A very long time ago I remember reading a book called "None of These Diseases." The author, S.I. McMillen, set out to prove just how good those ancient regulations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were in keeping the Israelites healthy through, among other things, superior sanitation.
Now along comes James Tabor and blows that particular thesis right out of the cistern.
Tabor will be known to most readers as one of the few genuine Biblical scholars to come out of the WCG. Now he's brought new light to the vexed "Essene hypothesis" at Qumran, and in the process buried the McMillen book with its own paddle (as in Deut. 23:13 KJV).
The Essenes were super-strict about following the Pentateuchal laws. Bodily wastes were buried outside the camp, and the members were required to go through a cleansing pool before reentering the community.
Sounds sensible: thoroughly enlightened in fact. McMillen certainly thought so. And it probably is, anywhere except the desert around the Dead Sea.
Now Tabor and colleague Joe Zias have found the latrines of Qumran just where they would be expected in conformity to those Old Testament regulations. This in itself supports the consensus that Qumran was an Essene community rather than a fort or villa (as some have suggested.)
But Tabor has dug deeper, if you'll forgive the pun, to get to the real dirt.
Take that obsession with cleaning up in the pool. This wasn't just a rinsing of the hands, the Essenes climbed right in, baptism style. The water became a source of cross infection.
And those latrines, placed at a healthy distance from the camp, were even worse. The Essenes, in burying the waste, aided the parasites in their quest for survival. Along came the next devout Essene, carried the parasites away on the soles of his feet (it was a largely male order) and straight into the dipping pool. The savvy Bedouin, in contrast, simply left their waste out in the desert sun where it would quickly be zapped by the rays and rendered harmless. Smart Bedouin.
Says Zias: "The graveyard at Qumran is the unhealthiest group I have ever studied... the figure for people surviving to 40 falls to 6%..." These righteous, observant folk were afflicted with "Ascaris sp. (human roundworm), Taenia sp. (a human tapeworm), Trichuris sp. (a human whipworm) and a human pinworm, Enterobius vermicularis, that had not previously been reported in the ancient Near East. The soil sample from the stable contained the eggs of Dricrocoelium sp., a common parasites of ungulates. The control samples from the surrounding desert areas contained no parasites, human or animal." (Tabor, see blog link below)
Over in Jericho, where the attitude to such things was more relaxed, the evidence points to much greater health and longevity. Sure proof of the adage in Ecclesiastes (7:16) about not being overly righteous.
Tabor notes: "As a group, the men of Qumran were very unhealthy, but I think... they would have seen their infirmities as punishment from God or their lack of purity..."
Which is truly sad.
Related links: Stories in The Independent (Britain) --- The NZ Herald --- Jerusalem Post --- James Tabor's Blog
Now along comes James Tabor and blows that particular thesis right out of the cistern.
Tabor will be known to most readers as one of the few genuine Biblical scholars to come out of the WCG. Now he's brought new light to the vexed "Essene hypothesis" at Qumran, and in the process buried the McMillen book with its own paddle (as in Deut. 23:13 KJV).
The Essenes were super-strict about following the Pentateuchal laws. Bodily wastes were buried outside the camp, and the members were required to go through a cleansing pool before reentering the community.
Sounds sensible: thoroughly enlightened in fact. McMillen certainly thought so. And it probably is, anywhere except the desert around the Dead Sea.
Now Tabor and colleague Joe Zias have found the latrines of Qumran just where they would be expected in conformity to those Old Testament regulations. This in itself supports the consensus that Qumran was an Essene community rather than a fort or villa (as some have suggested.)
But Tabor has dug deeper, if you'll forgive the pun, to get to the real dirt.
Take that obsession with cleaning up in the pool. This wasn't just a rinsing of the hands, the Essenes climbed right in, baptism style. The water became a source of cross infection.
And those latrines, placed at a healthy distance from the camp, were even worse. The Essenes, in burying the waste, aided the parasites in their quest for survival. Along came the next devout Essene, carried the parasites away on the soles of his feet (it was a largely male order) and straight into the dipping pool. The savvy Bedouin, in contrast, simply left their waste out in the desert sun where it would quickly be zapped by the rays and rendered harmless. Smart Bedouin.
Says Zias: "The graveyard at Qumran is the unhealthiest group I have ever studied... the figure for people surviving to 40 falls to 6%..." These righteous, observant folk were afflicted with "Ascaris sp. (human roundworm), Taenia sp. (a human tapeworm), Trichuris sp. (a human whipworm) and a human pinworm, Enterobius vermicularis, that had not previously been reported in the ancient Near East. The soil sample from the stable contained the eggs of Dricrocoelium sp., a common parasites of ungulates. The control samples from the surrounding desert areas contained no parasites, human or animal." (Tabor, see blog link below)
Over in Jericho, where the attitude to such things was more relaxed, the evidence points to much greater health and longevity. Sure proof of the adage in Ecclesiastes (7:16) about not being overly righteous.
Tabor notes: "As a group, the men of Qumran were very unhealthy, but I think... they would have seen their infirmities as punishment from God or their lack of purity..."
Which is truly sad.
Related links: Stories in The Independent (Britain) --- The NZ Herald --- Jerusalem Post --- James Tabor's Blog
11 comments:
Very interesting. Of course, if Tabor's work proves anything about the health effects of Jewish purity rituals, it's that the Essenes' overdoing the Law of Moses (which is quite burdensome in and of itself, apart from stricter interpretations) canceled out any health benefits one might get from observing the purity rituals. However, Tabor's look at one extremist sect of Jews in one specific location at just one time in history cannot logically be extrapolated out over the general experiences of observant Jews throughout history and throughout the world, as you have done, Gavin.
That being said, safeguarding physical health was not the purpose of the Jewish purity laws, contrary to what we were taught in the WCG. They were symbolic, liturgical ceremonies meant to depict or teach religious lessons. Herbert Armstrong's unbiblical doctrine of "physical sin" was just a way to salvage those elements of the Law of Moses that he (and we) wanted to observe despite the New Testament doctrine that they were not binding on Christians under the New Covenant that Jesus inaugurated with His shed blood at Golgotha.
It wasn't just the WCG that got confused over the significance of purity rituals Jared, as McMillen's book makes clear. This is a pretty typical response of Christian fundamentalists. I also wasn't aware that I was extrapolating throughout history, let alone the world, which was why I mentioned Jericho. I also doubt too many Jews today carry paddles around and immerse themselves in miqvot today. However it probably is true that anyone sharing common latrine areas like these would be laying themselves open to health problems.
All the Jewish sects of the Second Temple period seem to have been "extremist" in one way or another: Pharisees and Sadducees as well as Essenes. But the point is that the Qumran community was meticulous in following the OT rules faithfully, and just look where it got them...
"Tabor will be known to most readers as one of the few genuine Biblical scholars to come out of the WCG" ... said Gavin.
He may well be when it comes to purity laws but not to much else. At least, not according to Biblical Archeology Review and Jerusalem Perspective Online which both reviewed his latest work "The Jesus Dynasty".
Lochinvar
"I also wasn't aware that I was extrapolating throughout history, let alone the world, which was why I mentioned Jericho."
I was responding to your comments about McMillen seeking "to prove just how good those ancient regulations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were in keeping the Israelites healthy through, among other things, superior sanitation," a thesis that you say Tabor had demolished. Your words did not just refer to Jews whose application of the purity rituals have resulted in problems with health and hygiene, but to "the Israelites."
Not having read McMillen, I'll have to take your word for it about what he was trying to prove.
"I also doubt too many Jews today carry paddles around and immerse themselves in miqvot today."
In Orthodox Judaism, women must immerse themselves in a mikveh once a month due to their menstrual cycle, but I don't believe the men are required to do anything like that. And yes, I don't believe Orthodox Jews carry a paddle around with them, though I could be wrong.
"All the Jewish sects of the Second Temple period seem to have been 'extremist' in one way or another"
Yes, I suppose it's partly a matter of one's perspective. The Essenes were extremists who made the Pharisees look moderate and the Sadducees look like stark-raving liberals, but all three groups would seem "extreme" to a non-observant Jew.
"But the point is that the Qumran community was meticulous in following the OT rules faithfully, and just look where it got them."
Well, they thought they were following the OT rules faithfully, even if no one else agreed with them.
"At least, not according to Biblical Archeology Review and Jerusalem Perspective Online which both reviewed his latest work 'The Jesus Dynasty.'"
I've only read reviews of his book, and based on them, I'd say that Tabor's forays into the fantasy world of "the Historical Jesus" don't impress me any more than the hundreds of other fanciful reconstructions of the so-called Historical Jesus.
Here's a link to Dr. Tabor's comments on the negative review of his book in Biblical Archaeology Review:
http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2006/10/25/review-of-the-jesus-dynasty-in-biblical-archaeology-review/
Dr. Tabor writes, "On the whole Strange’s review is negative and he highlights what he considers to be the book’s many deficiencies, although he also remarks that it is a well-written fascinating read with much of value and importance."
Tabor also has follow-up comments on the BAR review at his weblog.
I operate on the guy wire premise. This is also called by other names and is basically a system of checks and balances. In a court of law, there is a tradition of expert witnesses for the prosecution, and these are countered by expert witnesses for the defense.
In the WCG we were taught to single source all of our information. There were to be no second opinions unless those second opinions corroborated the official church position. What I have found is that most current ACOG members, and some former members still adhere to this method of collecting information.
I do read Dr. Tabor's materials with great interest. They often make minced meat out of our former schooling at the hands of the ACOGs. However, it seems that the intelligent thing to do is subject such writing to the checks and balances described above, and to seek out additional opinions on the same topics Dr. Tabor covers. Gavin implied as much, iirc, in his original review of "The Jesus Dynasty".
I say this for the benefit of the ACOG stalwarts who read and post here. I get the impression that too many of them are still single sourcing their information, and/or only considering materials factual if they agree with ACOG premises.
BB
I agree, byker. Being thought right and rarely questioned about it is a hard habit to break!
Lochinvar
James makes a big point about the fact that Mark made it clear that Jesus is said to said he would see his disciples for the first time in Galilee, not Jerusalem. This is true. Luke alters this to actually say that Jesus told them when in Galilee he would meet them in Jerusalem. Nice slight of hand there.
James also makes a big point out of the reason that Mark has no sightings of Jesus and actually no resurrection stories (last verses were added to fill the gap) is because the traditions had not yet evolved. Another view is much more satisfying. While Mark has no good ending, the Gospel of John has two. Without a big explanation. If you take the 21st chapter of John and return it to it's original place after Mark 16:8, you will have a perfect fit and a first meeting of Jesus in Galilee by the disciples.
Why was it put on the end of John? Because it restores Peter to a rightful place in a book that does nothing but bash Peter as not being qualified because he denied Jesus. In John whenever he mentions Peter, he sandwiches his comments about Peter between a comment on each side about Judas. No subtley there. I believe the ending of Mark was transposed to the already ended John (Ch. 20) to show Peter was forgiven by Jesus and restored. Put it back on the end of Mark and you will see a near perfect fit in content context and wording. It's a long story but fascinating. I sent a more detail explanation to James, who I know personally, but he would not comment on it.
Thanks for covering our story Gavin. It has many dimensions, as you have noted. I call it the "high price of holiness." Ritual purity has spawned a multitude of errors, the greatest of which is its application outside the Temple context--which was never intended by the ancient writers. By definition the entire WORLD is "unclean" when you understand the real historical meaning of ritual purity. The Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus by Jacob Milgrom can not be beat.
As for my qualifications as a scholar I will let my training and record of 30 years speak for themselves, for any who are interested: http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/bio.html. I am honored to have my book reviewed by my beloved colleague Jim Strange in BAR, negative or not, and I have begun to respectfully reply on my Blog. In contrast, the "review" by Poirier carried by Jerusalem Perspective Online is as unprofessional as it is disrespectful and uninformed, but I am sure those who have not bothered to read my book will find it a good summary, as it will fulfill all their prejudices. I have already notice that lots of WCG circles have been circulating that review with great glee as if, finally, "Tabor has been shown his place." The whole thing is sad, but typical of this kind of "cheer for your team" approach to scholarship. To his credit, the editor of that publication, David Blivin, whom I greatly respect, has invited me to reply, which I will. So for any who really care about the issues, there will be plenty of give and take to come. Best, James Tabor
Here's the URL of the Jerusalem Perspective Online review of Dr. Tabor's book:
http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/Default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1924
FYI, Jerusalem Perspective Online is the website of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, who I think are a group of good, innovative scholars. Of course, their perspective on Jesus and the origins of Christianity is, um, quite different from the hypothesis proposed by Dr. Tabor.
Anyway, I see that Poirier makes a really big deal about Dr. Tabor's reliance on the forgery known as the James Ossuary. Initially it seemed to me that the James Ossuary could well have been the very ossuary that once held the bones of Jesus' cousin ("brother") St. James, but it has since become about as clear as it could possibly be that the inscription is a fake. It's a shame, both that someone tried to foist a fraud on us, and that such a potentially important find turned out to be a forgery.
BTW, JPO's editor is David Bivin, not Blivin.
Yes, Bivin not Blivin...I should have proofread but alas, was in haste. Thanks Jared.
On the James ossuary being a fake I have followed the story as closely as anyone I know, both what is published and unpublished, including interviews with those involved, and I would recommend you read even the materials pro and con that are archived at the Biblical Archaelogy Society site:
http://bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary.asp
I think you will find that a fair reading of all the evidence indicates the matter is far from settled. I will cover some of this soon in my reponse to Poirier, but I for one remain convinced that the evidence favors authenticity.
Post a Comment