 1982: 224). Accordingto Cyril of Scythopolis, Eudociahad a reputation for building places for the sick in the Holy Land(Hunt 1982: 239). While some of these projects were known and identified by later scholars, a fourteenth-century reference by the church historian Nicephorus Callistus seems to have been overlooked, undoubtedly because of its late date, and misunderstood because of its euphemistic language. In his
Jericho * SaintJohn SaintGeorge + theBaptist+ +
SaintGerasimus + SaintMartyrius * Jerusalem
+ SaintTheodosius
Bethlehem ?
+ MarSaba
* Herodium
+ indicatesmonastery
Portraitof the Byzantine empress Eudocia who was the patron for many buildings in the Holy Landduring the fifth century c.E.Of particularinterest is a hospital that she built for 400 patients sufferingfrom the "holy sickness"- leprosy Thisdrawing was copied froma Byzantine coin and originally appearedin R. P Gdnier'sVie de Saint Euthymele Grand(Paris,1909).
monumental work Ecclesiastical History,Callistus wrote that the empress Eudociabuilt a hospital in the Phordisiafor 400 patients suffering from the "holy sickness" (Migne 1865:column 1240).Like so many ancient sites mentioned in the literature that were destroyedby the Persian and Islamic conquests of the seventh century and never rebuilt, its exact location has not been established. There are, I believe, historical, linguistic, and theological reasons for linking this fifth-century hospital with Herod'spalace-fortress, Herodium. First, Callistus employed the term "holy disease,"which was euphemistically used during the Middle Ages for today'sleprosy or Hansen'sdisease. Fromthe Byzantine period onward,Christianity portrayedthose suffering from the disease as being chosen by God to suffer in this world for the rewardsof the
world to come- that is, a heavenly paradise.Therefore,those suffering from the disease came under the patronageof the ecclesiastical authorities, and council edicts were issued from the fourth century onwardfor their care (Hefele 1909: 207)? Eudocia may have chosen Herodium as the site for her leprosarium because of its physical similarity to the biblical description of paradise. Biblical paradise,accordingto its Old Testament conception (Genesis 2 and Ezekiel 28:12-19, 31:8-9, 47), was a gardensituated on a mountain with a stream running out of it (Cheyne 1911).This literaryconception of an earthly paradiseclosely parallels the physical structure of pre-ByzantineHerodium with its pools and gardens,except that the stream (in this case the aqueduct) runs into the site ratherthan away from it. Furthermore,by selecting an isolated site for her leprosarium,
which may have been called "hill of paradise"(JebelFuradis)by the inhabitants of Judea,the theological belief that they were chosen by God to suffer in this world for the world to come would be given concrete expression. This, of course, goes against the popularnotion that the term Furadiswas a corruption of the word Herodis, which appearsin the Bar Kokhbaletters. I believe that the term JebelFuradismay have no direct linguistic connection with Herod but ratheroriginated from the Greek name Phordisia.Linguistically Furadisseems closer to Phordisia than Herodium or Herodis. If this assumption is correct,then the empress may have chosen this name for her leprosarium on theological grounds, with the original name being corruptedto the local vernacularby the inhabitants of Judea,who, except for the clergy,would have been unfamiliar with Greek.
BIBLICALARCHAEOWLGISTISEPTEMBER 1986
183
Skeletal remainsof people sufferingfromleprosy werediscoveredin severalByzantinemonasteries in the ludean Desert, including the Monastery of Saint lohn the Baptist (shown on the left) and the Monasteryof Gerasimus, which was founded in the fifth century c.E.(shown on the right).
The Monasteryof Theodosius, which was founded in 476 c.E.,served as a hospital for leprosy patients during the Byzantine period.
changes associated with leprosyof T/pical the face are visible in this skull of a male who died when he was 30 to 35 years old. It was discoveredin one of the Byzantine monasteries of the JudeanDesert. ? Department of Antiquities, Ministry of Educationand Culture,State of Israel.
184
Evidence from PaleopathologicalStudies The only anthropologicalevidence for leprosy in the Holy Landcomes from isolated desert monasteries that were founded during the Byzantine period (Zias 1985).Fourof the six monasteries in the JudeanDesert that were surveyedby the author have corroboratedthe literary tradition that society's outcasts were under ecclesiastical patronage.To
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTISEPTEMBER 1986
build a leprosarium within the confines of a populated areawas unheard of and in violation of legislative edicts that forbadthose suffering from leprosy from entering the public forum or using public baths (Avi-Yonah 1963). Similar sentiments were expressed in the literature throughout the Mediterraneanarea (Andersen 1969). As a result of widespread ostracism of these sufferers,the only direct anthropological evidence for the dis-
ease in the Mediterranean comes from isolated desert areas. The nearby Monastery of Theodosius (which lies 8 kilometers northwest of Herodium and was founded in 476 c.E.) was known to have hospital facilities for those suffering from Hansen's disease (Usener 1890: 35). This suggests that a tradition that those suffering from the disease could find protection in the monastery had already been well established in the area. Furthermore, the Monastery of Theodosius is the only Judean Desert monastery specifically mentioned in the vast literature of the Byzantine period as giving care to those suffering from leprosy (Usener 1890: 35). This is puzzling in view of the fact that skeletal remains of people suffering from the disease were found in three additional Byzantine monastic collections (Martyrius, Gerasimus, and John the Baptist); for some reason the literary record is silent on their existence there. One, therefore, can conclude that concern and protection on the part of the religious authorities was so generous that the ill were attracted from surrounding countries. The recent excavations at the Monastery of John the Baptist (Qasr El Yahud), located on the Jordan River, have provided clear evidence that several of those suffering from leprosy and tuberculosis were of Egyptian origin (Zias 1985). The hospital established by Eudocia in the Phordisia, therefore, may have been intended to handle this influx of society's outcasts from around the eastern Mediterranean and relieve pressure on the already established monasteries that were in danger of being overrun by those seeking ecclesiastical protection. Herodium During the Byzantine Period Herodium is not mentioned in Byzantine literature (Netzer, personal communication), perhaps because of the site's designation as a leprosarium. Nor was the site resettled during the
Tbp:The Monasteryof MarSaba, founded in 483 c.E.? Department of Antiquities, Ministry of Educationand Culture,State of Israel.Below: No evidence of leprosy was found in the charnel house of the Byzantine Monasteryof Saint Georgein WadiKelt.
Islamic period despite its proximity to Bethlehem and the infrastructure that could easily have provided the means for a new settlement. If Herodium was a leprosarium during the Byzantine period, it would explain the disproportionately large number of Byzantine churches (four) found
on the site compared to the sparse archaeological remains- these churches may have served Eudocia's hospital population of approximately 400 individuals and not an urban settlement. While previous excavations have failed to uncover a monumental
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTISEPTEMBER 1986
185
building that could have housed 400 persons, the passage in Callistus may simply refer to an isolated colony in which those afflicted would be provided for physically and spiritually. Corbo maintained that Byzantine Herodium was inhabited by a monastic community (Corbo 1963). While Corbo was referring to upper Herodium (the artificial hill that was built on top of the natural hill), the lack of a defensive wall surrounding the lower site calls into question whether or not lower Herodium (the natural hill) was included in the monastic community. If the thesis that Herodium was an unfortified Byzantine leprosarium is correct, the inhabitants would have been extremely vulnerable during the Persian massacres of 614, causing them to seek refuge in the walled monasteries of the Judean Desert that afforded greater protection in the wake of the Persian invasion. In fact, many of the monks in the nearby Monastery of Mar Saba, which was unfortified, fled to Arabia in the face of the impending disaster, while fifty-four monks who stayed behind were slain by the invaders (Chitty 1966: 166-68). Those suffering from leprosy would have found the long and arduous journey to a distant land insurmountable because of the disabling features of the disease. Therefore, they would have sought temporary refuge, attempting to avoid their eventual martyrdom, in the nearby monasteries of Martyrius, Theodosius, Gerasimus, and John the Baptist, which were all located in the Judean Desert. If correct, this would explain the presence of skeletons with signs of leprosy in the above four monasteries and the conspicuous absence of any skeletal remains from Byzantine Herodium, as well as any mention by Cyril of Scythopolis, Procopius, Sophronius and other historians of the period? Acknowledgments I would like to thank Ehud Netzer, Gideon Foerster, Izhar Hirschfeld,
186
Tropicaland GeographicMedicine 2: 127-39. Avi-Yonah,M. 1963 The Bath of the Lepersat Scythopolis. Israel ExplorationJournal13: 325-36. Benoit, P, Milik, J.T, and de Vaux,R. 1961 Les Grottesde Murabbacat.Series: Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert II. Oxford:ClarendonPress. Cheyne, T. K. 1911 Paradise.Pp. 751-52 in The EncyNotes clopaedia Britannicavolume 20, 'EdwardRobinsonclaimed that eleventh edition. Cambridge:Camfrom the seventeenth century onward bridgeUniversity Press. the site was called the Mountain of the Chitty, D. 1966 The Desert A City:An Introduction Franks,while Foersterbelieved the name to the Study of Egyptianand Palesoriginatedin the fifteenth century. tinian Monasticism under the Chris2The Council of Ancyrus in 314 c.E. tian Empire.Oxford:B.Blackwell. decreedthat those sufferingfrom leprosy Corbo, V. should be allowed to worship in public 1963 L'Herodiondi Gebal Fureidis.Studi in the open air- that is, outside the Biblici Franciscani.LiberAnnuus church. The Fifth Council of Orleans in 13:219-77. 549 c.E.enjoined upon the bishops the 1964 Gebel Fureidis.Revue Biblique 71: care of those sufferingfrom leprosy;the 258-63. Council of Lyonsin 583 passed a resolu- Foerster,G. tion that those designatedas suffering 1976 Herodium.Pp. 502-10 in Encyclopedia of ArchaeologicalExcavations from leprosymust receive food and clothin the Holy Land,volume 2. Edited ing from the bishop and must not beg by M. Avi-Yonah.EnglewoodCliffs, outdoors (Hefele 1909). NJ:Prentice-Hall,Inc. of in the research Monastery 3My Hefele, C. J. Saint Georgein WadiKelt supportsthis 1909 Histoire des Conciles, tome III.Paris: hypothesis because in the charnel house Letouzeyet And,Editeurs. of 250 monks, no evidence of the disease Hunt, E. D. 1982 Holy Land Pilgrimagein the Later was found. On the basis of earlierfindings I expectedto find severalcases represented Roman EmpireA.D. 312-460. Oxford:ClarendonPress. here because of the large sample size. Marcus,R., and Wikgren,A. translators However,not one case was found;nor 1963 JosephusVIII.JewishAntiquities, did I find skeletal remains of women and Books XV-XVII.Series:The Loeb children, which were present at the Classical Library.Cambridge,MA monasteries of Martyriusand Saint John and London:HarvardUniversity the Baptist.These findings eventually Press and Heinemann. made sense when I realized that the Migne, J.-P.,editor tomb, which is outside the monastery,is 1865 Nicephori Callisti. Xanthopuli. Ecclesiasticae Historiae. Series:Patrolpost-Byzantine(after614);therefore,the sample is what one would normally ogiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca,tomus 146. Paris:J.-PMigne. expect to find-all males free of the Robinson,E., Smith, E., and others stigmata of facies leprosa (leprosyof the 1867 Biblical Researchesin Palestine and face)-whereas our earlier findings inthe Adjacent Regions:A Journalof of the cluded those unfortunaterefugees Travelsin the Years1838 and 1852, Persianinvasion,some of whom suffered volume 1. London:JohnMurray. from the "holy sickness." Usener, H., editor 1890 Vita S. Theodosii a Cyrillo ScythopBibliography olitano Scripta.Bonnae:TypisC. GeorgiUniv. Typogr. Andersen,J. 1969 Studies in the MediaevalDiagnosis Wilkinson, J. 1973 JerusalemPilgrimsBeforethe Cruof Leprosyin Denmark:An Osteosades. Jerusalem:Ariel. archaeological,Historical and ClinZias, J. ical Study.Danish Medical Bulletin 1985 Leprosyin the ByzantineMonasteries 116(supplement9): 15-47. of the JudeanDesert. Koroth9/1-2: Andersen,J.,and Gramberg,K. 242-48. 1959 Leprosyand the Bible.Journalof
Rivka Berger, and Vasillios Tzaferis for reading the manuscript and for their helpful suggestions. This research was partially supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the Jerusalem Center for Anthropological Studies.
1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER
3 T E oC E
GEHENNA
The
a
Topography
.rrrr
-r
, I~?( ~? ,?
~`
-
----
--~-~ ~C
r u r
~L
of Hell
,----54
by LloydR. Bailey
E
;3~C~ ?I
t?~Cr jl __
he Greek noun gehenna, usually translated as hell in the English New Testament, is used in a bewildering variety of ways in ancient sacred literature. In the Bible and related literature it occurs in three senses: as an ordinary geographical location in Jerusalem; as an extraordinary place of punishment for the wicked, located in the area of Jerusalem; and as an otherworldly place of punishment for the wicked after death.' Eventually the name Gehenna for the geographical valley became a term for the underworld. When and how this transfer took place is examined below.
Three Senses of Gehenna in the Bible I would like first to consider the three ways in which the word Gehenna is used in the Bible. As an ordinary piece of real estate in the environs of Jerusalem. In the Hebrew Bible, Gehenna is variously designatedas "thevalley of the sons of Hinnom"(2 Kings 23:10), "the valley of the son of Hinnom" (Jeremiah 7:31), or simply as "the valley of Hinnom" (Nehemiah 11:30). In
Ca
~a ~rr~
~IC r a
~1.
Sanctuariesto underworlddeities were located in low places. Occasionally altars were equipped with pipes so that sacrificial blood could be channeled to the gods below. Theimaginative drawing above shows a ritual ceremony being performedin a sanctuary situated in the deep valley of Hinnom. Thephotographshows the modern-day Hinnom valley(the southernend of Wadier-Rababi),looking southeast. the left are the slopes of Mount Zion. Partof KetefHinnom is bTo visible at the far right.
the last of these forms, in Hebrew, it is ge-hinnom (pronouncedgay-hinn6m),and is a compound of ge (valley) and hinnom (of uncertain meaning-possibly a family name-or it is derived from the verb "to sleep"or from the verb "to wail,"both in relation to death). This may become, in Greek, gai-enna (Septuagint)or g~-enna (New Testament), which is anglicized as the familiar Gehenna. It is sometimes identified by modern geographersas the valley just east of the walls of the Old City (the Wadi Kidron),or the valley just to the west (the Wadier-Rababi),
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SErPTEMBER 1986
187
or with their confluence just to the south (the WadienNar).Majorityopinion seems to favorthe second of these identifications. As an extraordinaryplace of punishment for the wicked in the future, again in the immediate environs of Jerusalem. This point of view was slow in arrivingupon the scene of Israel'sthought. In condemning the valley as a site of idol-worship,the prophet Jeremiah(seventh century
B.C.E.)
anticipated that it would become a "valley of
Slaughter"for those who worshipped there (Jeremiah 7:30-34). A late addition to Isaiah believed the present enemy (possibly Greece but typified as the Assyrians) would be destroyedwith fire in the valley, which here is called Topheth (Isaiah 30:29-33). The so-called Third Isaiahanticipated a climactic slaughter of the wicked, in full view of the righteous, presumably in the environs of Jerusalem(Isaiah66:24). Joel, perhaps making a pun on the name of the "Valleyof the Cheesemakers"(the Tyropoeon Valley,which splits the city), called it "thevalley of Decision" (from the verb "to cut" [as in cheese] or "to decide"),where multitudes would be judged in days to come (Joel 3:2, 12, 14). The Maccabees (in the second century
B.C.E.)
chose the valley as the place in which to
burn the corpses of their enemies. It is not surprising,then, that some who looked for a solution to present difficulties through divine intervention at the end time, suggested that the valley would be the place where the enemies of God would be destroyed. Thus 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch (second century
B.C.E.?)
de-
scribed the destruction site as a city "atthe center of the earth,"surroundedby deep ravines (chapters26-27). This would seem to describe Jerusalem,the religious center of the known world, with the valley of Hinnom outside its walls. The author noted "theaccursed valley"where the wicked would be destroyedby God "in the days of judgment."(Hecould not name the valley,since he wrote from the perspectiveof the ancient hero Enoch,who lived prior to the founding of Jerusalem.) As an otherworldly place of punishment for the wicked after death. This sense of Gehenna was sometimes thought to have been in existence since creation. Thus Jesus said that one ought not to "fearthose who kill the body but cannot kill the soul: rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [Gehenna]"(Matthew 10:28). The author of 2 Baruch reported that God had alreadyshown Moses "theentrance to Gehenna"(59:10). The rabbisproposedthat it had been fashioned either on the second or sixth day of creation (Genesis Rabbah,IV.6, IX.9-see Freedman 1977: 31, 68; Babylonian Talmud, 54a-see Freedman 1938a:265-66) and that it had swallowed up the rebellious sons of Korah when Pesah.im Israel was in the Sinai wilderness (BabylonianTalmud, Sanhedrin llib-see Freedman 1935: 764-69; compare Numbers 16: 31-32); that it was so immense that it extended beneath the surface of the entire world (Baby-
188
Many sanctuaries in the ancient Near East had an omphalos or umbilical stone. It has been suggested that these stones were modeled aftermeteorites that had crashedthroughthe "gates"inthe domeof the sky and thus had forgeda link or umbilicus with the world beneath. This stone is from Delphi, Greece.
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
lonian Talmud,Pesahim 94a-see Freedman1938a:503); and that its fires beneath accounted for the warm springs that sometimes bubbled to the surface (for example, at Tiberias; see BabylonianTalmud, Shabbath39a-Freedman 1938b:182).While in this sense the term Gehenna is usually synonymous with the underworld (hell), some writers thought of the place as detached from earth beneath and they located it in one of the sevenfold concentric spheres of the heavens above (Babylonian Talmud,Tamid32b - see Simon 1948a:29). Thansferof the Name Gehenna from a Valley to the Underworld The geographicalvalley, therefore, gave its name, not to one place of punishment of the wicked, but to two: to a future, local, fiery place of punishment outside Jerusalem at the "eschaton"(last days), and to the ancient infernal realm beneath. That it might have given rise to the first of these is easy enough to see, as outlined above. But how does one explain the use of the term in the second sense? The traditional explanation for this seems to go back to RabbiDavid Kimhi'scommentary on Psalm 27 (around 1200 c.E.). He remarked the following con-
cerning the valley beneath Jerusalem'swalls: Gehennais a repugnantplace,into which filth and cadaversare thrown, and in which fires perpetually burn in order to consume the filth and bones; on which account, by analogy, the judgement of the wicked is called "Gehenna."
This would mean that Jesusor the rabbis,in orderto concretize their belief in a postdeath punishment of the wicked, compared the horror and destruction of that
The cultures of the ancient Near East felt a need to maintain avenues of contact between the physical and spiritual worlds. Evidence of one such connection was found during the excavation of TellDothan, shown in these previously unpublishedphotographs.Tombnumber 1 (dating between 1400 and 1200 B.c.) contained 288 skeletons along with great quantities of ceramic vessels and bronzeobjects. In addition to its main entrance, the tomb had an auxiliary opening leading to the outside front of the structure(shown in the upperright of the photographon the left and in the detail from the interiorof the tomb in the photographon the right). On the outside next to this opening the excavatorsfound two largestoragejars containing dipperjuglets. Such an arrangementsuggests the contents of the jars were pouredinto the opening that drains into the tomb, thus establishing a physical connection between the worlds of the living and the dead. Courtesyof Dothan II Publications.
state with the nearby city garbagedump. The modern consensus as to the correctness of Kimhi'sexplanation is illustrated by The Jewish Encyclopedia (Singer 1903: 582), which says that the valley became "a figurative equivalent of 'hell',"and by The Interpreter'sDictionary of the Bible (Gaster 1962: 361), which suggests that the word Gehenna was used "in a metaphoric sense" in the ancient sacred literature. Kimhi's otherwise plausible suggestion, however,finds no support in literary sources or archaeological data from the intertestamental or rabbinic periods.There is no evidence that the valley was, in fact, a garbagedump, and thus his explanation is insufficient. What,then, is the connection between the eschatological Gehenna (valleyof Hinnom) and the eternal fiery Gehenna beneath? Is it a matter of geographicalproximity?Arguablyso, since some ancient writers perceived Jerusalemto be a microcosm: They fused togetherthe ancient concept of a paradise for the righteous (Genesis 2), the concept of a sacredmountain in the farnorth where the deity dwelled (Psalm48), and an eternal sanctuary in Jerusalem(Psalm 132) that had been built according to a heavenly blueprint. Thus, the writer of the apocalypse envisioned a "new Jerusalem"that would descend from heaven, be situated atop the sacred mountain Zion, and become a paradisefor the righteous (Revelation21). The valley of Hinnom, lying beneath the walls of the restructuredcity, might then suggest the underworld, which in ancient Semitic cosmology lay at the roots of the world-mountain. The connection between the two Gehennas, then, would be more than a metaphor for destruction-it would be a
physical result of the geographyof the holy city, in which the valley above would extend down to the realm of the dead beneath, carrying along its name and fiery nature. Conversely,it might have been expected that the underworld, a place of fiery punishment from the intertestamental period onward (second century
B.C.E.),
would
blaze up through the valley, and this might explain why the valley came to be regardedas the place of destruction of the wicked. Regardlessof the attractiveness of the geographicalproximity explanation for the transfer of the name Gehenna, one should not assume that the function of one Gehenna evolved from the other. Rather,the two places of destruction seem to have developedindependently.On the one hand, the very old picture of the underworld (Sheol) as a vast, dark, tomblike cavern in which both righteous and wicked shared the same fate after death graduallyevolved (underthe influence of Persian eschatology and Greek anthropology) into an intermediate holding tank for the dead prior to a resurrection. It then became a place of fiery punishment for the wicked only, perhapsunder the influence of the Greek Hades. On the other hand, the geographical valley evolved, under the influence of curses by the prophets because of forbidden cultic activity there, into a place for the disposition of the living wicked. It becomes a vital solution to the problem of a wicked, rebellious world. There is at least one other explanation for the transfer of the name Gehenna from the valley to the underworld, and it has not been well recognized. It is based upon the fact that an altar,in the ancient Semitic world,
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
189
served to connect the realm of the worshipper with that of the deity. This is clear from the fact that Jacob,after his dream at Bethel, proclaimed that the spot was a "gate of heaven" and erected an altar there (Genesis 28:17). Sacred cities in Egypt were sometimes described as a gate, and the inhabitants of the city of Babylon explained its name in just this way (bab, "gate,"plus ii, "of the gods"). The presence of an omphalos (umbilical) stone is widely attested at sanctuaries in the ancient Near East, and it has been suggested that they were patterned after meteorites that had crashed through the "gates"in the dome of the sky and thus had forged a link (umbilicus) with the world beneath. It was usual, therefore, to place an altar as close as possible to the divine realm for which it served as the contact point? Hence the desire to build a temple-tower (ziggurat) "with its top in the heavens" (so both cuneiform texts and Genesis 11:4). The one in the Mesopotamian city of Sippar was called "the house that connects heaven and earth" (&-dur-an-ki).Presumably, devotees of the sungod assumed that there was a gate through the domed sky directly above the tower and that contact could be made with the deity through it. Underworld deities, on the other hand, could be contacted most efficiently through altars in low places: ravines, crevices, or caves.3The so-called Third Isaiah (57: 5-6) condemned those who sacrificed in valleys and who poured out liquid offerings there to an underworld deity
New excavations at Ketef Hinnom uncovered a burial cave (number 25) with a rich assemblage of artifacts. The isometric drawing of the cave shows the arrangement of burial benches, headrests, and objects. Of particular importance were the silver, inscribed amulets found in the cave. The smaller one is shown in this drawing. Both drawings are after figures from Gabriel
Barkay'sKetefHinnom:A TreasureFacingJerusalem's
Walls (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1986).
190
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
(Molech). Altars were sometimes supplied with pipes so that the sacrificial blood could be channeled to the underworld deities who were thought to dwell just beneath them. Therefore, since human sacrifice had been offered in the valley of Hinnom to the underworld deity Molech (2 Kings 23:10), the worshippers likely assumed that there was an entrance to the underworld at this location. At last we come to the essential information that may solve the enigma of the twofold use of the term Gehenna. Altars, and the larger cult center of which they were the nucleus, sometimes gave their name to the divine realm for which they served as an entrance. A clear illustration of this may be found in the literature of ancient Mesopotamia. A cult center of the planet Mars (whom the Assyro-Babylonians called Nergal) was located in a city named Kutu (Cutha). This also was a designation for the netherworld over which he presided, as is made clear in the account of Ishtar's Descent: To the Landof no Return,the realm of [Ereshkigal], Ishtar,the daughterof Sin, [set]her mind ... Forthwent the gatekeeper(to)open the doorfor her: "Enter,my Lady,that Cutha may rejoiceoverthee, That the palace of the Landof no Returnmay be glad at thy presence." (obverse,lines 1-2, 39-41; Pritchard1955: 107) n the slopes adjacentto Mount Zion and the
Hinnom Valley, in an area known in Hebrew as KetefHinnom ("The Shoulder of Hinnom"), new excavations some eighty meters above the floor of the valley have discovered two small silver amulets that can be dated to the end of the First Temple period. When found the amulets were in the form of small scrolls, each with a space in the middle through which a string could be threaded, thus allowing it to be worn on the body. When the scrolls were carefully unrolled-yielding plaques of 97 by 27 and 39 by 11 millimeters, respectively - similar inscriptions in ancient Hebrew script were revealed. (A drawing of the smaller plaque is shown here.) The texts were recently deciphered by Ada Yardeniand published by the excavator, Gabriel Barkay of Tel Aviv University; they are strikingly similar to the priestly benediction of Numbers 6:24-26-forms of which are also found in Psalms 4:7 and 67:2, as well as in an inscription on a pithos jar from Kuntillet cAjrud. The discovery of the amulets indicates that a form of the priestly blessing circulated as a popular blessing that possibly influenced the later "P"strand of Scripture. These exciting inscriptional finds are only part of a remarkable group of artifacts found in the repository of a burial cave. They are now on display in the Israel Museum and published in a new catalog, Ketef Hinnom: A ?TeasureFacing Jerusalem's Walls by Gabriel Barkay. Eric M. Meyers
Turning from Mesopotamia to Greece, I would point to a parallel development in the case of the river Acheron. Near it one might consult necromancers (those whose specialty in divination was summoning the spirit of the deceased from the underworld) in order to secure information (Herodotus, The Histories, V.92--see Godley 1963: 103-15). Such a location was favoredbecause streams were thought to flow to the surface from the realm beneath and thus provided a point of access and contact with the dead. Acheron was also the name of the river that was thought to surround the underworld itself (Homer, Odyssey, x.513-see Murray 1966: 381). By the time of Sophocles (fifth century B.C.E.; Antigone, 805Storr 1924: 377) and Virgil (first century B.C.E.;Aeneid, VII. 312-see Fairclough 1969: 25) it had become a designation for the infernal realm itself.
Conclusion Did altars to underworld deities in the valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) -which likely were perceived as gates to the realm of such deities-lead to the transfer of the name from the valley to the netherworld? If so, it may well have happened during the monarchical period when such apostasy flourished. Although the latest explicit mention of the valley as a cult center is in the book of Jeremiah (before the Exile), the so-called Third Isaiah continued to condemn sacrifices to the god Molech in "low places" in the postexilic age. The earliest mention of the underworld under the name Gehenna, in the surviving documents, is found in the New Testament and in the early rabbinic literature. In the latter it occurs in the teachings attributed to Rabbi Shammai around the beginning of the Christian era (Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, 16b -see Simon 1938: 64; Tosephta, Sanhedrin 13:3-see Danby 1919: 123) and in those of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai within the first century thereafter (Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 28b - see Simon 1948b: 173). Even after the valley ceased to function as a cult center, it continued to be regarded as the location of an entrance to the underworld over which the sole God was sovereign. This is clear from the following statements in the Babylonian Talmud: (RabbiJeremiahben Eleazarfurther stated:)Gehenna has three gates; one in the wilderness, one in the sea and one in Jerusalem. (Accordingto Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai'sschool:)There are two palm trees in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and between them smoke arises..,. and this is the gate of Gehenna?(Babylonian Talmud,cErubin, 19a-see Slotki 1938: 130-31) Notes 'A longer form of this paper was presented as the Presidential Address in 1982 to the Society of Biblical Literature, Southeastern Region.
2Israel'sprophets protested the worship of astral deities "uponevery hill"- Jeremiah2:20 and Ezekiel 6:13. 3Inthe MesopotamianGilgamesh Epic,there is mention of an implement that fell through a crevice and landed in the underworld(tabletXII,lines 1-10, 63-64; Pritchard1955:97).
Bibliography Charles,R. H. 1913 A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, second edition. London:Adamand CharlesBlack. Danby,H., translator 1919 TractateSanhedrin. Mishnah and Tosefta. New York:The MacMillanCompany. Fairclough,H. R., translator 1969 VirgilII. Aeneid VII-XII.TheMinorPoems. Series:The Loeb Classical Library.Cambridge,MA and London:HarvardUniversity Pressand William Heinemann Ltd. Freedman,H., translator 1935 Sanhedrin 2. In Seder Nezikin, Volume 6. The Babylonian Talmud,edited by I. Epstein.London:Soncino. 1938a Pesahim.In SederMoced, Volume2. TheBabylonianTalmud, edited by I. Epstein.London:Soncino. 1938b Shabbath.In Seder Moced, Volume 1. The Babylonian Talmud, edited by I. Epstein.London:Soncino. 1977 The MidrashRabbah. Volume1. Genesis. London:Soncino. Gaster,T. H. 1962 Gehenna. Pp. 361-62 in The Interpreter'sDictionary of the Bible 2, edited by GeorgeButtrick.Nashville: Abingdon. Godley,A. D., translator 1963 Herodotus III. Books V-VII,edited by T. E. Page and others. Series:The LoebClassical Library.Cambridge,MA and London: HarvardUniversity Press and William Heinemann Ltd. Montgomery,J. 1908 The Holy City andGehenna.Journalof Biblical Literature27: 24-47. Murray,A. T., translator 1966 The Odysseyl. Series:The LoebClassical Library.Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press and William Heinemann Ltd. Pritchard,J.B. 1955 Ancient Near Eastern TextsRelating to the Old Testament, second edition. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. Simon, M., translator 1938 Rosh Hashanah.In SederMoced, Volume4. The Babylonian Talmud,edited by I. Epstein.London:Soncino. 1948a Tamid. In Seder Kodashim, Volume3. The Babylonian Talmud, edited by I. Epstein.London:Soncino. 1948b Berakoth.In Seder Zeracim. The Babylonian Talmud,edited by I. Epstein.London:Soncino. Singer,I., editor 1903 Gehenna. Pp. 582-84 in The Jewish Encyclopedia 5. New York:Funk and WagnallsCompany. Slotki, I. W.,translator 1938 cErubin.In SederMoced, Volume2. The Babylonian Talmud, edited by I. Epstein.London:Soncino. Storr,E, translator 1924 Sophocles I. Oedipus Rex, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone. Series:The LoebClassical Library.New York:G. P. Putnam's Sons. Terrien,S. 1970 The Omphalos Myth and Hebrew Religion. VetusTestamentum 20:315-38. Wainwright,G. A. 1934 Jacob'sBethel.PalestineExplorationFundQuarterly33:32-44.
BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/SEPTEMBER 1986
191
