Divine Violence and the Character of God by Claude F. Mariottini (review)

IF 0.2 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION
David Penchansky
{"title":"Divine Violence and the Character of God by Claude F. Mariottini (review)","authors":"David Penchansky","doi":"10.1353/cbq.2023.0051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"c.e.; and pp. 140–41, on a recent interpretation of Locus 4 as a possible dining room), the two major revisions pertain to the site’s chronology and one of its most enigmatic phenomena—the animal bone deposits. Regarding the former, M. revises her earlier suggestion that Qumran was abandoned briefly between 9 and 4 b.c.e. (which served as a demarcation point between Periods Ib and II), and now holds that the site experienced a continuous, uninterrupted occupation starting from the early first century b.c.e. till 68 c.e., with the building(s) undergoing various modifications along the way (pp. 69–72; this is based on and summarizes the arguments in Dennis Mizzi and Jodi Magness, “Was Qumran Abandoned at the End of the First Century BCE?” JBL 135 [2016] 301–20). Perhaps more significantly, M. departs from her previously held view that the animal bone deposits are the remains of communal meals—a view that retains a wide scholarly following—and argues that they represent the remains of animal sacrifices carried out at Qumran. She bases her argument on comparative material from other cultic sites across the Mediterranean, where charred animal bones and pottery are often found in layers of ash, a scenario similar to the one we have at Qumran. Therefore, M. sees the site as conceived along the lines of the biblical wilderness camp, with a sacrificial altar in its midst. In other words, the Qumran sectarians did not just withdraw from the temple in Jerusalem, as the majority of scholars maintain, but also created an alternative sacrificial cult of their own (pp. 142–60). A glaring omission in this otherwise excellent work is the absence of a final chapter that synthesizes M.’s key arguments and conclusions, especially given the book’s thematic structure. As it is, the book ends abruptly with the discussion of Qumran’s relationship to the nearby sites of ʿEin Feshkha and ʿEin el-Ghuweir and lacks any final reflections that attempt to tie everything together. This is a feature carried over from the first edition, even though disrupting the original format by adding a concluding chapter would have gone a long way in giving the book a more cohesive structure. Furthermore, M. includes more updates on the archaeology of Qumran than of the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite the many recent advances in the scientific study of the Scrolls as archaeological artifacts and the renewed focus on the caves in which they were found. Finally, one may take issue with the way M. sometimes uses the Scrolls to elucidate aspects of the site. The Scrolls were found at Qumran, true, and they are related to the site and its inhabitants, but what they say may not be about Qumran. These are minor squabbles, however, that pale in comparison to the book’s many strengths. No doubt, like the first edition, this revised version will remain a standard introduction for many years to come and will serve, once more, as a useful tool to help readers navigate the dynamic scholarly discussions on the archaeology of Qumran—discussions that have become only more complex.","PeriodicalId":45718,"journal":{"name":"CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"85 1","pages":"342 - 344"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2023.0051","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

c.e.; and pp. 140–41, on a recent interpretation of Locus 4 as a possible dining room), the two major revisions pertain to the site’s chronology and one of its most enigmatic phenomena—the animal bone deposits. Regarding the former, M. revises her earlier suggestion that Qumran was abandoned briefly between 9 and 4 b.c.e. (which served as a demarcation point between Periods Ib and II), and now holds that the site experienced a continuous, uninterrupted occupation starting from the early first century b.c.e. till 68 c.e., with the building(s) undergoing various modifications along the way (pp. 69–72; this is based on and summarizes the arguments in Dennis Mizzi and Jodi Magness, “Was Qumran Abandoned at the End of the First Century BCE?” JBL 135 [2016] 301–20). Perhaps more significantly, M. departs from her previously held view that the animal bone deposits are the remains of communal meals—a view that retains a wide scholarly following—and argues that they represent the remains of animal sacrifices carried out at Qumran. She bases her argument on comparative material from other cultic sites across the Mediterranean, where charred animal bones and pottery are often found in layers of ash, a scenario similar to the one we have at Qumran. Therefore, M. sees the site as conceived along the lines of the biblical wilderness camp, with a sacrificial altar in its midst. In other words, the Qumran sectarians did not just withdraw from the temple in Jerusalem, as the majority of scholars maintain, but also created an alternative sacrificial cult of their own (pp. 142–60). A glaring omission in this otherwise excellent work is the absence of a final chapter that synthesizes M.’s key arguments and conclusions, especially given the book’s thematic structure. As it is, the book ends abruptly with the discussion of Qumran’s relationship to the nearby sites of ʿEin Feshkha and ʿEin el-Ghuweir and lacks any final reflections that attempt to tie everything together. This is a feature carried over from the first edition, even though disrupting the original format by adding a concluding chapter would have gone a long way in giving the book a more cohesive structure. Furthermore, M. includes more updates on the archaeology of Qumran than of the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite the many recent advances in the scientific study of the Scrolls as archaeological artifacts and the renewed focus on the caves in which they were found. Finally, one may take issue with the way M. sometimes uses the Scrolls to elucidate aspects of the site. The Scrolls were found at Qumran, true, and they are related to the site and its inhabitants, but what they say may not be about Qumran. These are minor squabbles, however, that pale in comparison to the book’s many strengths. No doubt, like the first edition, this revised version will remain a standard introduction for many years to come and will serve, once more, as a useful tool to help readers navigate the dynamic scholarly discussions on the archaeology of Qumran—discussions that have become only more complex.
克劳德·马里奥蒂尼的《神圣暴力与上帝的品格》(评论)
c.e。;以及第140-41页,关于最近将4号湖解释为可能的餐厅),这两个主要的修订涉及该遗址的年表及其最神秘的现象之一——动物骨骼沉积。关于前者,M.修正了她早先的建议,即库姆兰在公元前9年至4年之间被短暂遗弃(这是Ib和II时期的分界点),现在认为该遗址从公元前一世纪初到公元前68年经历了持续、不间断的占领。,建筑在这一过程中经历了各种修改(第69–72页;这是基于并总结了Dennis Mizzi和Jodi Magness的论点,“库姆兰在公元前一世纪末被遗弃了吗?”JBL 135[2016]301–20)。也许更重要的是,M背离了她之前的观点,即动物骨骼沉积物是公共食物的遗迹——这一观点保留了广泛的学术追随者——并认为它们代表了在库姆兰进行的动物祭祀的遗迹。她将自己的论点建立在地中海其他邪教遗址的对比材料上,在那里,烧焦的动物骨头和陶器经常出现在灰烬层中,这种情况与我们在库姆兰的情况类似。因此,M认为该遗址是按照圣经中的荒野营地的路线构想的,中间有一座祭坛。换言之,正如大多数学者所坚持的那样,库姆兰教派不仅退出了耶路撒冷的圣殿,而且还创建了自己的另类祭祀崇拜(第142-60页)。在这本优秀的作品中,一个明显的遗漏是没有最后一章综合M的关键论点和结论,特别是考虑到这本书的主题结构。事实上,这本书以讨论库姆兰与附近的埃因·费什卡和埃因·古威尔遗址的关系而突然结束,并没有任何试图将一切联系在一起的最终思考。这是第一版延续下来的一个特色,尽管通过添加结束章来打乱原始格式会大大有助于使本书的结构更加连贯。此外,M.收录了更多关于库姆兰考古的更新,而不是死海古卷的更新,尽管古卷作为考古文物的科学研究最近取得了许多进展,并重新关注了发现古卷的洞穴。最后,人们可能会对M有时使用卷轴来阐明网站各方面的方式提出异议。古卷是在库姆兰发现的,没错,它们与该遗址及其居民有关,但他们所说的可能与库姆兰无关。然而,这些都是小争吵,与这本书的许多优点相比显得微不足道。毫无疑问,与第一版一样,这一修订版在未来许多年仍将是一个标准的介绍,并将再次成为一个有用的工具,帮助读者了解关于库姆兰考古的动态学术讨论——这些讨论只会变得更加复杂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
129
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信