Review of \u3ci\u3eEschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,\u3c/i\u3e edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint

Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls is the first volume of a new series, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, being published under the auspices of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute at Trinity Western University in British Columbia. The volume is a collection of eight essays presented at the first public Symposium of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute on September 30, 1995; it also contains an introduction by the editors Evans and Flint, the transcript of a panel discussion and a select bibliography. The essays are aimed at a public, nonspecialist audience, and thus provide rather more background and explanation than would be needed by a scholarly reader. As with any collection of symposium papers, some are of better quality than others. All of the essays take as their subject some aspect of eschatology or messianism, but not all are directly concerned with the Dead Sea Scrolls

Has Every Book of the Bible Been Found Among the Dead Sea Scrolls?

It is a commonplace that every book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther has been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Actually, this is true only if you count Ezra-Nehemiah as one book-as, indeed, it is so regarded in Jewish tradition- since only a fragment of Ezra, but not Nehemiah, has been identified. But why not Esther? Some have suggested theological reasons: Esther is not a particularly religious book; it lacks any interest in Judah and its cultic institutions; and it has a sympathetic view toward the gentile King Ahasuerus. Moreover, it is the only book of the Hebrew Bible that does not mention the name of God. Others have suggested that it\u27s a matter of happenstance. There may well have been a copy or copies of Esther among the scrolls, but they did not survive. In 1992 the direction of the discussion drastically changed, for in that year J. T. Milik published a fragmentary (as usual) text he claimed was a model or source for the book of Esther. He denominated the text proto-Esther and tried to show that there was a relationship of direct dependency between the text from Qumran, where the scrolls were discovered, and the text found in the Hebrew Bible. Is Milik right? We are going to look at the text quite carefully before deciding. But whatever the answer, our exploration of this text will tell us a lot about how Dead Sea Scroll scholars work. A translation of the four fragments of the Qumran text is printed in the boxes on pages 31-33. A glance will show that they are extremely fragmentary, with much more missing than preserved. If you read the text at this point, it is unlikely to make any sense. So our initial task will be to try to squeeze some meaning out of it. You may be surprised at how much we will find

Review of \u3ci\u3eThe Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Faith\u3c/i\u3e, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver

Do the Dead Sea Scrolls hinder or undermine Christian faith? James Charlesworth asks in the preface of this volume. The four essays that follow all answer with a resounding No! The annual Faith and Scholarship Colloquy at Florida Southern College serves to bring together leading scholars to address the most challenging topics in contemporary biblical studies in a way that speaks to a Christian lay audience. This volume, the fifth in a series, admirably meets that goal

The Rewritten Bible at Qumran

Since the discovery of the scrolls from the Qumran caves in the late 1940s and early-to-mid 50s, the process of sorting, identifying, and editing the fragmentary manuscripts has occupied the attention of scholars. Now, as that period in the history of scrolls scholarship draws to a close, more and more attention has turned to the contents of the texts from the eleven caves in the vicinity of Khirbet Qumran as a collection. Several things may be said about this collection. First, the majority of the texts are written in Hebrew, thus pointing to Hebrew as a living language (at least in literature) in the Second Temple Period. Second, a large percentage of the texts found in the caves (about 25 percent) are copies of books later considered part of the canon of the Hebrew Bible; there are also copies of books that were later grouped into the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Third, of the previously unknown works unearthed from the caves, the vast majority of them bear some relationship to the books that later became known as the Hebrew Bible. It is with classifying and understanding these manuscripts, both individually and in relation to one another, that scholarship is now occupied

Mothers, Sisters, and Elders: Titles for Women in Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian Comunities

In this paper I will investigate two fragmentary texts from the Qumran scrolls, each of which gives us a tantalizing glimpse of women, first as part of the community presupposed by each text, and second as having a particular role or status within that community. That role or status is indicated by the use of particular titles, which, according to their grammatical forms, are applied only to women. I will then trace the use of these same titles in later Jewish inscriptions and texts, in order to suggest a wider context in which the Qumran titles might be understood. Finally, I will look at the use of these titles in the early Christian community as illustrated by certain passages in the New Testament. I hope to show thereby a certain continuity of usage among Jewish communities in the second temple period, from the late second century B.C.E. to the early second century C.E

ESTHER AND JUDITH: CONTRASTS IN CHARACTER

The books of Esther and Judith are often paired with one another. For example, in the arrangement of the books of the Septuagint the book of Judith follows Esther. In the comments of Church Fathers such as Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria and Augustine, as well as in modern commentaries, the books of Esther and Judith are often grouped together, compared and contrasted. This pairing occurs even in the world of art, for example in the work of the Renaissance painter Artemesia Gentileschi, who uses both women as subjects. The reason behind this pairing is clear: both are books which take their name from their female heroine, and in both books it is the Jewish heroine who saves her peopIe from imminent destruction at the hands of the Gentiles by her courage and resourcefulness

Review of Timothy K. Beal, \u3ci\u3eThe Book of Hiding: Gender, Ethnicity, Annihilation and Esther\u3c/i\u3e, and Timothy S. Laniak, \u3ci\u3eShame and Honor in the Book of Esther\u3c/i\u3e

These two recent books on the Book of Esther by young scholars illustrate the vitality of new methods of interpretation of the biblical text; at the same time, they raise questions about the limits of these new methods. Laniak, approaching the Book of Esther from an anthropological perspective, uses its categories of honor and shame. Beal uses postmodern critical theory to illuminate the shifting meanings of “self” and “other” in Esther. The two books have several things in common—rather surprisingly, given their very different orientations. Neither author gives much attention to the historical value of the Book of Esther; both approach it purely as a literary text, although Laniak (p. 3 n. 5) states that he does not count himself “among those who reject the book of Esther as a source of history.” Both authors use the MT as their primary text, with only passing reference to the LXX and the Greek alpha text, and both share an interest in later rabbinic interpretation of Esther. There, however, the similarities end

The Qumran Collection as a Scribal Library

Since the early days of Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship, the collection of scrolls found in the eleven caves in the vicinity of Qumran has been identified as a library.1 That term, however, was undefined in relation to its ancient context. In the Greco-Roman world the word “library” calls to mind the great libraries of the Hellenistic world, such as those at Alexandria and Pergamum.2 However, a more useful comparison can be drawn with the libraries unearthed in the ancient Near East, primarily in Mesopotamia but also in Egypt.3 These libraries, whether attached to temples or royal palaces or privately owned, were shaped by the scribal elite of their societies. Ancient Near Eastern scribes were the literati in a largely illiterate society, and were responsible for collecting, preserving, and transmitting to future generations the cultural heritage of their peoples. In the Qumran corpus, I will argue, we see these same interests of collection, preservation, and transmission. Thus I will demonstrate that, on the basis of these comparisons, the Qumran collection is best described as a library with an archival component, shaped by the interests of the elite scholar scribes who were responsible for it

Review of Timothy K. Beal, \u3ci\u3eThe Book of Hiding: Gender, Ethnicity, Annihilation and Esther\u3c/i\u3e, and Timothy S. Laniak, \u3ci\u3eShame and Honor in the Book of Esther\u3c/i\u3e

These two recent books on the Book of Esther by young scholars illustrate the vitality of new methods of interpretation of the biblical text; at the same time, they raise questions about the limits of these new methods. Laniak, approaching the Book of Esther from an anthropological perspective, uses its categories of honor and shame. Beal uses postmodern critical theory to illuminate the shifting meanings of “self” and “other” in Esther. The two books have several things in common—rather surprisingly, given their very different orientations. Neither author gives much attention to the historical value of the Book of Esther; both approach it purely as a literary text, although Laniak (p. 3 n. 5) states that he does not count himself “among those who reject the book of Esther as a source of history.” Both authors use the MT as their primary text, with only passing reference to the LXX and the Greek alpha text, and both share an interest in later rabbinic interpretation of Esther. There, however, the similarities end

The Other Bible from Qumran

Where did the Bible come from? The Hebrew Bible, or Christian Old Testament, did not exist in the canonical form we know prior to the early second century C.E. Before that, certain books had become authoritative in the Jewish community, but the status of other books, which eventually did become part of the Hebrew Bible, was questionable. All Jews everywhere, since at least the fourth century B.C.E., accepted the authority of the Torah of Moses, the first five books of the Bible (also called the Pentateuch): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy