This is a view of the Natural History Museum from the outside.
The big tree (visible on the right in the previous picture) has been a prominent fixture of the Museum Plaza for a very long time. I remember climbing on it when I was five years old, after a weekly summer museum class for children. But the decades of climbers like me started to take a toll on the health of the tree, so now it is fenced in so it can get a little peace.
This is the security line, through which visitors have to pass before entering the museum.
Security was tight. I had to check in my Swiss army knife.
There were further lines in the Museum. I had already bought my ticket online, so strictly speaking I didn't need to go through any of them, although it did take some time to find the place on the second floor where I could pick the ticket up. Note, by the way, the Allosaurus skeleton visible in the background through that open door.
My book was indeed for sale in the gift shop.
No photos were allowed in the displays, but here are some impressions. The upper floor had a lot of photographs on the walls of various things pertaining to Qumran, the Dead Sea, and the Scrolls, but I was familiar with most of this and breezed through it quickly. The actual Scrolls were on the lower level. The first few displays were crowded, but the crowds thinned, evidently because for most people when you've seen a couple of Dead Sea Scrolls, you've seen them all. The lighting was low and not always well angled for reading, but I did give each Scroll a careful look and managed at least to pick out a word or two in each. I was especially interested in two of them. The first was a manuscript of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, on which I've done a lot of work -- including in the commentary for sale in the gift shop. I worked from photographs and this was the first time I've been in the same room with one of the manuscripts, so I spent some time puzzling out the opening lines of the work. The second was Bar Kokhba papyrus 46. It's a land contract and in itself is not very interesting, but the opening line dates it to "year three of Shimon bar Kosiba, Prince of Israel" (שמעון בר כסבא נשיא ישראל). Again, this is the first time I've been in the physical presence of a scroll contemporary with Bar Kokhba which actually contained his name. It's a little like reading a document from Camelot with King Arthur's name on it. I also was happy to locate the name of Šemihaza, one of the Watchers (fallen angels that consorted with human women and fathered giants), in the Aramaic manuscript of the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch).
The introductory displays mostly seemed quite good to me. They concentrated on the Essene theory, but also repeatedly referred to Golb's theory (without mentioning him by name) that the Scrolls came from Jerusalem. They rightly made much of the ten years of effort invested by the original team in piecing together the thousands of fragments into scrolls, a huge accomplishment frequently glossed over by those who criticize them for taking so long to publish. There was mention of the criticisms of De Vaux's application of monastery-related terminology to describe the Qumran buildings. And there were salutary explicit corrections of errors in The Da Vinci Code, such as the fact that there are no books from the Christian New Testament among the Scrolls.
Naturally I found statements with which I disagreed or that I wanted to nuance, but I'll pass over those. But the timeline just before the Scrolls display did have a disturbing number of errors and infelicities. It said that Qumran was settled c. 250 BCE (actually generally thought to be c. 150 BCE, although the archaeological evidence would point to closer to 100 BCE). It dated the LXX translation c. 300-200 BCE, but I've never heard anyone argue that the Pentateuch was translated much before 250. Plato is correctly dated to about 385 BCE but he is placed under the third century BCE in the timeline. We are told that Jesus "teaches of the supreme power of love," which is not a very accurate sound bite of the scholarly view of the historical Jesus. It would have been more helpful to say that he taught about the Kingdom of God in parables. And, although I'm not a specialist in ancient China, I'm pretty sure that specialists regard the Tao Te Ching not as a fifth century BCE composition by someone named Lao Tzu, but a later pseudonymous work.
I wish they would correct these problems, but otherwise the exhibition was very good.
After the museum visit I had to run an errand Downtown and, this being Southern California and all, I was bemused but not surprised to happen upon this museum on Market Street. Unfortunately, it seems no longer to be in business, so I couldn't get in.
