Information on Qumran sessions at the SBL London (and EABS Thessaloniki) Summer 2011  — sent to the IOQS mailing list

SBL 2011 INTERNATIONAL MEETING

London, United Kingdom

Meeting Begins: 7/4/2011

Meeting Ends: 7/8/2011

Call For Papers Opens: 10/1/2010
Call For Papers Closes: 1/31/2011
Requirements to Submit a Paper Proposal

QUMRAN AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

Program Unit Type: Section

Accepting Papers? Yes

Call For Papers: The Qumran and Dead Sea Scrolls unit will have two sessions, one general and one thematic. 1) The general session is open to papers on a variety of topics related to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran. 2) A second session will focus on the intersection of texts and archaeology at Qumran. We are interested in questions, such as ‘To what extent should the Scrolls be taken into consideration in the interpretation of the material data from Khirbet Qumran?’; ‘Why, or why not, should textual and archaeological sources be integrated when interpreting the site?’ Papers may examine the relationship between texts and archaeology from various theoretical and methodological perspectives as well as by providing concrete examples that can illuminate this issue. The thematic session will include papers by invited speakers. We welcome paper proposals for both sessions.

Program Unit Chairs

Cecilia Wassen  (ceciliawassen@yahoo.ca)

Sidnie White Crawford  (scrawford1@unl.edu)

NONBIBLICAL DEAD SEA SCROLLS: THEMES AND PERSPECTIVES

Program Unit Type: Consultation

Accepting Papers? Yes

Call For Papers: This unit welcomes proposals for papers on the non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls and encourages critical discussion from a wide range of disciplines and perspectives. The 2011 session is entitled Images of the Feminine in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and papers on any aspects of women, gender, or presentations of the feminine in the Dead Sea Scrolls are welcome. Papers might consider the archaeological, historical or legal presence of women associated with the Scrolls and/or the discursive presence of women and images of the feminine in the literary space of these texts. Scholars are also invited to reflect on methodological concerns raised with the study of women and gender at Qumran.

Program Unit Chairs

Eibert Tigchelaar  (etigchelaar@me.com)

Alison Schofield  (aschofie@du.edu)

paper proposals online through the SBL website

======================================================================================

Thessaloniki

EABS Meeting 2011: THESSALONIKI

8/8/2011-11/8/2011

CALLS FOR PAPERS ARE ON THE RESEARCH GROUP PAGES

The meeting in Thessaloniki will take place in Porto Palace Hotel.

The call CFP closes on January 31st 2011.

No specific Qumran sessions, but cf.

Early Judaism and Rabbinics

Category: Early Judaism

Research Group Co-ordinator: Moshe Lavee

Chairs

Moshe Lavee, Haifa University (mlavee@research.haifa.ac.il)

Ronit Nikolsky, Groningen University (r.nikolsky@rug.nl)

2011 Programme

The Birth of the Author

Individual vs. Collective Composition

in Early Judaism and Rabbinic Literature

Call for Papers

more info on http://www.eabs.net/rgroupDetails.aspx?id=50

 

If anybody could be forgiven for missing the deadline to opt out of the Google Books settlement, it’s probably the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Israel Antiquities Authority has tapped Google to digitize the famous texts, one of the earliest documents ever discovered chronicling the early years of Christianity. CNN reports that Google will be responsible for scanning the 900 manuscripts, which are actually comprised of more than 30,000 fragments discovered in caves around Israel in the 1940s and 1950s.

via Google chosen to digitize Dead Sea Scrolls | Relevant Results – CNET News.

 

The problem for Palestinian Authority officials, who contacted ROM executives in April, is that the exhibition contains artefacts illegally acquired by Israel when it annexed East Jerusalem in the 1967 war.

The PA’s archaeological department said it was important for Canadian institutions to be responsible and act in accordance with their country’s obligations.

“I’m not saying those scrolls are not Jewish and Christian in nature,” said Issam al Ahmed, the executive director of Palestine House, an educational and cultural organisation in the Toronto area. “But they were discovered prior to the Israeli occupation and they were exhibited in the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem in Palestine.”

At least they are not saying “those scrolls are not Jewish and Christian in nature.” Although I would say they are not Christian in nature. Britain is no closer to returning the Elgin Marbles so I expect it is highly unlikely that the Scrolls will go anywhere but back to the Shrine of the Book.

 

Resurrecting Old Myths

July 7th, 2008 by Bruce

In light of the “new” controversy over the “recent” discovery of references to the resurrection in Dead Sea Scroll materials, keep in mind:

In the New Testament, the thing really happens. The Dying God really appears—as a historical Person, living in a definite place and time. . . . The old myth of the Dying God . . . comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We must not be nervous about ‘parallels’ [in other religions]: they ought to be there—it would be a stumbling block if they weren’t.

—C. S. Lewis, “Answers to Questions about Christianity”; “Myth Became Fact” in God in The Dock, 58; 66; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

 

More Terrific Scholarship From Me

I see (HT: Awilum.com) that an article of mine from a while back, “4Q246,” is available in several formats from the Institute for Biblical Research website. If you’re really interested, you can also read John Collins’ article attacking my conclusions. Both were originally published in the Bulletin for Biblical Research.

4Q246 is the fragment that mentions the “son of God.” One of these days I plan to rebut JC’s refutation (or refute his rebuttal). I’ll post the information here when I do.

Be sure to follow Ed’s link to Awilum.com for more articles now made available!

(Via Ralph the Sacred River.)

 

ORGANISER: The University of Helsinki , Department of Biblical Studies
DATES: 5-21 August 2008
PRICES: Read more [ominous!]
CREDITS: 6 ECTS
COORDINATOR: Mr Mika S. Pajunen, mika.pajunen(at)kolumbus.fi

One of the most fascinating ancient discoveries of the 20th century was the library of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The first Scrolls were found 60 years ago and, after a long and meticulous scholarly restoration process, have now all been published. Many aspects of the Scrolls have yet to be explored and investigated, which is a fruitful topic for future study.
For Whom?

Anyone interested in religion, theology, Biblical studies, Jewish studies, the Greco-Roman period.
Contents

The course is an introduction to the main aspects of the DSS. It will cover the discovery and contents of the caves; the Second Temple period setting; the identify of the Qumran movement; DSS as a window to Jewish groups; the archaeology of the Qumran site; religious practices and beliefs; the interpretation of scriptures; and the significance of the DSS to the study of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

It is a very good (and fun) group of instructors:

Teachers

Professor Raija Sollamo, University of Helsinki

Lecturer Jutta Jokiranta, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki

Lecturer Juhana Markus Saukkonen, University College London / University of Helsinki

Lecturer Hanne von Weissenberg, University of Helsinki

Lecturer Mika Pajunen, University of Helsinki

So in case any North Americans have suddenly come into an inheritance unaffected by the current exchange rate (perhaps a great aunt just left you a French chateau with an active and profitable winery), it sounds like a great opportunity!

 

My subject matter is not the scrolls themselves but rather the study of the scrolls— research about Scroll research. It is the inner logic of this research that interests me: Evaluating the competing theories, assessing the relationship between them and the evidence adduced in their support, asking questions relating to the confirmation and refutation of rival hypotheses, judging the validity of arguments.

Ullmann-Margalit is a philosopher “trained, inter alia, in logic and the philosophy of science” and argues that the Qumran-Essene hypothesis has a peculiar, nearly unassailed status. This is not to say that there are not other theories, but that none of them are given real consideration.

From the perspective of the philosophy of science, the mainstream Qumran-Essene theory has, I believe, attained and maintained a peculiar status ever since its inception. The point is not that it dominates the field in the crude numerical sense that most of the researchers seem to subscribe to it, or at least to acquiesce in it; rather, it is that this theory functions as a default theory. This means that the Qumran-Essene theory is everyone’s “theory of choice”; it is one’s theory in the absence of good or conclusive reasons to switch to an alternative theory. In other words, unless and until an alternative theory wins you over, you stick with the Qumran-Essene theory, regardless of whether you might consider it less than compelling and regardless of how many faults you may actually find with it.

I don’t know exactly what things might look like from the perspective of the philosophy of science, but her concerns do not seem well founded to me. First of all, and I really do hate to bring this up (the new Godwin’s Law coming in play), but is this not the case with evolution? Is it not “the theory of choice” that is maintained (reasonably in my view) “in the absence of good or conclusive reasons to switch to an alternative theory?” If so, then the Qumran-Essene theory and evolution share a rare status, at least according to Ullman-Margalit.

And why should such a situation be so peculiar? Is it not the case that one theories are to be held so long as they offer the best explanations and are useful for the purposes at hand? How is this atypical within the philosophy of science? And if one does not have another theory that offers “good or conclusive reasons to switch to an alternative theory” why would you?

The author then states, “The subtle message being transmitted is that the threshold for switching to an alternative theory is more or less proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Really? This is a nice bit of rhetoric since a “subtle message” requires no evidence. While I have not published on scrolls research directly, I have spent much of my time from my junior year in college onward working with the scrolls and following the discipline. I know of no serious scholar (yes, I qualify that) who insists on absolute proof OR who assumes that the Q-E is “airtight.” Rather we all know that there are questions and issues that still trouble and perplex us (why would the scrolls be in caves so inconvenient if they were intended for study by those living at Qumran, or were they?).

The author offers 4 reasons why she thinks that the Q-E theory took root so fast and so hard.

These comprise at least the following four factors: (1) a rich, previously unknown corpus of texts (the scrolls) that seem to suggest the Essene identification, (2) an enigmatic and unique archaeological site (Qumran) that seems to support it, (3) unusually charismatic scholars who propagated the theory in its early phase, and (4) a widespread eagerness on the part of the public at large to believe it.

She then goes on to deal with each factor in turn. It seems to me that the first two, rightly given priority, are still fairly convincing and reasonable reasons for the earliest scholars and most today to consider the connection between scrolls, site, and the Essenes (although of course in their own terms they are “Sons of Zaddok,” or Sadducees). I also do not think that they latter two factors have had much of an impact at all. As someone who began studying the scrolls in 1989 I never knew of “the eminent American writer and literary critic Edmund Wilson” until many years later. True, he may have impacted and influenced the scholars that I read and studied under, but I think they are far more rigorous in their discipline than to be swayed in such a manner.

I am not going to spend time on each Ullman-Margalit’s explanation of the four factors because I think her entire premise, as I have stated, is flawed. There is no unstated conspiracy to reject all alternative theories. In fact, I find that aside from some wonderfully warm sessions at SBL, most textbooks, lectures, and discussions that I can think of include the various theories and recognize the weaknesses of the consensus theory. Indeed, she states herself that “In my view, none of the alternative theories comes close to the theory of the consensus in its comprehensiveness and in its ability to account for the majority of the findings, and hence none succeeds in posing a serious threat to it.” Yet the next sentence illustrates my frustration with this article.

What they ["scholars of the mainstream"] do not seem sufficiently cognizant of is that the motivation for each of the rival theories is a particular weakness or flaw in the mainstream theory— and that it is their task to come up with a plausible account for these weaknesses and flaws.

First, this entire article seems to be predicated upon a fiction that scholars who hold more or less to the Q-E hypothesis have kept their heads in the sand and stubbornly refused to even consider other options. I know that this is not true. We are all more than sufficiently cognizant that these various and variant theories most often arise out of reasonable questions about serious flaws in the Q-E hypothesis. But I do not believe that it is then incumbent upon any and all scroll scholars to come up with “a plausible account for these weaknesses and flaws.” Why? Because we simply may not have any “plausible account.” Sure, there are some scholars who enjoy this round-robin and will stay tucked into the debate long and hard and those of us who work in the discipline and teach regularly the DSS must stay up to date. But I also believe that some things, especially with regards to ancient history, will remain unanswerable and we can and will move on with the best explanations at hand. So far, most other explanations, at least in terms of the big picture, offer no compelling reasons to abandon in toto the Q-E theory. Instead we have, as Ullman-Margalit acknowledges, taken in, evaluated, and were appropriate adopted those views that are most sound and reasonable. Far from being a hidden shame, this is what all decent scholars do, we learn from others.

 

The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls
Falk, Daniel K.
$110.00
New York: T&T Clark, 2007
pp. xii + 189
Hardcover

Series Information
Companion to the Qumran Scrolls/Library of Second Temple Studies, 8/63

Description: This book introduces the reader to a fascinating genre of writings that retell biblical narratives in various ways. They reflect the concerns and methods of early Jewish interpreters of Scripture. Daniel Falk surveys the content and major scholarly issues of three key examples: Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), Reworked Pentateuch (4Q158, 364-5), and Commentary to Genesis (4Q252-4). Particular attention is paid to exploring why and how the authors interpret the Scriptural text in their distinctive ways. The book traces continuity and discontinuity with other Jewish and Christian traditions, and reflects on the significance of these texts for the status of Scripture and the boundary between Scripture and interpretation. Drawing on the latest research and reconstructions of the texts, and with extensive bibliographies, this is an authoritative guide for the student or the non-specialist scholar.

Subjects: Literature, Dead Sea Scrolls

Download the pdf here. At least the don’t make us pay for that!

 

So here’s to the crazy ones, Emanuel Tov!

Apple – Education – Profiles – Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“The Mac played an absolutely critical role in our 16 years of work,” confirms Professor Emanuel Tov, Editor-in-Chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project, based at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “Most important for us was the Mac’s versatility in using different fonts, as we were working in Greek, Hebrew-Aramaic, ancient Hebrew, Syriac and English. We also found the Macs so easy to use, and they literally never crash”.

 

Biblical Studies Carnival XXIII. John took a slightly different approach this time. It looks good to me!

The format of this carnival is simple. I link to representative posts from a wide selection of blogs. The purpose: to introduce a bunch of bloggers to each other who will come, hopefully, to see for themselves what nastiness and spite or fulsome praise I inflict upon a post of theirs, or that of a fellow. I ask questions. I desire answers. Polite bloggers will link to this carnival and comment as they see fit.

Be sure to check his addendum as well.

(Via Ancient Hebrew Poetry.)