The Book of the Giants from Qumran (review)

160 SHOFAR Winter 2000 Vol. 18, No.2 In the introduction, the author explains that he does not intend to divide various Jewish approaches into the categories of "fringe" and "mainstream." He argues that such a division is almost always promoted by someone who wishes to argue that a specific contemporary viewpoint is the correct approach, because that viewpoint was the dominant one in antiquity. Yet I cannot help wonder whether Goldenberg's own approach-ofpresenting a variety ofopinions and saying that Judaism has always had more than one attitude on this issue-might not also be meant to legitimate a certain type of contemporary Jewish world view. Goldenberg has appended a fascinating "unscientific" epilogue. There he explains that one of his motivations for writing this book was to counter contemporary, politically correct scholarship that defines intolerance as a necessary, even logical outgrowth of monotheism. The research, Goldenberg says, shows that while many ancient monotheists were intolerant, not all were. Accordingly the claim that monotheism always leads to intolerance is disproved. I found this idea-introduced in the last paragraph of the book-fascinating, and I only wish that the author had developed it more. I recommend this book highly as a useful resource for the serious scholar. Some of the chapters could also be used by instructors of university courses. I suggest that anyone who reads the book bear in mind the political and ideological climates not only of the ancient world, but also ofthe 1990s. Martin Lockshin Centre for Jewish Studies York University The Book ofthe Giants from Qumran, by Loren T. Stuckenbruck. TUbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. 289 pp. DM 198. Loren Stuckenbruck has written ajoumeyman work ofphilology. In it, he reconstructs a lost book, known from Manichaean sources as "The Book ofthe Giants." In doing so, he madvertently illustrates what has been from the beginning an unfortunate deficiency ofQumran studies, the tendency ofthose on the "in" or the "haves" to fawn upon those allowing them access or sponsoring them, while refusing to acknowledge their debt to the "outs," often even at times unduly criticizing them. The present reviewer is a card-carrying member ofthe latter group and, therefore, views a work like Stuckenbruck's with some jaundice. First of all, its virtues. There is no quarreling with Stuckenbruck's footnotes. They are compendious, and in them he thrashes out many ofthe problems ofthis particular genre ofphilological studies, Le., Enochic, Noahic, and "Gigantic" manuscript recovery. Book Reviews 161 His reconstructions are also noteworthy, though in this area it is difficult for the non-specialist, whether literary critic or historian, to judge, since his points are often so obscure as to seem almost irrelevant. Over and over again he goes into the minutia of letter reconstruction, where what little can be ascertained seems almost irrelevant. Discussions ofthis kind illustrate the difference between philology and history. In the former, he and his mentors and colleagues (those he acknowledges are 1. T. Milik, Frank Cross, Garcia Martinez, etc.) have had it more or less their own way. In the latter, his strengths are questionable. He assumes Qumran paleography, for instance, as developed by Cross and others, to be correct, accepting without comment the "early Herodian" hand in the main ofthe texts he considers part ofthe document he is reconstructing. Yet, in spite of this, over and over again he admits dating cannot be certain. Elsewhere, he assumes Daniel is a "non-Essene" work, without explaining what an "Essene" work might look like. Daniel, it seems to the present reviewer, appears to exhibit all the characteristics of what one might wish to call an "Hassidaean" or "Essene" work. In more general terms, where Stuckenbruck falls short is also quite clear. He complains about the fact that some of the photographs in the Facsimile Edition ofthe DeadSea Scrolls, edited by James Robinson and myself(B.A.S., 1991), were too small or not clear enough. But this work was published before any other photographic inventory of Scroll documents became available (including the Huntington Library microfilm, which dido't really appear until early 1992, by which time it was unnecessary ). Presumably, Stuckenbruck thinks he is criticizing Robinson and myself when he says these things...