The Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte is pleased to announce that Jonathan Z. Smith, the distinguished historian of religion, will give the 25th annual Loy H. Witherspoon Lecture in Religious Studies.  Professor Smith’s lecture, “Things Said/Things Done: The Relations of Myth and Ritual,” will be presented on Tuesday, March 31, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. in Rowe 130, and is open to the public. He is the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Professor of Humanities at The University of Chicago.

Jonathan Z. Smith is an historian of religion whose research has focused on such wide-ranging subjects as ritual theory, Hellenistic religions, nineteenth-century Maori cults, and the notorious events of Jonestown, Guyana. Some of his works include Map Is Not Territory; Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown; and To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. In his book Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity, he demonstrates how four centuries of scholarship on early Christianities manifest a Catholic-Protestant polemic. His latest work is a collection of essays entitled Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion, offering a retrospective look at his work. Smith moves easily in the worlds of religious studies, anthropology, literature, philosophy, and history. He is editor of the HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion. He has served as the Dean of the Faculty of the College of Humanities at the University of Chicago, President of the North American Society for the Study of Religion, and most recently, President of the Society of Biblical Literature.

The Loy H. Witherspoon Lectures in Religious Studies, the oldest and most prestigious endowed lecture series at UNC Charlotte, was established in 1984 to honor the distinguished career and service of Professor Loy H. Witherspoon, the first chairperson of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC Charlotte. He is currently Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion in the Department of Religious Studies.

Previous lecturers and speakers have been:

1984-85    “Religion and Religions: The Problem of Living in a Multireligious World” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr,  George Washington University.

1985-86        “The Question of the Book: Religion as Texture” by David L. Miller, Syracuse University

1986-87        “Evolving Jewish Views of Jesus” by Michael J. Cook, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion

1987-88        “In the Combat Zone Over American Values:  The Vision of One America versus the Vision of Many Americas” by Martin E. Marty, University of Chicago

1988-89        “The Banality of Evil:  The Darkness at the Center” by William H. Poteat, Duke University

1989-90        “Sexual Masquerades in the Hebrew Bible:  Rachel and Tamar” by Wendy Doniger, University of Chicago

1990-91        “Religiopolis: Beyond the Secular city” by Harvey G. Cox, Harvard University

1991-92        “Ecofeminism and Christian Theology:  Symbolic and Social Connections between the Domination of Women and of Nature” by Rosemary Radford Ruether, Garrett-Evangelical theological Seminary

1992-93        “Martin & Malcolm & America:  A Dream or a Nightmare” by James H. Cone, Union Theological Seminary, New York City

1993-94        “Satan in the New Testament Gospels” by Elaine Pagels, Princeton University

1994-95        “Schindler’s List” by Thomas Keneally, University of California at Irvine

1995-96        “Re-Viewing Religious Knowledge” by Vine Deloria, Jr, University of Colorado at Boulder

1996-97        “Translating Womanism into Pedagogical Praxis” by Katie G. Cannon, Temple University

1997-98        Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: What do we Know After Fifty  Years?” by James H. Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

1998-99        “Jerusalem: The Contested Inheritance” by Francis E. Peters, New York University

1999-00     “Searching for Shangri-La” by Donald S. Lopez, University of Michigan

2000-01         “Caring for Creation: Religious Faith and the Challenge of Building a Sustainable World,” by Max Oelschlaeger, Northern Arizona University

2001-02        “Can the State be Virtuous? Muslim Political Philosophy, Old and New”, by John Williams, College of William and Mary

2002-03        “What Does It Mean to Say I Saw?: On the Varieties of Visionary Experiences” by Barbara Newman, Northwestern University

2003-04         “Christians and the So-called State (We Are In) A Meditation on Loyalty after September 11, 2001” by Stanley Hauerwas, Duke University Divinity School

2004-05          “Wooing Rebekah: How Issac Got a Wife” by Jack Sasson, Vanderbilt University

2005-06         “Misquoting Jesus: Do We Have the Original New Testament?” by Bart Ehrman, UNC Chapel Hill

2006-07         “No Free Pass: An Apocalyptic Call for Prophetic Witness in the Book of Revelation” by Brian Blount, Union Theological Seminary

2007-08        “Jesus in Jerusalem: New Archaeological Discoveries” by Shimon Gibson, Senior Fellow W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Adjunct Professor at UNC Charlotte

I am most pleased to have in hand a copy of Jesus-Dynastin: Den dolda historien om Jesus, hans kungliga familj och kristendoms foedelse, namely The Jesus Dynasty in Swedish, published by Schibsted Foerlagan in Stockholm. It is a most handsome edition, hard cover, nicely printed, with the the illustrations and photos produced in high quality. I love the artistic design of the cover, which I reproduce here.

This particular translation brings me special pleasure because of the memory of my closest male friend of my life, Olof James Ribb.  Olof died January 16, 2006 at a much too young age 59, of a very aggressive form of bone cancer, just as my book was being published. I mention Olof in my Acknowledgments, as some readers might recall. Olof was of Swedish background and heritage and as an adult taught himself Swedish quite fluently. He traveled to Sweden several times to locate and meet relatives of his immigrant family who had moved to the Dakotas in the 19th century. Olof was a high school teacher of German and Latin in Burlington, NC, much beloved of students, family, and friends. Olof was one of the truest people I have ever known, and one of the most brillant as well. I miss him immensely and think of him every day. There is a Web site, olofribb.com with photos and tributes. German was Olof’s main academic expertise, though he had learned Italian and Spanish quite well, and was a master of Latin. His great loves were history, philosophy, religion, and literature, though he maintained a curiosity about almost everything, including the latest in science.

Because of his “roots” he plunged into Swedish with a special passion. I remember asking him once, since I knew his Germany was so fluent, if his Swedish would compare, and he answered simply “Yes.”  He had become over 20 years as comfortable in Swedish as in English or German. I don’t know of anyone from outside my academic field who had followed my work and research on the historical Jesus more avidly than Olof. But he was much more a dialog partner and a critic than a fan. I benefited immensely from his input and he read every word of my manuscript along the way and gave me helpful feedback on nearly every page. He traveled with me to Germany when I was doing the Pantera research in October, 2005, just a few months before he died. I can’t begin to imagine the pleasure it would have given him to see, hold, and read The Jesus Dynasty in Swedish.

Today I received an e-mail that comes out each week listing the “top ten stories of the week” from the Time Website. I find it is an good way to keep up with what people find most interesting in breaking news each week. I was not at all surprised that the recent story on the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls made it to #1, despite word from the editors that they were not running it in the weekly print edition. See my previous two posts on this blog for background and details. I also received my copy of Time magazine (March 30th issue) and it is the case that the story itself is not reprinted, however, a brief newsblurb highlighting the story does indeed appear on p. 12. There is no question as to the intense and sustained public interest in all things biblical, especially when it comes to archaeology, history, and any new discoveries.

One thing that surprised me about the Time story on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the non-existence of the Essenes is that Prof. James Charlesworth is quoted, and indeed he tells me that he talked at length with the reporter, but his input seemed to have little or no influence on the shape of the piece. Surely the reporter must have sensed, in talking to Charlesworth, that the bedrock of his views on the Essenes were hardly shattered by Prof. Elior’s well known position in the matter. The only person who seemed to think what Elior was saying was something new and earthshaking was Mr. McGirk, the reporter, as those in the field have discussed every aspect of the “Essene” matter in the exhaustive detail. Anyway, Charlesworth wrote me today about his interview and gave me permission to quote:

The journalist quoted me: “One proof of Essene authorship of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, he says, was the large number of inkpots found by
archaeologists at Qumran.”

I said one proof that Qumran was not a fort is the evidence that scrolls
were probably copied at Qumran since numerous inkwells were found in a
locus that most of us consider a scriptorium, as the signs placed by the
Israelis point out at the Khirbet, or ruin. Furthermore, the only way to
many of the caves is through the area now defined by the ruins.

I also told the reporter that Philo and Pliny clearly refer to the
“Essenes;” and they both antedate Josephus and could not have been
influenced by his writings. Philo called one of his publications
“Concerning the Essenes.”  Josephus did not create the noun “Essene.” We
should not expect to find the word “Essene” in documents clearly
composed at Qumran since they assiduously avoid any Greek or Latin word.
The reporter correctly reported my statement that the Qumranites called
themselves “Sons of Light.”

One update. Yesterday I was informed by a senior editor of Time that the on-line story would not be appearing in the printed magazine this coming week, nor anywhere else for that matter. I have no ill regard for Mr. McGirk, but I do think the story was very misleading and ill advised, so it is best that it be retired.

Since about noon yesterday my mailbox has been crammed with friends, associates, students, and colleagues asking if I had seen the latest breaking story on the Dead Sea Scrolls published by Time magazine and posted on their Web site. Until I looked I assumed this must be Time’s follow-up on the bizarre saga of Raphael Golb, son of noted Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, Norman Golb, that I and about fifty other bibliobloggers had commented on last week.

I could not have been more mistaken. The Time story, titled “Scholar Claims Dead Sea Scrolls ‘Authors’ Never Existed,” was indeed bizarre, but it had nothing to do with the alleged criminal activities of Mr. Golb. Rather, it was a strange piece, authored by Tim McGirk, reporting on the theories of Hebrew University professor Rachel Elior regarding the non-existence of the “Essenes.” This is all fine and good, and certainly Prof. Elior deserves and has received a hearing for her ideas. The problem is, according to McGirk, “Elior’s theory has landed like a bombshell in the cloistered world of biblical scholarship,” and indeed “has shaken the bedrock of biblical scholarship.” This is so ridiculous as to be laughable, but equally surprising, since one has come to expect the high quality of reporting on religion and the Bible in Time that one associates with the work of  veteran religion editor David Van Biema.

It would be interesting to know what “cloistered world” Mr. McGirk imagines exists among Dead Sea Scroll scholars and why he thinks Elior’s ideas would be any kind of bedrock-shattering bombshell? At the end of the interview Prof. Elior braces herself for the attacks of her “opponents” whom she charges have not even read the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have no idea whom she has in mind, or what group of Dead Sea Scroll scholars she imagines out there who don’t even read the original texts they work on! One might expect something like this from the National Enquirer or Star Magazine, but certainly not from Time.

The issue itself is a fascinating one, and has been discussed in the most meticulous detail, with all viewpoints extensively aired and critiqued by those in the field. Two dominant issues have emerged:

1. Did the group that composed the sectarian documents collectively known as the Dead Sea Scrolls live at the ancient excavated settlement we know as Qumran?

2. Is the group that composed the sectarian documents collectively known as the Dead Sea Scrolls named or otherwise known to us in other textual sources from the late 2nd Temple period?

By far the majority of scholars who work on the scrolls–and believe it or not, they have actually read them, are convinced that the Jewish group known and otherwise described as the “Essenes,” by classical authors Josephus, Pliny the Elder, and Philo, is to be identified with the sectarian authors of the Scrolls, and that this group lived at Qumran. The reasons for this two-fold identification are abundant and the arguments are tried and tested. I would refer readers to two very outstanding summaries:

James Vanderkam and Peter Flint, in The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Harper, 2002), chapter 10, titled “Identifying the Group Associated with Qumran,” pp. 239-254.

James H. Charlesworth, ed, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Anchor/Doubleday, 1992), “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” pp. 1-74.

Making this connection between how the Essenes are described ideally by authors such as Josephus, and the group’s self-description in the Scrolls, in no way implies any kind of perfect or absolute correspondence. Josephus also describes the Pharisees and Sadducees, shaping his language to accommodate his Roman readers who were familiar with Stoics and Epicureans. Scholars have long recognized that Josephus puts the Essenes into a kind of Pythagorian garb, for apologetic purposes. But such stylistic descriptive genres and conventions have nothing to do with whether Jewish groups such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes, really existed.

The question is not whether the “Essenes” wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls but whether the sectarian group reflected in the scrolls corresponds to the group called “Essenes,” in the tendentious and idealistic literary descriptions of Josephus, Pliny, and Philo. In other words, if one wants to learn about the group who wrote the scrolls, one goes to the scrolls themselves. But that is not to say that the classical descriptions have no comparative value. In fact, when one looks at the parallels, summarized in the materials cited above by Vanderkam and Charlesworth, the similarities so far outweigh the differences that one would be hard pressed to imagine Josephus, who did not have the Scrolls, coming up with such a “make-believe” group.

It is also noteworthy that various aspects of the “material” evidence from the Qumran settlement, for example, the all male cemetery, the latrines located to the northwest of the “camp,” evidence of sacred meals, and the ritual pools leading into the segregated settlement, correspond to elements found in both the Scrolls as well as the literary descriptions of the Essenes.

So far as the language the group that wrote the Scrolls used to describe itself, whether New Covenanters, the Yachad, or the Sons of Light, a good case can be made that “Essenes” is actually a Greek term for the Hebrew word “Ossim,” that is, “Doers,” namely the “Doers of the Torah.” This seems to be a phrase known to Paul, as well as the related phrase “works of the Torah,” in Romans 2 and Galatians 3.

So all things considered the Time article is most unfortunate in that it implies, as so many sensational media stories dealing with the Bible and archeology do, that the “experts” are somehow either blinded by presuppositions or too invested in some status quo. In fact, so far as free and open exchange and debate of every possible viewpoint I would say the field of Dead Sea Scroll studies probably wins a prize.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, here is the Time article in full:

Monday, Mar. 16, 2009
Scholar Claims Dead Sea Scrolls ‘Authors’ Never Existed
By Tim McGirk / Jerusalem
Biblical scholars have long argued that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the work of an ascetic and celibate Jewish community known as the Essenes, which flourished in the 1st century A.D. in the scorching desert canyons near the Dead Sea. Now a prominent Israeli scholar, Rachel Elior, disputes that the Essenes ever existed at all — a claim that has shaken the bedrock of biblical scholarship.

Elior, who teaches Jewish mysticism at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, claims that the Essenes were a fabrication by the 1st century A.D. Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus and that his faulty reporting was passed on as fact throughout the centuries. As Elior explains, the Essenes make no mention of themselves in the 900 scrolls found by a Bedouin shepherd in 1947 in the caves of Qumran, near the Dead Sea. “Sixty years of research have been wasted trying to find the Essenes in the scrolls,” Elior tells TIME. “But they didn’t exist. This is legend on a legend.”

Elior contends that Josephus, a former Jewish priest who wrote his history while being held captive in Rome, “wanted to explain to the Romans that the Jews weren’t all losers and traitors, that there were many exceptional Jews of religious devotion and heroism. You might say it was the first rebuttal to anti-Semitic literature.” She adds, “He was probably inspired by the Spartans. For the Romans, the Spartans were the highest ideal of human behavior, and Josephus wanted to portray Jews who were like the Spartans in their ideals and high virtue.”

Early descriptions of the Essenes by Greek and Roman historians has them numbering in the thousands, living communally (“The first kibbutz,” jokes Elior) and forsaking sex — which goes against the Judaic exhortation to “go forth and multiply.” Says Elior: “It doesn’t make sense that you have thousands of people living against the Jewish law and there’s no mention of them in any of the Jewish texts and sources of that period.”

So who were the real authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Elior theorizes that the Essenes were really the renegade sons of Zadok, a priestly caste banished from the Temple of Jerusalem by intriguing Greek rulers in 2nd century B.C. When they left, they took the source of their wisdom — their scrolls — with them. “In Qumran, the remnants of a huge library were found,” Elior says, with some of the early Hebrew texts dating back to the 2nd century B.C. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest known version of the Old Testament dated back to the 9th century A.D. “The scrolls attest to a biblical priestly heritage,” says Elior, who speculates that the scrolls were hidden in Qumran for safekeeping.

Elior’s theory has landed like a bombshell in the cloistered world of biblical scholarship. James Charlesworth, director of the Dead Sea Scrolls project at Princeton Theological Seminary and an expert on Josephus, says it is not unusual that the word Essenes does not appear in the scrolls. “It’s a foreign label,” he tells TIME. “When they refer to themselves, it’s as ‘men of holiness’ or ’sons of light.’ ” Charlesworth contends that at least eight scholars in antiquity refer to the Essenes. One proof of Essene authorship of the Dead Sea Scrolls, he says, is the large number of inkpots found by archaeologists at Qumran.

But Elior claims says these ancient historians, namely Philo and Pliny the Elder, either borrowed from each other or retailed second-hand stories as fact. “Pliny the Elder describes the Essenes as ‘choosing the company of date palms’ beside the Dead Sea. We know Pliny was a great reader, but he probably never visited Israel,” she says.

Elior is braced for more criticism of her theory. “Usually my opponents have only read Josephus and the other classical references to the Essenes,” she says. “They should read the Dead Sea Scrolls — all 39 volumes. The proof is there.”