The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (review)

Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 445 Reviews examine biblical passages as presented in both biblical and non-biblical texts. With the publication of the catalog, Washburn fulfilled his objective: “This volume is designed to be a reference work for scholars, commentators, teachers, and students who wish to investigate Dead Sea Scroll representation of any given biblical passage or book” (p. 4). Donald W. Parry Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84604 donald_parry@byu.edu THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF QUMRAN AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS. By Jodi Magness. Pp. xlvi + 238. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. Cloth, $26.00. Paper, $18.00. Jodi Magness is attempting to set the record straight about the archaeology of the site by responding to a series of radical hypotheses about Qumran, such as that Qumran was a country villa, that it was a port on the Dead Sea, or that it was a scroll-manufacturing center. Above all, she seeks to refute the hypothesis that there is no connection between the site of Qumran and the scrolls themselves. She writes engagingly and simply, which is a genuine help for the non-specialist. The book contains ten chapters, the first three of which are introductory. Chapter 1 introduces the archaeology of Qumran and puts in plain words how archaeologists date their finds. She explains that Qumran is so controversial because of its association with the Dead Sea Scrolls, so one must consider whether this is a plausible connection. She addresses the problem for scholars that de Vaux’s untimely death imposes, since he never published a final report. This left the door open for sensationalists and those who speculated or developed untestable hypotheses to interpret Qumran. Magness describes the topographical and geographical setting of Qumran in Chapter 2. She also explains why many scholars identify the site with biblical Secacah. She closes the chapter with an account of the early exploration of Qumran and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In chapter 3 she introduces the scrolls and answers the question “yes” whether they were Essenes. She also argues that the scroll jars in the ruin and in the caves establish contact of the site with the caves and the scrolls themselves . She might also have pointed out that caves 7, 8, and 9 at the south end of the esplanade at Qumran can only be entered from Qumran itself. This also establishes contact with at least some of the scrolls. Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 446 Reviews In chapter 4 Magness re-interprets de Vaux’s coin evidence, showing that his period 1a most likely did not exist. This places the founding of the site at about 100 B.C.E. De Vaux further had argued that the site was abandoned after the earthquake of 31 B.C.E. Magness re-examines the stratigraphic evidence to show that there was no long abandonment after the earthquake. On the contrary, arguing from coin evidence, she shows that there was a later destruction sometime after 9–8 B.C.E. The site was reoccupied by 4 B.C.E, if not later. She also argues that the inhabitants did not live at the site, but in huts, tents, and caves in the vicinity. This follows from investigations by Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, but was suggested already by de Vaux. Finally, the site was destroyed by the Romans in 68 C.E. according to both Magness and de Vaux. In chapter 5 Magness examines the pottery repertoire of Qumran. Père de Vaux excavated two pottery kilns at Qumran, so it is reasonable to conclude that they manufactured their own pottery. Magness shows that this is indeed the case. More importantly, she argues that the inhabitants of Qumran avoided imports for the sake of ritual purity. In fact, their passion for ritual purity motivated them to manufacture their otherwise almost unique ovoid jars and cylindrical jars. She disposes of the hypothesis that Qumran was a country villa in the same chapter. She has accomplished this in print before. In chapter 6, on the other hand, Magness describes the inhabitants’ toilet practices and makes a case for a toilet to the east. She also makes a case for two dining rooms...