| PaleoJudaica.com A weblog on ancient Judaism and its context E-mail: paleojudaica-at-talktalk-dot-net ("-at-" = "@", "-dot-" = ".") |
|
Sunday, March 07, 2004 ARCHAEOLOGY MAGAZINE has a new issue out (March/April 2004), which includes an article on That Movie and how, although archaeology really gives us no information about the events of the Passion, tourists keep going to look over the traditional spots anyhow. Core sound bite: Archaeologists and historians are rapidly coming to the conclusion that, for most people, the past is a sort of theme park--and they want the themes to be familiar ones. "Everybody already thinks they know the story of Jesus," says [Paula] Fredricksen. "A truly ancient Jesus is just too different for audiences to deal with." There is also a review of the "Petra: Lost City of Stone" exhibit in New York and an interview with museum curator Kenneth D.S. Lapatin about archaeological forgeries. Excerpt from the latter: Forgery is closely linked to looting and it operates by many of the same mechanisms: the true origins of the object are necessarily erased, and fakes, like looted artifacts, often come on the art market with a false provenance. In my view, the only effective way to stop forgery, like looting, is not to try to cut off production, but rather to starve it, that is to say, to change the behavior, the desire, of consumers. But unlike the damage done by looters, that done by forgers is not irrevocable. A lost archaeological context can never be recovered, but a false antiquity can be removed from the corpus of genuine material. The damage can be undone.posted by Jim Davila | 3:55 PM REBECCA LESSES reviews Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Read both entries for March 6th. She opens: I thought the Passion was a powerful film -- but in a very disturbed and violent way. UPDATE (9 March): Goodacre fisks Lesses. posted by Jim Davila | 10:19 AM "PURIM STORY WOULD MAKE A SUPERB MOVIE," says Rabbi James Rudin in the Toronto Star. I wonder if Mel Gibson is listening. posted by Jim Davila | 10:18 AM "RAIDERS OF THE LOST SYNAGOGUE." Arieh O'Sullivan of the Jerusalem Post looks at the problem of archaeological site looting in Israel and how it led to the excavation of the rich site Caphethra from the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. Ironically, it's because of these grave robbers that the Antiquities Authority, together with the Jewish National Fund, is opening a newly excavated ancient village this weekend in the Judean hills south of Beit Shemesh. Read it all. posted by Jim Davila | 9:52 AM Saturday, March 06, 2004 MARK GOODACRE REVIEWS Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. He liked it. posted by Jim Davila | 2:14 PM THE FESTIVAL OF PURIM, as I noted yesterday, begins this evening at sundown. posted by Jim Davila | 1:00 PM I HAVE UPDATED yesterday's "Thoughts on Freedman's Article" post in order to respond to a third point he made. posted by Jim Davila | 12:37 PM THE MACCABEES � THE NEXT MEL GIBSON MOVIE? It seems that PaleoJudaica may not have seen the last of Mel. The first rumor flitting through the evangelical world is that the filmmaker intends to plow the profits from The Passion into a movie about the central characters of the holiday of Hanukkah, fighters called the Maccabees. Their story is told in sacred writings of the biblical period, although the two books of the same name are not officially a part of either testament. Maybe he can recycle the sets from The Return of the King. In the end, after Mattathias died and several of his sons were killed in battle, the orthodox Jewish believers triumphed and the temple in Jerusalem was cleansed and restored to holiness. According to tradition, a remnant of sanctified oil in the temple lamp miraculously burned for eight days, until more could be found. And here's another suggestion: Last week, the American-born Israeli educator Yossi Katz suggested that Gibson's next film should be a dramatization of the Bar Kochba Revolt of A.D. 132-135. This rebellion took place a century after Jesus' death, and 60 years after a failed uprising against the Roman occupation that led to half a million Jewish deaths and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Well, the gore potential in either should meet Mel's standards. What's next: 4 Maccabees, The Movie? posted by Jim Davila | 11:53 AM Friday, March 05, 2004 ISRAELI ARCHAEOLOGIST DR. DAN BAHAT will be lecturing in Western Canada on "In Search of the Ark of The Covenant & Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus." And I'm not making that title up. posted by Jim Davila | 1:42 PM A QUMRAN BIBLICAL FRAGMENT � evidently yet to be designated � is to be donated to Ashland Theological Seminary by art dealer Bruce Ferrini in memory of his son, Matthew. Ferrini is the owner of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments now touring with the From the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Forbidden Book exhibition. posted by Jim Davila | 1:18 PM ISRAELI ARCHAEOLOGIST ASHER AFRIAT has been lecturing in Deerfield on Idumean ostraca from Tel Maresha: Israeli scientist dazzles with archaeology (Deerfield Review)posted by Jim Davila | 12:45 PM "THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT ESTHER." In honor of Purim, which starts tomorrow at sundown, Beliefnet has an article on recent books about the biblical heroine. posted by Jim Davila | 12:38 PM THOUGHTS ON FREEDMAN'S ARTICLE: Might the "Jehoash Inscription" be genuine after all? Here are a few off-the-cuff responses to Professor Freedman's points. I haven't canvassed the literature on this, online or elsewhere, and, although these are all my own observations, others may have gotten there before me. If anyone has already made the same points, please e-mail me with references or links so I can give you credit. My conclusions are based only on the specific points discussed below. I'm not taking a position on the geological analysis (which I am not qualified to evaluate) or the script (which would take me a lot more time to evaluate than I'm willing to invest). Here's one point Freedman and I agree on: Authenticated inscriptions frequently challenge our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, containing syntax, vocabulary and orthography (spelling) that differ from Biblical usage. Of the very few inscriptions of any kind from this period, including those of neighboring nations, every one provides something novel and sometimes disturbingly surprising about a language we may think we know but don?t always fully grasp. And the surer we are, the more surprised we are likely to be by what comes out of the ground. The study of ancient Northwest Semitic inscriptions is made very difficult because our corpus is so small. So we should be very cautious about how much we claim to know. That said, I do think there are some things that we can know with reasonable certainty. There are two main arguments in this article which I want to address. The first is: Perhaps the most fought-over issue so far is the inscription's use of the word bedeq in line 10. In the Bible, bedeq means "crack" or "fissure." However, the inscription, because it combines bedeq with the verb 'asah ("to do," line 9) appears to mimic not the Hebrew of the Bible but rather the modern Hebrew phrase 'e'aseh 'et bedeq, which means "I made repairs." It therefore looks as if the inscription betrays a knowledge of modern Hebrew. However, it is unlikely that bedeq means "repair" in the inscription. The word is actually part of a construct chain that joins it together with the word habbayit ("the House," line 10), forming the expression "bedeq habbayit" or "the bedeq of the House." If we interpret bedeq as "the repair," then we would have to join it similarly to the other definite nouns ("walls," "ledge," "lattices," etc.) and read the text as "the repair of the walls," "the repair of the ledge" and so forth. But this is not possible. The appearance of the definite direct object marker 'et in line 11, though it does not appear before every noun, is an indication that all the nouns function as direct objects of the verb 'asah (i.e., "I did the walls," "I did the ledge" and "I did the lattices," etc.). It would seem that 'asah alone is the verb used in the inscription to mean "repair," not bedeq, which most likely carries its Biblical meaning "crack." Use of 'asah to mean "make new" or "remake" is unusual, but not unimaginable (see Deuteronomy 21;12; 2 Samuel 19:25). In a nutshell, the expression used in the inscription looks identical to a modern Hebrew expression that means "to make a repair," and this usage is not attested in Biblical Hebrew. In biblical Hebrew the phrase would mean "to make a breach/crack." Freedman, however, suggests that bedeq in the inscription means "breach" or "crack" as in BH but that (asah', which normally means "to make" or "to do" is used in specialized sense meaning essentially "to repair." As evidence he gives Deut 21:12 (the captive woman "does" her nails, i.e., trims them) and 2 Sam 19:25 (Mephiboshet does not "do", i.e. dress?, his crippled feet or "do," i.e. trim, his moustache ). I'm not convinced. The examples Freedman gives have to do with attending to bodily upkeep. I cannot find a case of (asah being used of repairing a building. The expressions I would expect would be chizzeq bedeq, "to strengthen a breach" (cf. 2 Kgs 22:5); or chiddesh, "to renew (the House)" (cf. 2 Chr 24:4); or just chizzeq "to strengthen (the House)" (cf. 2 Kgs 22:6); or badaq "to repair (the House)" (only in 2 Chr 34:10). These are the biblical expressions. Is it possible that the inscription preserves an otherwise unattested sense of 'asah as "to repair"? Sure. But there's no evidence for it. Here's another line one could take to defend the inscription. The verb badaq, noted above, is obviously related to bedeq, "breach, fissure, crack" and means "to repair a breach, fissure, crack." So the idea of repair was associated with the root in the biblical period. That leaves open the possibility that there was a noun meaning "repair" from the same root, either as an alternate sense of bedeq or perhaps another noun with a different vocalization. If that's right, then (asah bdq may have been an acceptable usage in Iron Age Hebrew and the identical formation in modern Hebrew could be a later, independent back formation. Conclusion: the expression (sh bdq could possibly be a legitimate ancient formation and our lack of information about ninth century Hebrew should make us hesitant to insist that it couldn't be. Nevertheless, there is no positive evidence for such an expression and the identical modern phrase should make us suspicious. Second argument: More problematic is the word 'mw ("his people," line 15), which is indeed unusual for this time and appears to many to be a clear anachronism. The normal indication of a singular masculine possessive suffix attached to a singular masculine noun is by a he at the end, with the letter representing the sound -hu. The use of the waw, for the suffix, doesn't turn up in the archaeological record until the oldest Qumran manuscripts dating from the third-second century B.C.E, meaning that the shift from he to waw came sometime between the sixth and third centuries B.C.E. So how can we explain the waw in the Jehoash inscription? The Siloam Tunnel Inscription, from the eighth century B.C.E., contains a noun with the suffix waw�the word r'w ("his fellow"). This unusual form is explained as a contraction of the archaic r'hw with synacope loss of the he. Although there is no example of "his people" spelled with a he anywhere in the Bible or extrabiblical sources, there is little doubt that in early periods the word would actually have been pronounced with a -hu suffix, making it possible that the word 'mw in the Jehoash inscription, like r'w of the Siloam inscription, is a contraction of an archaic form 'mhw. I don't see the two cases as comparable, for reasons that unfortunately require me to go into excruciating comparative-Semitic detail. (In what follows I must be more rigorous in transliteration and short vowels are indicated as lower case and long vowels as capitals. If you'd like to read a brief discussion of the orthography of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, see my article "Orthography" in Schiffman and VanderKam, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls [Oxford: OUP, 2000], 625-28.) Freedman's case sounds plausible initially only because he cites all the forms without vocalization and he does not give ordered sound changes to get from the Proto-Semitic forms to the forms in the inscriptions. He seems to be floating a general possibility without having a specific route in mind to get to the form in question. I don't think there is one. As for the Siloam inscription: the vocalized form of R(HW would have been *Ri(iHU (with the normal u-vowel before the suffix assimiliated to the i of the noun, probably under the influence of the gutteral. Cf. BH RE(EHU). This appears to have collapsed into the form Ri(iW, which is a reasonable possibility. (It may also be that the word is plural, in which case the orthography would be unremarkable.) But the geminate (MW in the "Joash Inscription" would be vocalized as (aMMO (from Proto-Semitic *(aMMuHu, with the -uHu suffix collapsing to long O by the biblical period). In the ninth century this word would have been written (MH, since final long O was always written with a he in this period. I can't figure out any way that *-uHu could have collapsed in Hebrew to anything that could have been spelled with a waw in the ninth century B.C.E. The use of waw to mark final long O (standard in the Masoretic Text) is very late, Persian period or later. Although our knowledge of ancient orthography is imperfect, we do understand the history of the orthography of official Jerusalem Hebrew pretty well, and it boggles my mind to think that a final long O could have been written with a waw in the ninth century. Conclusion: it looks to me as though the inscription was written by someone who was not thinking in ancient Hebrew (Modern Hebrew seems most likely) and who tried to adjust the vocabulary and orthography to fit the ancient language, but who did not entirely succeed. Bottom line: if I had to bet, based on the two cases [now three - see below] that Freedman deals with, I would bet the inscription is a forgery. UPDATE (6 March): I forgot to discuss one more argument that Freedman offers: The only instance of a possible medial vowel letter in the inscription is the waw in the word lwlm ("staircase," in line 12). It is possible, however, that the original form had a diphthong. (lawlim) or simply a consonant (lewulim). The issue here is that medial or internal vowel letters are generally agreed to have been introduced into Judahite Hebrew spelling much later than the ninth century. The earliest certain case I know of is the form )RWR, "cursed be," in the Siloam Tomb inscription (c. 700 B.C.E., although the place name ZYP may be another example from sometime in the eighth century. Thus waw to indicate long U seems to be an anachronism in this inscription. Freedman posits two explanations. The first is that the original form had the diphthong -aw, in which case the waw would have been written as in the inscription. The problem with this idea is that the biblical Hebrew form for this word is LUL , with a long U. (I know of no cognates in other Semitic languages.) If the original form was a diphthong, the form should be LOL, with a long O. Hebrew long U comes from Proto-Semitic long U, not from a diphthong. The first explanation does not work. His second explanation is that the waw was a consonant, and he suggests the form *lewulim. I'm not sure what to make of this form; it just doesn't look possible to me. There was no long or short e vowel in Proto-Semitic and I don't see how to get to one in this sort of environment in the Hebrew of the ninth century. In any case this looks like a triphthong, which is a very unstable form and which had collapsed to long E or long U in proto-Hebrew. Perhaps he has in mind the waw being doubled: *lawwalim or the like. This is possible. The problem is that you can't get from a doubled waw in this form to the long U in the biblical Hebrew form LUL. Doubled waw doesn't turn into long U. This explanation doesn't work either. If one wants to save the form LWLM, the best approach would be to point to the Aramaic Tel Fakhariyah inscription from Syria, which dates to the ninth century or earlier and which has numerous medial vowel letters, especially in names and loanwords. One could then say that we don't know all that much about the development of the system of vowel letters and that it is not in principle impossible that we could find an internal vowel letter in an ninth century Judean inscription. I can't argue with this, but it's an obscurum per obscurius explanation, which makes me nervous. It makes me even more nervous that the word LUL means stairway in Modern Hebrew and is spelled with the waw. We already have reason to suspect a forger thinking in Modern Hebrew and this does nothing to allay our fears. Bottom line: as above. posted by Jim Davila | 10:39 AM Thursday, March 04, 2004 NEW BOOK REVIEWS FROM THE REVIEW OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE: Charlesworth, James H. and Michael A. Daise, eds.posted by Jim Davila | 10:56 PM THE BRYN MAWR CLASSICAL REVIEW has a review of: David M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton: 2003. Pp. xv, 448. $35.00.. ISBN 0-691-11465-X.posted by Jim Davila | 10:03 AM THE JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT has a new issue (28.3, March 2004) online. Here's the table of contents: The Victories of Merenptah, and the Nature of their Record 259 Requires paid personal or institutional subscription to access. posted by Jim Davila | 9:48 AM THE "JEHOASH INSCRIPTION" AGAIN: David Noel Freedman's article, "Don't Rush to Judgment: Jehoash Inscription May Be Authentic," is now online at the Biblical Archaeology Society Breaking News website. (Heads-up, Stephen C. Carlson.) I don't have time to read it right now, but I'll comment when I get a chance. posted by Jim Davila | 9:00 AM Wednesday, March 03, 2004 DAVID FRUM has acknowledged that Mel Gibson accepts that six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, by posting a letter from a reader (not me) who made the correction. No word from Andrew Sullivan, which is surprising. He is usually quite good about making corrections. posted by Jim Davila | 9:57 AM THE EXCAVATION OF TIBERIAS has begun: Excavations begin to unearth Tiberias of the Talmudic era (Ha'aretz via Archaeologica News)posted by Jim Davila | 9:49 AM HERE IS HOW Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is being spun by the media in the United Arab Emirates: Passion of Christ to hit theatres by mid-March (Khaleej Times) Not a good sign. posted by Jim Davila | 9:21 AM "TEMPLE MOUNT FAITHFUL petition court on Wakf work" (Jerusalem Post) Excerpt: The ultra-nationalist Temple Mount Faithful group on Tuesday petitioned the High Court of Justice to halt "illegal" construction work by the Islamic Wakf on the Temple Mount.posted by Jim Davila | 9:17 AM Tuesday, March 02, 2004 THE DVD OF CECIL B. DEMILLE'S THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is reviewed here. posted by Jim Davila | 1:40 PM SOME ARAMAIC ELEPHANTINE PAPYRI are on display in the Norton Museum of Art in West Palm Beach, Florida: Papyrus scrolls detail ancient Jewish life in Egypt at Norton exhibit (Palm Beach Daily News)posted by Jim Davila | 12:42 PM MORE SELECTIVE QUOTING OF MEL GIBSON: The One News article "Gibson's dad plays down Holocaust," after discussing Mel's father's well-documented Holocaust denial, says: In a television interview with Diane Sawyer this week, Mel Gibson accused the Times of taking advantage of his father, and he warned Sawyer against broaching the subject again. It then goes back to Gibson senior's bizarre views. Now here is that quote from Gibson junior in context: DIANE SAWYER: Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, age 85, who has written books and a newsletter with some decidedly provocative terms of phrase. He has called the Pope "Garrulous Karolus, the Koran kisser". And in that New York Times magazine interview, he seemed to be questioning the scope of the holocaust, sceptical that six million Jews had died. What does Gibson think? The key exchange (which I have put in bold font), in which Gibson affirms unambiguously that six million Jews died in the Holocaust is omitted. The most generous interpretation of this I can come up with is that someone was culpably careless: this is an important issue and it is very misleading to leave out the part of the exchange where Gibson removes all doubt regarding his position. Now look at the harm such distortions can do. In his National Review Online blog, David Frum writes: On the other hand, I have to say I was very disturbed by something Gibson said in his interview with Peggy Noonan in Reader's Digest. Frum's source of information is the selective quote from One News (follow the link and see). Moreover, Andrew Sullivan perpertuated the distortion yesterday when he quoted Frum's column with approval: NOTICING EVIL: David Frum parses Mel Gibson's verbal non-committal on whether the Holocaust really took place as we know it did. Now it was reasonable to be concerned by Gibson's comments to Noonan. As you can see with the above internal link, I thought the same thing when I first encountered comments on what he said. But I corrected myself promptly (the evening of the same day) when the Sawyer interview was drawn to my attention. I did check the actual Noonan interview as far as it was published, but in retrospect I should have run a "mel gibson holocaust" search on Google in the first place, which probably would have alerted me to the Sawyer interview. But what One News has done is taken the Sawyer interview and selectively quoted it so that it now gives the impression that Gibson was waffling on the scale of the Holocaust when the full context makes it clear that he was not. As I said, the most positive face that can be put on this is that it was slipshod reporting. They could easily have summarized what he said in such a way to make clear that he accepted that six million Jews died in concentration camps under the Nazi regime. They could also easily have made clear that "the subject" that Gibson warns Sawyer to leave alone is Gibson's father rather than the Holocaust itself. Is this another Mel Gibson Dowdification? I'm not sure. I'll leave it for you to decide. Frum and Sullivan were careless too: they should have checked the actual interview before posting. I trust that both will post corrections promptly. (I've e-mailed them both.) I don't like what I hear about the movie and it's only a sense of professional obligation that makes me plan to see it at all, but the Mel-Gibson-as-Holocaust-denier meme is false, yet it seems to be spreading. (I even helped spread it for a few hours.) It needs to be stamped out. Also, Frum quotes with approval a very strange essay by David Warren, which includes the following: "It was, historically, Pontius Pilate, a rather gutless Roman administrator, of some personal charm, who passed sentence and then washed his hands of the sentence he had passed. He could believe a man innocent yet send him to torture for reasons of state, which included his own personal convenience. In the proto-modernism of the ancient world, it is Pilate who asks with such droll urbanity, 'What is truth?' I'm not going to get bogged down in critiquing this piece; I'll just stick to the issue of historical veracity. We know enough about Pilate to know he was nothing like this. I quote senior Qumran scholar Geza Vermes in a recent Telegraph article: About Pilate a great deal is known. All the first-century sources other than the Gospels depict him as a harsh, insensitive and cruel figure, guilty of bribery, and responsible for numerous executions without trial. He was dismissed and banished by the emperor Tiberius. The portrait in the New Testament of a vacillating weakling, troubled by his conscience but eventually yielding to the bloodthirsty Jewish mob, is quite at odds with what we know of the real Pilate. Vermes's article has been discussed on PaleoJudaica and he has nuanced it further in this comment, but none of the specialists who have commented on it disagree with his characterization of Pilate. (This includes Dr. Helen Bond, who has published a book on Pilate.) Frum gets bad marks for approving erroneous history when he could have checked up on it first. posted by Jim Davila | 11:04 AM LECTURE SERIES ANNOUNCEMENT: The Seminar on the Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticismposted by Jim Davila | 9:11 AM Monday, March 01, 2004 USEFUL ARAMAIC PHRASES. Reader Carl Mosser points me to this Guardian article, What's popcorn in Aramaic?, which provides some Aramaic phrases that may come in handy when you're watching Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. A few selections: B-kheeruut re'yaaneyh laa kaaley tsuuraathaa khteepaathaa, ellaa Zaynaa Mqatlaanaa Trayaanaa laytaw! Looks more like Syriac to me than first-century Galilean Aramaic. The fifth one quoted above is almost identical to the Peshitta of Matthew 20:23b. And I'm afraid I can't vouch for the word for "popcorn." posted by Jim Davila | 1:43 PM ODED GOLAN RESPONDS, on the Bible and Interpretation website, to the Uvda program and to the many charges made against him in the media: Television Broadcast Was No More Than �Rumor� As far as I know, this is the first public statement of any significant length which Golan has made, so it's worth reading in full. posted by Jim Davila | 10:49 AM I BET THIS IS THE FIRST TIME that Aramaic has been mentioned during the Oscars ceremony. Given the "Return of the King" juggernaut, the greatest suspense in the ceremony may have come from anticipating how [master of ceremonies Billy] Crystal might acknowledge "The Passion of the Christ," the highly controversial Mel Gibson film that upstaged the Oscars when it opened on Ash Wednesday last week.posted by Jim Davila | 10:13 AM PROFESSOR BETH GLAZIER-MCDONALD discusses her work on ancient Galilean amulets in the Danville Advocate: Centre professor of religion connects past to present I love ancient amulets. Incantation bowls too. posted by Jim Davila | 9:42 AM |
|
|||