{"title":"Divine Violence and the Character of God by Claude F. Mariottini (review)","authors":"David Penchansky","doi":"10.1353/cbq.2023.0051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"c.e.; and pp. 140–41, on a recent interpretation of Locus 4 as a possible dining room), the two major revisions pertain to the site’s chronology and one of its most enigmatic phenomena—the animal bone deposits. Regarding the former, M. revises her earlier suggestion that Qumran was abandoned briefly between 9 and 4 b.c.e. (which served as a demarcation point between Periods Ib and II), and now holds that the site experienced a continuous, uninterrupted occupation starting from the early first century b.c.e. till 68 c.e., with the building(s) undergoing various modifications along the way (pp. 69–72; this is based on and summarizes the arguments in Dennis Mizzi and Jodi Magness, “Was Qumran Abandoned at the End of the First Century BCE?” JBL 135 [2016] 301–20). Perhaps more significantly, M. departs from her previously held view that the animal bone deposits are the remains of communal meals—a view that retains a wide scholarly following—and argues that they represent the remains of animal sacrifices carried out at Qumran. She bases her argument on comparative material from other cultic sites across the Mediterranean, where charred animal bones and pottery are often found in layers of ash, a scenario similar to the one we have at Qumran. Therefore, M. sees the site as conceived along the lines of the biblical wilderness camp, with a sacrificial altar in its midst. In other words, the Qumran sectarians did not just withdraw from the temple in Jerusalem, as the majority of scholars maintain, but also created an alternative sacrificial cult of their own (pp. 142–60). A glaring omission in this otherwise excellent work is the absence of a final chapter that synthesizes M.’s key arguments and conclusions, especially given the book’s thematic structure. As it is, the book ends abruptly with the discussion of Qumran’s relationship to the nearby sites of ʿEin Feshkha and ʿEin el-Ghuweir and lacks any final reflections that attempt to tie everything together. This is a feature carried over from the first edition, even though disrupting the original format by adding a concluding chapter would have gone a long way in giving the book a more cohesive structure. Furthermore, M. includes more updates on the archaeology of Qumran than of the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite the many recent advances in the scientific study of the Scrolls as archaeological artifacts and the renewed focus on the caves in which they were found. Finally, one may take issue with the way M. sometimes uses the Scrolls to elucidate aspects of the site. The Scrolls were found at Qumran, true, and they are related to the site and its inhabitants, but what they say may not be about Qumran. These are minor squabbles, however, that pale in comparison to the book’s many strengths. No doubt, like the first edition, this revised version will remain a standard introduction for many years to come and will serve, once more, as a useful tool to help readers navigate the dynamic scholarly discussions on the archaeology of Qumran—discussions that have become only more complex.","PeriodicalId":45718,"journal":{"name":"CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"85 1","pages":"342 - 344"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2023.0051","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
c.e.; and pp. 140–41, on a recent interpretation of Locus 4 as a possible dining room), the two major revisions pertain to the site’s chronology and one of its most enigmatic phenomena—the animal bone deposits. Regarding the former, M. revises her earlier suggestion that Qumran was abandoned briefly between 9 and 4 b.c.e. (which served as a demarcation point between Periods Ib and II), and now holds that the site experienced a continuous, uninterrupted occupation starting from the early first century b.c.e. till 68 c.e., with the building(s) undergoing various modifications along the way (pp. 69–72; this is based on and summarizes the arguments in Dennis Mizzi and Jodi Magness, “Was Qumran Abandoned at the End of the First Century BCE?” JBL 135 [2016] 301–20). Perhaps more significantly, M. departs from her previously held view that the animal bone deposits are the remains of communal meals—a view that retains a wide scholarly following—and argues that they represent the remains of animal sacrifices carried out at Qumran. She bases her argument on comparative material from other cultic sites across the Mediterranean, where charred animal bones and pottery are often found in layers of ash, a scenario similar to the one we have at Qumran. Therefore, M. sees the site as conceived along the lines of the biblical wilderness camp, with a sacrificial altar in its midst. In other words, the Qumran sectarians did not just withdraw from the temple in Jerusalem, as the majority of scholars maintain, but also created an alternative sacrificial cult of their own (pp. 142–60). A glaring omission in this otherwise excellent work is the absence of a final chapter that synthesizes M.’s key arguments and conclusions, especially given the book’s thematic structure. As it is, the book ends abruptly with the discussion of Qumran’s relationship to the nearby sites of ʿEin Feshkha and ʿEin el-Ghuweir and lacks any final reflections that attempt to tie everything together. This is a feature carried over from the first edition, even though disrupting the original format by adding a concluding chapter would have gone a long way in giving the book a more cohesive structure. Furthermore, M. includes more updates on the archaeology of Qumran than of the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite the many recent advances in the scientific study of the Scrolls as archaeological artifacts and the renewed focus on the caves in which they were found. Finally, one may take issue with the way M. sometimes uses the Scrolls to elucidate aspects of the site. The Scrolls were found at Qumran, true, and they are related to the site and its inhabitants, but what they say may not be about Qumran. These are minor squabbles, however, that pale in comparison to the book’s many strengths. No doubt, like the first edition, this revised version will remain a standard introduction for many years to come and will serve, once more, as a useful tool to help readers navigate the dynamic scholarly discussions on the archaeology of Qumran—discussions that have become only more complex.