In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Hebrew Studies 39 (1998) 251 Reviews critical editions of Greek and Latin authors. Rather, he cites the Loeb Classical Library texts (bilingual edition) or the Penguin (English) translations . And, although he does list some primary sources in the "Epigraphic and Documentary Sources," he includes several compilations of translated or bilingual excerpts (e.g., Reinach; Stem; Sherk). Additionally, his citations for the earlier historical background are deficient, insofar as he cites Appian for second century material without citing Polybius or Livy, where extant. Moreover, he ignores such basic modem references as Pauly's Real-Encyclopiidie der c1assischen Altertumswissenscha!t (Stuttgart, 1893-), and such scholars as Mommsen, Niese, Rostovtzeff, T. Frank, and Badian, to name only a few. Despite these flaws, the work is worth reading. Some chapters such as two and eight in particular, are extremely well done. And, most importantly , Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans does give the reader a "feel" for Herod the man, as well as for Herod's accomplishments. Sara Mandell The University ofSouth Florida Tampa. FL 33620 smandell@email.msn.com THE ANCIENT LIBRARY OF QUMRAN. By Frank M. Cross. Pp. 204. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Paper. This updated version of Cross' book is a classical exposition of the Qumran-Essene-Hasmonean hypothesis regarding the identity and historical provenance of the group that wrote, collected, and transmitted the Dead Sea Scrolls. When the book was first published (1958), many divergent theories abounded concerning the dating of the scrolls and the historical period reflected in the texts. (The range extended from ca. 200 BCE to the twelfth century CE.) The chief purpose of Cross' book was then and still is to establish, on methodologically secure grounds, the historical parameters for the origin of the movement and the composition of the Dead Sea Scrolls. His method involved the correlation of three sets of data: 1) the archaeological data of Khirbet Qumran, 2) the paleographic dating of the scrolls, and 3) historical allusions in the scrolls. He gave prominence to the first two sets and then sought historical identifications that would fit the parameters established by archaeology and paleography. On the basis of 143 coins of Alexander Jannaeus (103-176) found in level Ib, Cross concluded, "Indeed it is highly probable that the main Hebrew Studies 39 (1998) 252 Reviews building phase of Period I commenced no later than the reign of Alexander Jannaeus" (p. 59). He pushed the founding of the settlement (la) to "the beginning of Hyrcanus' reign or the end of Simon's reign [134]" (p. 59). Next he examined the paleographic dates of the scrolls. Cross, a pioneer in Dead Sea Scrolls paleography, detennined that the Dead Sea Scrolls fall into three typological categories: I) Archaic (200-150 BCE), 2) Hasmonean (150-30 BCE), and 3) Herodian (30 BCE-70 CE). All of the sectarian scrolls (that is, scrolls composed by the sect versus those that originated elsewhere ) were copied in the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. This fact led to the conclusion "that the composition of the early sectarian works probably did not commence until the second half of the second century, BC" (p. 96). The archaeological and the paleographic data thus converge to provide parameters for the early period of the movement from the second half of the second century to the reign of Jannaeus (ca. 150-76). Cross then went on to identify the "Wicked Priest" with Simon Maccabeus on the basis of allusions in the Habakkuk Pesher and 4QTeslimonia. The main lines of Cross' argument are sound and justifiably represent the scholarly consensus regarding the Hasmonean provenance of the scrolls. Nevertheless, it is possible that Cross' parameters are over precise. The archaeological and paleographic data are open to different interpretations. Paul Lapp has dated the ceramic wares of Qumran Ib to 50-31 BCE. Also, the presence of coins from the reign of Jannaeus does not have to constitute a lerminus pOSI quem, for they may have been brought to the site after Jannaeus' reign. (Twelve of Jannaeus' coins have been found in level n.) With respect to paleographic dating, Cross' claim (p. 95) to be able to date texts to within a generation stretches credulity. Two...

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
2158-1681
Print ISSN
0146-4094
Pages
pp. 251-253
Launched on MUSE
2011-10-05
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.