| PaleoJudaica.com A weblog on ancient Judaism and its context E-mail: paleojudaica-at-talktalk-dot-net ("-at-" = "@", "-dot-" = ".") |
|
Saturday, June 28, 2003 NOW HERE'S A COINCIDENCE. Dr. Eugene Fisher, Consultor to the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, gives an interview with Zenit on Jewish-Catholic relations after Vatican II. Here�s an excerpt: In the wake of the Holocaust, and with a growing understanding of how the traditional anti-Judaic teaching of the Church had rendered Christians all too vulnerable to the attacks against Jews by modern racial anti-Semitism, "Nostra Aetate" wisely went to the source of the problem in Christian teaching. Worth reading in full. posted by Jim Davila | 11:16 AM I VIDEOTAPED STIGMATA last week and finally watched it over the last couple of evenings. Here are some thoughts on it. I'm usually the last person in the western hemisphere to see any movie, so I'll allow myself a few spoilers. If you haven't seen it yet and don't want the experience sullied by advance knowledge, read no further. 1. I know that Hollywood movies are supposed to have lame, unimaginative plots, but really, Father What-A-Waste and the Tempting, Beautiful, Secular Woman vs. the Evil Vatican Conspiracy? Was there no other rack on which to drape the Aramaic Gospel of Thomas? 2. If, as the movie notes at the end, the Gospel of Thomas was already discovered in the 1940s, albeit in Coptic translation, and anyone in reach of a good bookstore or library has had access to the English translation since the 1970s, tell me again why having the Aramaic original is such a big deal? (To philologists it would be, of course: we'd descend on it in a slavering pack. But for the spiritual lives of normal people? We already know what it says, near enough.) 3. Assuming this Lost True Gospel was different from the Coptic translation, what exactly was its Explosive Revelation that the Evil Vatican Priests were try to suppress? Near as I can tell from the movie, it was "Do your own thing." 4. What about that vision of the woman who drops her baby into the traffic? Did we ever come back to that? What did it mean again? 5. The movie has been criticized for writing all the Aramaic in paleo-Hebrew script, since in the time of Jesus the newer square script was in normal use and the paleo-Hebrew script was only used rarely for extremely authoritative works like books of the Pentateuch (of which a few copies in this script were recovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls). But this was one thing that didn't bother me. If the book in question was actually the One True Gospel of Jesus, I can see the Aramaic-speaking, first-century Jewish author writing it in the Paleo-Hebrew script to make a statement on how authoritative it was. Of course, I'm probably being too generous to Hollywood, but at least I could work out a rationale for this one. 6. The Vatican divides up the noncanonical gospels from its Secret Archive and Hoard of Looted Manuscripts among the three priestly orders so that none of them knows too much and they don't get into tiffs over who gets what, and each translator only gets every third page. That's a lousy way to do it and would result in translations that aren't nearly as good as they could be. For example, who translates the fragmented sentences at the beginning and end of each page? I've worked enough with fragmentary texts in ancient languages to be sure that many of those sentences will be completely opaque to both translators until they can see the whole sentence. But I guess this is part of the price of running an Evil Vatican Conspiracy. 7. At one point Father What-A-Waste, who resourcefully had his miniature tape recorder running when Frankie started spouting glossolalia during one of her fits, played the tape through the telephone to his translator-priest friend at the Vatican. On the basis of hearing one sentence on a scratchy tape over the phone the translator-priest immediately pronounced the language to be first-century Galilean Aramaic. Not Judean, not Syrian, not second century. Right. 8. Okay, some of the photography and some of the music were cool. And the casting of the three cardboard cut-out main characters was pretty good. It's a tolerable evening's entertainment, if disengaging your brain that long doesn't give you a cramp. posted by Jim Davila | 10:42 AM Friday, June 27, 2003 JANE C. WALDBAUM, President of the Archaeological Institute of America, writes the following on the IraqCrisis list about two bills before Congress which pertain to Iraqi artifacts: Dear List Members, For the rest of the message, with details on the two bills, go to the list archive here. UPDATE (28 June): For more information on this just go to the link and keep following the links to the messages that come after. posted by Jim Davila | 3:31 PM NEW BOOK REVIEWS from the Review of Biblical Literature: Hachlili, Rachel The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form & Significance Tov, Emanuel Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Loader, William Jesus' Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels posted by Jim Davila | 1:55 PM DAMN BLOGGER! Will someone please tell them that people who live in a Greenwich Mean Time zone have daylight savings time like everyone else! posted by Jim Davila | 1:06 PM BEN WITHERINGTON makes his case for the authenticity of the "James Ossuary." AUTHENTICITY IN QUESTION (Lexington Herald-Leader) Well, okay, maybe. But this is an ad hominem argument and doesn't lead us anywhere useful. Whatever anyone's agenda, either the inscription is a fake or it isn't. Then there is the film or patina on the box that the Israelis said could have been created only in modern times. The implication is that this was an attempt to make the inscription look old. This argument is more interesting. Surely it would be possible to distinguish modern cleaning from a modern deliberately-faked patina. The Archaeology Magazine article says "Strangest of all was the "James Bond," the chalky material that coated the letters. It contained numerous microfossils called coccoliths, naturally occurring as foreign particles in chalk, but not dissolved by water. Hence it was clear that this was not a true patina formed by the surface crystallization of calcite, but rather powdered chalk--microfossils and all--that was dissolved in water and daubed over the entire inscription." Does a modern household cleaner have chalk in it? With microfossils? I don't know. [Authority Deputy Director Uzi] Dahari said the Authority decided to examine the ossuary's authenticity "because the whole world was talking about this, and a lot of innocent people could be hurt if you're trying to fool them to make money." Experts have estimated the value of an authentic James ossuary at $1 million to $2 million. Fair point, although Altman thinks the forgery was done in the last couple of years and would presumably call the whole story of its discovery in the 70s into question. Witherington suggests there may be theological agenda for the attempt to discredit the inscription, which he calls "an indirect testimony to the resurrection of Jesus." Besides being ad hominem again, this is a very indirect argument and I really can't see the Israeli authorities being worried about it. The article says that the IAA report is coming out this week and I assume it will be online as well. I'll be very busy for the next few days and then in Venice next week and I probably won't have time to worry about it. But I'm reserving judgment until I see the report and have time to digest it. posted by Jim Davila | 10:02 AM Thursday, June 26, 2003 I'M NOT IMPRESSED so far with Blogger's new publishing interface, which came online today. Twice already I've tried to publish something and the system has jammed hopelessly so that I had to shut down the browser and start over. Not a great opening performance. UPDATE: Just got a double posting, so it appears that the jamming was just a long delay - very long: in one case I let the system oscillate for an hour or so before I shut it down. (I am doing some work here, you know: this week I've been writing my paper for the upcoming Bible and Anthropology conference. I'll let you see a draft in due course.) posted by Jim Davila | 4:45 PM NOW HERE'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT: ( BW)(TX-SALEM/KLTY-FM)(SALM) 94.9 KLTY's ``Celebrate Freedom'' To Have First Ever Public Viewing of Dead Sea Scrolls Outside of a Museum (Business Wire) Entrepreneurial, eh? posted by Jim Davila | 4:29 PM NEW ARCHAEOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY: I've been meaning to get to this for the last few days. This is a new ground-penetrating radar technique that could be extremely useful for archaeologists everywhere: New device offers a peek at our deeply buried past (Miami Herald)posted by Jim Davila | 12:21 PM A WEB PAGE OF LINKS TO ARTICLES ON THE "JAMES OSSUARY" AND THE "JOASH INSCRIPTION", going back to when they were first announced, has been collected by Professor Airton Jose da Silva (as noted on Ioudaios-L). posted by Jim Davila | 11:34 AM UPDATE ON IRAQ MUSEUM LOOTING: An important new account of the looting and its context, based on interviews with numerous eyewitnesses, has been published by Roger Atwood in ARTnews online. Scroll down or follow the link to my "About That Hague Convention" post and keep scrolling down to the 26 June update for a link, excerpts, and comments. posted by Jim Davila | 10:09 AM Wednesday, June 25, 2003 LARA CROFT AT THE TOMB OF EZEKIEL! I'm not making this up: [...] My emphasis. Okay, I guess it isn't that Tomb of Ezekiel. Ain't Google amazing? UPDATE: Here's more on legends about the tombs of Ezekiel and Baruch, which evidently are supposed to be side-by-side (from Louis Ginsberg's Legends of the Jews). Nothing about Lara, though. posted by Jim Davila | 4:27 PM THE TRAILER for Mel Gibson's coming movie, The Passion, hasn't been released yet, but someone named (or called) "Rosary Guy" has seen it. The Trailer for Mel Gibson's The Passion Seen! We'll see. posted by Jim Davila | 2:21 PM THE ST. SHENOUDA THE ARCHIMANDRITE COPTIC SOCIETY WEB PAGE has lots of useful reference material for Coptic studies, including a Manual of Coptic Studies (incomplete, but note especially the Coptic Manuscripts-Overview page), a Coptic Language page with a Grammar of Boharic (requires the downloading of fonts), and much more. posted by Jim Davila | 10:57 AM HERE'S MORE ON THE TALMUD THEY DIDN'T FIND. A controversial embedded reporter in Iraq got the information from Ahmed Chalabi's people: Embedded Reporter's Role In Army Unit's Actions Questioned by Military My emphasis. There's lots more about Ms. Miller and her doings but that's all it says about the Talmud. posted by Jim Davila | 9:35 AM Tuesday, June 24, 2003 I'M OFF to our School garden party in honor of graduation. One of my doctoral students has just received her Ph.D. Congratulations Julia! posted by Jim Davila | 5:21 PM PUBLIC SALE OF OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI: Robert Kraft e-mails: It may be of interest to the paleojudaica site that a problematic precedent has been set (or perhaps merely expanded) by the auction on 20 June 2003 of 29 published papyri fragments from Oxyrhynchus, including POxy 1351 LXX Leviticus, that had been donated in the early 20th century to Crozer Theological Seminary (now part of Colgate Rochester Divinity School) by the Egyptian Exploration Fund (now the Egyptian Exploration Society). The materials were divided into 9 lots, and brought a staggering total of $646,000. The most prized piece in terms of bids was Poxy 1780, from the Gospel of John, which went for $350,000. The tiny parchment Leviticus fragment brought "only" $30,000. The names of the successful bidders are unknown to me. I agree! posted by Jim Davila | 4:47 PM PAUL FLESHER (University of Wyoming) already had had doubts about the the authenticity of the "James Ossuary" on philological grounds. Mark Elliott (spelling sic; the other "Wyoming scholar," editor of the Bible and Interpretation website) and Rochelle Altman also figure: Wyoming scholars help expose ossuary (Billings Gazette) Flesher has published a number of essays on the Ossuary on the Bible and Interpretation website. posted by Jim Davila | 2:02 PM SANE AND SENSIBLE RHETORIC ALERT: Iraq's Plundered Past: Picking up the pieces in Baghdad In the current (July/August) issue of Archaeology Magazine the editoral by Jane C. Waldbaum, President of the Archaeological Institute of America, is a model of what to say and do about the tragic cultural looting in Iraq. She explains simply and clearly why the looting is still important even thought it was on a smaller scale that originally thought, she deplores the disaster without making unjustified accusations, and she goes through the positive steps that the AIA is taking to help with the reconstruction. Well done, Jane and the AIA. posted by Jim Davila | 1:42 PM ROCHELLE ALTMAN, who has been in the news lately about the "James Ossuary," has a new book coming out in July. You can order it now through Amazon: Absent Voices: The Story of Writing Systems in the West posted by Jim Davila | 9:53 AM A LATE ANTIQUE CONVENT in Jerusalem is being investigated by archaeologists, reportedly with the usual interference from the Ultra-Orthodox: Israeli archaeologists uncover nearly intact convent (Catholic News Briefs) posted by Jim Davila | 9:38 AM ANTIQUITIES IN THE HOLY LAND - at last, some coverage of their current plight: Holy Land turmoil puts cultural heritage at risk I'm glad all this is finally receiving some attention but - dammit! - it's the Book of Revelation, not "Revelations"! Why can't reporters ever get this right? posted by Jim Davila | 9:28 AM Monday, June 23, 2003 McGUIRE GIBSON, in an interview with Archaeology Magazine, has the following exchange with the interviewer: In your meeting with Department of Defense officials on January 24, what did you tell them about protecting Iraq's heritage and what did they say to you? My bold-font emphasis. (Via Archaeologica News) UPDATE: Scroll down to the bottom of yesterday's "About That Hague Convention" post for some comments on a specific accusation of American war crimes against the Baghdad Museum. posted by Jim Davila | 10:15 AM HERSHEL SHANKS: Why I Am Not Yet Convinced the Ossuary Inscription Is a Forgery (Beliefnet via Bible and Interpretation News) [...] Yuval Goren replies here: Shanks' Assertions are Simply Incorrect and Misleading (Bible and Interpretation News) [...]posted by Jim Davila | 10:06 AM FRANK CROSS (my doctoral supervisor) weighs in on the "James Ossuary": "If this is a forgery, the forger was a genius." (Time Magazine) posted by Jim Davila | 9:36 AM Sunday, June 22, 2003 ROCHELLE ALTMAN thinks that the "James Ossuary" is not just a modern forgery, it's a twenty-first century one. An essay that takes no prisoners. "Updates on the Ossuary of Ya'acob bar Yosef and the Temple Tablet" (Bible and Interpretation News, via Jim West on Ioudaios-L) posted by Jim Davila | 8:35 PM FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK: ABOUT THAT HAGUE CONVENTION This is a follow-up to my post last week, "When Scholars Cry Wolf." I'm assuming you've read this and will not include here every link that you can find there. I was intending for this to be just a few short remarks but I'm afraid it has turned into another editorial. My comments apply in the first instance to the Baghdad Museum, but I also deal with the cultural looting in general later in the essay. This is the opening text of a resolution passed by MELCOM (via the Iraqcrisis list): MELCOM, the European Association of Middle East Librarians, assembled in Beirut at its 25th annual conference, unanimously My emphasis. Well, I deplore it too, but I suggest that people who want to assert a "breach" of international law by allied forces read the U.N. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict a little more carefully. Here is my reading of it. Article 4, on Respect for Cultural Property, says: 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed convict [sic: read "conflict"?]; and by refraining from any act of hostility directed against such property. My emphasis. It is well established that Iraqi forces used the Baghdad Museum grounds as a base from which to fight U.S. forces from 7 April for three days. This is a case of imperative military necessity and the U.S. forces could not have been expected to protect the site during this period (when, evidently, some looting was already going on). (It may be that the Museum would count as a site put under "special protection," in which case Articles 8-11 apply, which say much the same thing.) It isn't clear to me exactly when the situation in Baghdad moved from "warfare" to "occupation" � I imagine it varied from location to location. The crucial period from about 10-12 April (after which, remember, the report for some time was that the Museum had been completely gutted) could be argued to fit either. If there were still hostilities going on in the immediate vicinity, paragraph 2 may still apply. (Paragraph 3 is obviously trumped by paragraph 2: if the parties to the conflict are allowed to use cultural property for purposes that might expose it to damage if it is a case of imperative military necessity, they can hardly be expected to protect it from theft, pillage, or vandalism under the same circumstances.) If not, and the area was now "occupied," the relevant part of Article 5, on Occupation, reads: 1. Any High Contracting Party in occupation of the whole or part of the territory of another High Contracting Party shall as far as possible support the competent national authorities of the occupied country in safeguarding and preserving its cultural property. My emphasis. The occupying power should take measures for preservation as far as possible. It is not enough simply to show that some antiquities were looted or destroyed, which is not in doubt here. To assert violation of the Hague Convention it is necessary to show that the occupying troops did not take whatever steps were reasonable given the situation, the whole array of things that were calling for their attention, and the manpower and resources they had available. This, I submit, has by no means been demonstrated. (I don't have the patience for a detailed exegesis of the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention and I doubt that many would have the patience to read it if I did. Suffice to say that Chapter 2, Articles 6-9, and all of Chapter 3 cover the same ground in more detail and build on the 1954 Protocol without changing anything I have said above. By the way, I am aware that the United States has not ratified either the Convention or the Protocol, but it has gone on record as recognizing much of the Convention as "customary international law." For a primer on archaeological ethics and international law, go here.) In the case of the Baghdad Museum it is unrealistic to suggest, as it was by a museum official on the day the looting was announced, that one tank and two soldiers could have kept away the looters. A commander with any sense would not place two of his men in so vulnerable a position to secure an important site. There were still bands of Fedayeen loose in Baghdad and there was the danger of a determined mob of looters. Two men and a tank would not have been a sufficiently intimidating presence to be sure of keeping looters at bay, which meant the soldiers might have had to fire on the looters in contravention of the rules of engagement. It would have taken a large contingent of troops occupying the museum to secure it. I pointed this out on 13 April. Was there such a contingent to spare during the crucial days of 10-12 April? I don't know. But I bet you don't either. It is clear that the troops were mopping up armed resistance, securing the Ministry of Interior and the Oil Ministry, being called upon to help figure out if their were prisoners underground dying of thirst, and (at the same time or shortly thereafter) trying to keep a zoo full of animals alive while they got a supply line of food going. Not to put too fine a point on it, but all of these actually were a higher priority than securing the Museum. The decision to allot resources to them makes sense. We do need all the military intelligence we can get: we're fighting a war on terrorism and, although Saddam had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks, he was in bed with a number of terrorist groups. We needed to keep as much information as possible which would help us preserve the oil infrastructure for the rebuilding of Iraq. And can you imagine the condemnations we'd still be hearing today if we'd let all the zoo animals starve or if there had been underground prisons and we'd let the prisoners die? And I don't know what other urgent needs were present, but I bet there were quite a few. Robert Fisk makes much of the ministry buildings that were not protected, but doesn't their number indicate that troops and resources for protecting them were rather scarce in comparison to the need? Were there indeed other resources that were wasted? Again, I don't know. Maybe there were units off wasting time somewhere who should have been protecting the Museum and all those other ministry buildings and hospitals, etc. But if so, I'd like to see the evidence. Remember, Baghdad was not yet "secured." I would like an account of what Lieutenant-Colonel Schwartz's men were doing after the Battle of the Museum. If it can be shown that were doing things that were obviously less important than securing the Museum and that the things they were doing were unreasonable choices by comparison at the time, then there may be a case for saying they violated the Hague Convention. If ASOR or MELCOM want to present evidence that this is so, I am willing to listen. This is obviously just the most publicized and best-known site that suffered some looting or destruction. There were reports early on that the Mosul Museum was seriously looted but it seems these were exaggerated. Various libraries and archives were burned or looted or both. The most recent information I can find on these is here. (pointed out to me by Francis Deblauwe). About these I will say just two things. First, we know even less at present about exactly what was lost in them than we know about the Baghdad Museum and about what was happening at the same time in the same vicinities. There is at least one report that some of the holdings of the National Library and Archives had previously been removed to safety. Given that a good bit of what was originally reported destroyed in other collections had actually been saved earlier (such as the majority of the holdings of the Ministry of Endowments & Religious Affairs Central Library), I'm hoping that most or all of the old and rare holdings in the National Library and Archives will turn up safe too. Second, there are certainly an awful lot of libraries and archives. Is it really realistic to argue that they all should have been heavily guarded? Again, I don't know whether it was feasible to put a heavy guard around the National Library and Archives on 14 April. I'm not sure it would even have occurred to me that the Iraqis themselves would burn it down. And once Robert Fisk reported to the U.S. troops that the Koranic Library was burning, with flames shooting a hundred feet into the air, what were they supposed to do? Did they have fire-fighting equipment? Would even that have made a difference at that point? I am not trying to support anyone's agenda or propose a simplistic interpretation of very complex and confusing events. I want to know what happened too and if it can be shown that there was negligence on the part of the troops and the occupying powers, then they should be called to justice. But the point I am making is that we still know very little about what actually happened and that negligence has by no means been established and it can only be established by a full accounting not only of what the troops didn't do, but also what they did instead and why. If allied forces had gone to the Baghdad Museum, packed up its contents and sent them back to museums in the States, we would all be talking about violations of the Hague Convention. If they had burned down the National Library, we would all be talking about war crimes. They did no such thing and no one claims that they did. They are being accused, rather, of neglecting to prevent looting and burning by the local population, a much more nebulous charge that is correspondingly harder to prove and that should be advanced with due caution. If ASOR, MELCOM, etc. think they can make a case for negligence, let them speak up. Let them call for a formal investigation. Let them present a full array of evidence to the public. If the case is strong, there will be support for an investigation. But so far it looks to me as though the Hague Convention is being invoked purely on the grounds that antiquities were looted. This is not adequate, based on what the Convention actually says. Accusing someone of a war crime is a serious matter and ought to be done only if the accuser offers a detailed and convincing case. In the meantime, the accused should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. ASOR, MELCOM and others have jumped to conclusions and are embarrassing us all in the public arena as a result. This was not necessary. You have only to look at the Statement of Concern of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (which invokes the Hague Convention in a sensible way) and the Statement on destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq by the World Archaeological Congress to see that it was perfectly possible to express concern about the situation and to call for action without resorting to overblown rhetoric and unsupported accusations. UPDATE (23 June): In this article (originally published 7 May in German, English translation via Francis Deblauwe's website), Professor Walter Sommerfeld makes some specific and serious accusations that, if true, would indicate that American troops blatantly violated the Hague Convention and committed war crimes. According to the article, after the fighting around the Baghdad Museum the troops broke into the Museum and brought out unidentified objects, then incited the crowd to loot the treasures of the Museum. However, the account is presented as based on anonymous reports by Museum staff and local residents, "as they are afraid of repercussions and will be forced to work with the Americans in the future." There are also alleged quotations from three local residents who say not only that the American troops looted the Museum, but that they brought Kuwaitis with them and together they carried off seven truckloads of artifacts while protected by armored cars! Certainly Americans as well as anyone else would want to know if all this is true. I have to say that at this point I am not inclined to give great weight to anonymous accusations. If there had been blatant looting by American troops on this scale, surely the newspapers would have been all over it - it could hardly have been covered up or escaped their attention. The National Geographic report on Iraq's antiquites deals at length with the Iraq Museum and shows no awareness of any accounts or rumors of this kind. Nor does Professor McGuire Gibson, one of the team members who visited the Museum in May, say anything about any such rumors in his interview in the current (July/August) issue of Archaeology Magazine, even when asked how the looting happened. So we have some specific and serious accusations but no verification or indication that people in the know or with the means of finding out are taking them seriously. I remain to be convinced. UPDATE (26 June): Roger Atwood has published an article in ARTnews online, "Inside Iraq�s National Museum," (via the Iraqcrisis list and Francis Deblauwe) which gives a detailed account of what happened in and around the Museum during the crucial days before, during, and after the looting, based on interviews with museum workers, U.S. troops who were present, and eyewitness bystanders. The Museum was "turned into a major military defensive position by Iraqi forces." Three U.S. Army platoons, with four tanks and 16 soldiers each, rolled into the immediate vicinity of the museum that day under heavy fire. It was a big force, attesting to the importance of the junction and the strength of Iraqi resistance. The commander of the operation was Captain Jason Conroy. More looters had gotten in through a back entrance. By Saturday, April 12, other employees began returning to the museum and chased out some of the looters. Abbas put up a large sign in the entrance saying in Arabic: "The American army is in control of the museum. Those who enter will be killed." It was a lie, of course, but it helped. They were able to block the doors and hold looters at bay. This is an extremely important account, so please do follow the link and read it all. Needless to say, it bears no resemblance to the version published by Walter Sommerfeld and commented on in the previous update. Also, David Nishimura (Cronaca) comments briefly on my posting and discusses the same ARTnews article here. posted by Jim Davila | 11:50 AM |
|
|||