Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Songs of Summer Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports
Customer Review

12 of 17 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars where's the evidence?, January 30, 2007
This review is from: Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search For The Secret Of Qumran (Paperback)
On page 10 Golb wrote, "Since no coins of the reign of Herod the Great (40-4 BC) were found in the excavation..." But De Vaux did find coins of Herod the Great, and reported this plainly, for instance on pages 22-23 of Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Later digs found Herod coins, also.) This is one example of inaccurate presentation of the facts. The book is not reliable factually, nor in its interpretations. Let's take a more complicated example, the text known as 4Q448. Golb's long section on this starts on page 256. Ada Yardeni discovered what had been overlooked by previous readers: this fragment mentioned King Jonathan, otherwise known as Alexander Jannaeus. So, most would agree, it has potential to tell us something about history. Golb wrote belittling the skills of Yardeni and her publication colleagues. Golb claims to give the right reading of the beginning of the poetry in which the king's name appears. I think a scholar or 2 or 3 accepted his reading for a while years ago, but I can't think of any scholar today who uses Golb's reading. Furthermore, 4Q448 is increasingly seen, not as Golb thought, as a hymn of praise of King Jonathan, but a condemnation of him. Then, not long after, Golb found that he agreed with Yardeni on the reading of an ostracon found at Qumran. He changed his tune, and had high praise of Yardeni as a skilled paleographer (as she is). So his interpretation of 4Q448 is unreliable.
Golb claimed the sequence of Qumran discoveries misled historians--but that is merely a non-falsifiable claim. Golb claims Qumran was a fort, but the walls are not fortified. Aside from a small skirmish in c. 68 CE between Romans and (probably) zealots who came after the Essenes fled east, there's no Hellenistic/Roman battle evidence. In fact, in most periods of history, Qumran was uninhabited, because it is not strategically located. Golb downplayed or ignored sectarianism. But the initiation described in the scrolls involves giving all one owns to the yahad--a big step--and this is also described of Essenes in Josephus War Book 2. Sadducees, according to Josephus, persuaded "few," and were an aristocratic group, smallest of the three probably. Sadducees are not known for writing books, except perhaps for a "Book of Decrees," which is not found at Qumran. Sadducees were Torah-only conservatives; they did not believe in named angels nor resurrection--teachings present at Qumran, and matching Essene teachings. Just as there are no Sadducee texts among the circa 900 Qumran texts, similarly, there are no Pharisee texts there: rather, the Qumran texts apparently belittle Pharisee oral tradition. Qumran texts disapprove of the temple administration (on purity and calendar practice, for example). The pro-Maccabee book 1 Maccabees, though likely available then in Hebrew, is totally absent at Qumran. Neither, in all the Qumran calendar texts, is there a single mention of the pro-Hasmonean festival of Hanukkah. Hirschfeld proposed locating Pliny's Essenes at a site uphill of Ein Gedi; among the many archaeologists unpersuaded by Hirschfeld's site are Magen and Peleg, and Magness and Amit. The best reading of Pliny locates Essenes on the "north-west shore" of the Dead Sea, as C.D. Ginsburg wrote in 1870, and as did several others before the scrolls came to light in 1948. Golb's book is out of date in regard to scholarship on Pliny, who never set foot in Judaea and who used a source on Essenes from the time of Herod the Great (for details see the online paper, "Rereading Pliny on the Essenes: Some Bibliographic Notes").
Of course not all the scrolls were penned at Qumran--though Qumran now has more inkwells than any other published site in the area and era--but who ever claimed that they were? Sure, some were brought from outside, likely including Jerusalem, but not all Jerusalem only, nor all at once. Golb's book never provides real evidence that the scrolls came at once from Jerusalem. It appears to be just a story of what he imagined or wished had happened. The book offers more about his sense of grievance than about history backed with evidence. Where's the evidence for his proposal? If the texts were deposited from Jerusalem libraries, why are there not marks of ownership for retrieval?
As is increasingly being realized, the Hebrew origin of the name Essenes is in the scrolls as a self-designation. That is, the many Greek spellings (e.g. Ossaioi) of what in English we call "Essenes" come from Hebrew, osey hatorah, observers of torah. Of course, the Pharisees and Sadducees would not call them that. But scholars through the centuries knew that this was the Hebrew origin; for example. Ph. Melanchthon, writing in 1532: Chronica...Wittenberg, 1532 f68v. "Essei / das ist / Operarii / vom wort Assa / das ist wircken." Here's a 1550 English version: The Thre Bokes of Cronicles...London. "The thirde were Essey, the whiche when they perceived that both the Phariseyes and Sadduceyes folowed their appetites under the coloure of honest titles, nether did ought in a maner that were worthy their profession: therfore semed it them good, to declare the straitnesse and severitie of lyfe with the dede, and would be called Essey, that is workers or doers, for Assa, whence the name Essey commeth, sygnifieth to worke..." The real opportunity for historians is to learn more about Qumran and Essenes, subjects which ineluctably overlap. Though there once was a problem getting access to the scroll texts, they are now all available. We have ancient text that (some of it as interpreted pre-1948) placed Essenes in the Qumran/Feshkha area; we have no ancient text that tells Golb's story that all the scrolls came from Jerusalem--(implausibly) during the siege--to Qumran, but texts that contradict that story (scrolls salvaged by Josephus in Jerusalem, others up in flames; hiding in Jerusalem, not outside; and items looted to Rome--remember the Arch of Titus, which shows items taken from the Temple to Rome). The theories excluding Essenes contradict one another; none is a viable alternative. Who Wrote these scrolls? Some of these scrolls, Essenes. For additional information on the relevant history, see the online paper, "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene."
Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls *do* self-identify as Essenes. The evidence is in the scrolls and discussed in detail in Goranson, Stephen. "Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts." In The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, 2:534-551. Leiden, 1999, and in VanderKam's essay in that volume.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 16, 2007 12:18:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 16, 2007 12:30:56 PM PDT
Astonished says:
This silly diatribe called a "review" appears to be the product of an immature academic who is incaple of digesting the fact that the world has moved on, that there is no longer any consensus about Qumran, and that the very nature of the questions being asked about the Scrolls have fundamentally changed as a result of Golb's research.
Apart from one or two details such as (possibly) the coin error, the entire review is unadulterated rubbish. (Golb never claimed to be perfect, and what we know about the coin evidence has changed so much over the past ten years that he will no doubt make changes accordingly in the second edition.)
Goranson's claims, in fact, typify the tactics adopted by traditional Qumranologists to try and defend their collapsing theory in the face of mounting contradictory evidence. He seizes on one or two tiny and inconsequential errors; mixes them in with claimed errors which are in fact not errors at all ("the walls are not fortified"); and adds outrageously misleading ad hominem remarks (for example, look up what Golb says about Yardeni in the book and you will see that he does not "belittle" her but rather appropriately critiqued the work produced by a team of three graduate students, one of whom, at that time, was Yardeni). The reviewer then mixes all of that with preposterous remarks that will convince no serious reader ("where is the evidence?"); and passes over in silence all of the developments of the past ten years that confirm Golb's theory.
For example, Goranson (who, incidentally, has been obsessed with attacking Golb on internet sites for the past ten years) has not a word to say about the findings of the Israel Antiquities Authority team led by major archaeologists Magen and Peleg, who after ten seasons of digs at Qumran have concluded, exactly like Golb, that there is not a single piece of evidence linking the site with the Scrolls and that the Scrolls must have come from Jerusalem. In a word, the review is outrageous, and readers should take it as one more piece of evidence confirming the ethical problem that Golb discusses in the book. It is surprising that they let someone like this Goranson guy teach in a university. Does he take us for idiots?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2009 3:48:52 AM PST
A new article reports measurements of the ratio of chlorine and bromine in ink
from a Qumran Cave One manuscript and concludes that the ink was prepared with
water from or near the Dead Sea; the Qumran scroll was inscribed near the Dead

Ira Rabin, Oliver Hahn, Timo Wolff, Admir Masic and Gisela Weinberg, "On the
Origin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayot a)," Dead Sea
Discoveries 16.1 (2009) 97-106.

Abstract (p. 97): "In this study we demonstrate the possibility to
identify the production area of the scrolls, coupling non-destructive quantitative analysis
of trace elements to spectroscopic investigation of the inks. This approach,
that allowed us to determine the Dead Sea area as origin of 1QHodayot a, is of
general validity."

Conclusion (p. 102) "Using the fingerprint composition of the water from the
Dead Sea region we could directly link the fragment, and consequently, the
production of 1QHodayot a to the Qumran area. Furthermore, our study of
organic components present in the carbon ink of this scroll indicates that gall nuts
extracts were used in the ink preparation as early as 1st century C.E."

In other words, the Qumran scrolls did not all come from Jerusalem.

Stephen Goranson
"Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts"

Posted on Jan 23, 2011 8:41:43 AM PST
On page 359 Golb wrote: "There is, unfortunately, no evidence at all, either in the scrolls or in any other literature, that Herod the Great favored the Essenes..." But Josephus, Antiquities 15 (4-5) 365-379 explains precisely that Herod favored Essenes, and why he did, based on his interaction with Menahem the Essene.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details