The Transporter is Unattended… Scotty Has Beamed Up

James Doohan, the Canadian actor better known affectionately as “Scotty” from the original Star Trek series, passed away today at the age of 85. While this doesn’t really relate to biblical studies, many may not know that Doohan was also a linguist. He devised the rather Semitic sounding Vulcan and Klingon language dialogue heard in Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

The real reason I am blogging on this is the sad fact that I am a Trekkie. As a kid I had my Mom make me a red engineering Star Trek uniform just like Scotty’s. I had all the models, including a USS Enterprise with working lights. Even now in my office I have a small Enterprise model and if you look in my drawer you will find Vulcan ears and a working ST:TNG communicator pin.

Here are some pictures, including one from last year’s ceremony when Doohan received his “Walk of Fame” Star.

   

Who is going to keep the Enterprise together now? “Beam me up, Scotty…”

Interview with Hanan Eshel about the Leviticus Fragments

I had the absolute privilege of interviewing Professor Hanan Eshel earlier today for an article I am writing for a Canadian national newspaper (ChristianWeek). While I will blog a fuller summary in the near future once I go through the interview again (and will probably blog a transcript of the entire interview once the story is published), I wanted to note some highlights so as to clarify some misperceptions and perhaps correct some of the speculation surrounding this amazing discovery:

  1. Number of Fragments. There were actually four fragments discovered. One fragment is virtually unreadable, and while a couple letters on it can be deciphered, it is unlikely it will ever be identified. The second is the small fragment containing Leviticus 23:38-39 (a colour picture of it was released). The third and fourth fragments have been joined to make the larger fragment containing Leviticus 23:41-44 and 24:16-18 (a black and white picture of it was released). The three identified fragments clearly belong to the same manuscript that likely contained the entire Pentateuch/Torah.
  2. Date & Provenance. While Eshel did not discover the scroll fragments in situ, he did have the opportunity to thoroughly examine the cave in Nahal Arugot where they were discovered. During his examination of the cave they found further evidence associating the cave with the Bar Kokhba revolt. This fact and the clearly post-Herodian Jewish script suggest an early second-century CE date.
  3. Forgeries? While Carbon-14 tests have not yet been done on the fragments, based on his own physical inspection and other factors, Eshel is 110% certain they are not forgeries.
  4. Should He Have Done it? The issue has been raised by some whether or not Eshel should have purchased the fragments from the Bedouin in the first place, as this may encourage further exploration and looting. While he wondered whether or not he should have contacted the Antiquities Authority and left it at that, he does not know what they would have done with the information. “Even if I am doing mistakes, I am doing what I can, and I think I acted in the right way.” In regards to encouraging looting, he commented “What can I say? … I will do everything I can to stop the looting of caves in the Judaean desert.” His primary motivation was the preservation of the fragments — and in this I do not think he can be faulted.

I will keep you up-to-date in regards to my article and stay tuned for a fuller summary of my interview (and possibly even a full transcript).

As an aside, my reconstruction of the fragments appears to be correct, though I will have to modify a few comments here and there with the new information I have from the interview (Note that my reconstruction has been updated).

Egypt Demands Rosetta Stone and Other Artifacts Returned

The Jerusalem Post and a number of other news sources (see the AP stories here and here) report that Egypt is demanding that the Fitzwilliam Museum in Britain return the Rosetta Stone, the three-foot monument containing an engraving in honour of Pharoah. The engraved text is triligual — hieroglyphics, demotic, and Greek — which helped scholars decipher hieroglyphics. The basalt monument bears an inscription dated to the 9th year (196 BCE) of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (210-180 BCE). In addition, Egypt also demanded the Catholic University of Brussels to return a relief taken from the an excavation in the 1960s. If they do not comply, then Egypt may take action such as cutting off any archaeological work they may be involved in.

This demand is the latest in a series of attempts by Egypt to recover ancient treasures. Other artifacts Egypt is wanting to see returned include the bust of Nefertiti from Berlin’s Egyptian Museum; the Zodiac from the French Louvre; the bust of Hemiunu from the Hildesheim Museum; and the bust of Ankhkhaf from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

I would think that such treasures should be returned to their native lands, with the condition that there are proper facilities and means to preserve them (which is not an issue for Egypt).

Hebrew Bible Related Reviews from RBL

As some other blogs have noted, the latest Review of Biblical Literature has been distributed. Reviews of books relating to the Old Testament and other Second Temple topics are listed below. Of particular interest are the reviews of Handbook to a Grammar for Biblical Grammar, which is the companion volume to Seow’s excellent deductive grammar (for a survey of different grammars, see my Introductory Hebrew Grammars page). Also noteworthy are the reviews of the re-issue of Mowinckel’s classic presentation of a cult-functional approach to the psalms, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship — especially since they are by noted psalms scholars.

  • Janet Howe Gaines, Forgiveness in a Wounded World: Jonah’s Dilemma. Review by Thomas Bolin
  • Jennifer S. Green, G. Brooke Lester, and Joseph F. Scrivner, Handbook To A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew: Revised Edition. Reviews by Daniel Bonilla-Rios and John Engle
  • Dirk J. Human and Cas J. A. Vos, eds., Psalms and Liturgy. Review by Dennis Tucker
  • Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism. Review by Yairah Amit
  • Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Reviews by William Brown and Erhard Gerstenberger
  • Jacob Neusner, Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic Midrash. Review by Rivka Kern-Ulmer
  • Jacob Neusner, Transformations in Ancient Judaism: Textual Evidence for Creative Responses to Crisis. Review by Gabriel Levy

A Step-by-Step Reconstruction of the New Leviticus Fragments

Tim Bulkeley over at SansBlog asked me to expand my analysis of the newly-discovered fragments of Leviticus by describing a bit of the processes involved in identifying and reconstructing the fragments. I thought that I would entertain his request, though I should note up front that I am by no means an expert in this! My interest in the reconstruction of Dead Sea Scroll fragments is a tangent of my work on the so-called Qumran Psalms scrolls for my dissertation that combines my interest in computer technology and really old stuff!

At any rate, I thought I would outline some of the steps in identifying, reconstructing, and analyzing scroll fragments using the Leviticus fragments by way of illustration. (Since I am not an expert at this, I would love to get feedback from those who are!)

STEP 1: Identification

The first (obvious) step in reconstructing a fragment is figuring out what it is a fragment from! This is done by identifying some of the extant letters and words on the fragment and then performing some searches with various computer software to see if you can locate the text.

Image Adjustment
Before you can identify some of the letters it may be necessary to make some adjustments to the image to bring the letters into sharper relief or even to make the fragment readable in the first place! Note that I am dealing with working with images and not the actual original fragments. This is preferable in most cases as the originals may not be readable and (more significantly) they are likely not accessible! High resolution images may be obtained from various sources, including the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at Claremont.

I prefer to do my work on the images with Adobe Photoshop. Within Photoshop you can adjust the input and output levels (using the histogram feature), brightness/contrast, among other things to make the text more readable. While the low resolution images of the Leviticus fragments I tracked down on the web are pretty clear, they can be made even clearer by adjusting them slightly:


The adjusted image is a bit easier to read. At times the difference may be dramatic. Compare the two images of PAM 42.141 where the text becomes readable only by adjusting the original image:

Identifying the Text
Once you can read the fragment — or at least some of the fragment — then you can start the process of identification. This is a bit easier for biblical fragments since there are a number of excellent databases of the Hebrew Bible to begin the identification process. I prefer to use Accordance Bible Software for my searches, though Logos Bible Software and BibleWorks, among others, are more than adequate (see my Software for Biblical Studies Pages for descriptions of these and other biblical studies software programs).

With the small Leviticus fragment I did a search for ‏כל־נדריכם “all your votive offerings” which is easily readable in the first line of the fragment. This search discovers that Lev 23:38 is the only occurrence of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible (I also searched a Qumran database with no matches). At that point the rest of the readable words can be checked in the context to see if you have found a match. In the case of the small Leviticus fragment, the other readable words from it easily fit the context of Lev 23:38-39. The same was the case for the larger Leviticus fragment (it is actually two fragments that have been joined), since there were quite a few readable words to make a certain identification with Lev 23:40-44; 24:16-18. You often don’t have as much to work with, however! In my work on 1Q12 (1QPsc) I identified a fragment 8 based on two readable letters and portions of another letter (see my Proposed Reconstruction).

STEP 2: Reconstruction

Once you have the text identified, the next step is to reconstruct it so that you may confirm your identification and ascertain other things about the fragment such as its original size. In order to do this I use Microsoft Word and/or Photoshop (I have also used Quark XPress for this step) to see how the text lines up with the fragment. So, for example, with the smaller Leviticus fragment I imported Hebrew text of Lev 23:38-39 (without pointing) into Word and then adjusted the right-hand margin until the text lined up in accordance with the fragment. In the case of the smaller fragment, the text lined up quite nicely, producing lines of ca. 22-28 letterspaces:

My reconstruction shows the extant Leviticus 23:38 and 39 in bold black type with an outline of the fragment placement. The space at the top of the fragment preserves part of the top margin of the scroll (the dark spot near the top of the fragment is likely an ink dot or a blemish on the leather).
Here is a translation with the extant words in bold:

38 …and apart from all your votive offerings, and apart from all your freewill offerings, which you give to the Lord. 39 Now, the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall keep the festival of the Lord, lasting seven days; a complete rest on the first day, and a complete rest on the eighth day.

For the larger fragment, it was a bit more complicated since I was dealing with two columns. But once again, the text lined up very nicely producing lines of ca. 22-28 letterspaces for the right column and 20-25 for the left column, and a column height of ca. 33 lines.
Here is an image of the large fragment:
Here is my reconstruction of the columns:

My reconstruction shows the extant Leviticus 23:40-44 (middle of the right column) and 24:16-18 (left column) in bold black type with an outline of the fragment placement. Note that the smaller fragment also nicely fits at the top of the right column.
The one variant from the MT (as represented by BHS) is the plene spelling of בסכת at the end of verse 42 (the vav is in red). (click for larger image)
Here is a translation with the extant words in bold:
38 …and apart from all your votive offerings, and apart from all your freewill offerings, which you give to the Lord. 39 Now, the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall keep the festival of the Lord, lasting seven days; a complete rest on the first day, and a complete rest on the eighth day.

41You shall keep it as a festival to the Lord seven days in the year; you shall keep it in the seventh month as a statute forever throughout your generations. 42 You shall live in booths for seven days; all that are citizens in Israel shall live in booths, 43 so that your generations may know that I made the people of Israel live in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. 44 Thus Moses declared to the people of Israel the appointed festivals of the Lord.
16One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death. 17 Anyone who kills a human being shall be put to death. 18 Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life.
N.B. For a detailed reconstruction, you would have to do much more than just count letters. You would need to consider the widths of different letters in the scroll’s script. For example, even on these fragments it is clear that the י yods and ו vavs take much less space than the sins and ב bets. For more detail on calculating letter widths and scroll reconstruction in general, see Edward D. Herbert, Reconstructing Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Method Applied to the Reconstruction of 4QSama (Brill, 1997; Buy from Amazon.caBuy from Amazon.com). You would also need to check to see if these verses are extant in any other scrolls from Qumran; in this case you would want to double check your text with 4QLevb (as it turns out these particular words are not found in 1QLevb).

STEP 3: Description

The third step is to describe your findings and if you were working with the original fragments, you would also provide a physical description. In this case, if the reconstruction is correct, the larger fragment would have been part of a scroll that was quite large. Based on this height and the number of lines per column, the scroll itself would have been on the large size for scrolls found at Qumran and likely contained the complete book of Leviticus, if not the entire Torah/Pentateuch (see Emanuel Tov, “Scribal Practices and the Physical Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls” in The Bible as Book: The Manuscript Tradition [John L. Sharpe and Kimberly Van Kampen, eds.; 1998] 9-33; Buy from Amazon.caBuy from Amazon.com).
The nature and type of the leather would also have to be ascertained. While one news report identified the material as “deer hide,” most other authentic scrolls were made from the skins of sheep and goats. While the fragments were not tested, Eshel himself was pretty sure that they were either goat or sheep skin.
An examination of the paleography (the style of writing) is consistent with post-Herodian scripts (end of the first century C.E.), including other scrolls from the Bar Kokhba era, such as the Psalms scroll from the Cave of Letters.
The fragments do not give us much in terms of variant readings. The fragments follow the Masoretic text with one exception: at the end of v. 42 the larger fragment has בסכות instead of בסכת, both “booths” (indicated in red type on the larger reconstruction). This is a minor spelling difference, much like the difference between the Canadian spelling of “honour” and the American “honor.” (The fact that the Samaritan Pentateuch also reads בסכות is inconsenquential as it consistently uses the plene spelling throughout).

Conclusions

Reconstructing scrolls with biblical studies software and imaging programs takes a considerable amount of work. I personally find the work interesting (even fascinating), which explains why I bothered to write up this analysis! What I find amazing is how the first generation of scroll scholars did so much ground-breaking work without this technology!
In regards to the two Leviticus fragments, my hunch is that they are authentic. If not, then my hat goes off to the person or persons who produced such fine forgeries!