continued from day 1
I got a bit of a later start on Tuesday than I had on Monday. Busy packing up our London apartment for our move back to New York – my wife and daughter had already made their way home a week earlier – I ended up missing the first two lectures of Tuesday’s initial block of sessions. Fortunately, I managed to attend several fantastic lectures over the course of the day.
As soon as my Northern Line train pulled into Waterloo Station I navigated my way through the complex maze of underpasses leading to the King’s College campus, and dashed upstairs to the “Non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls: Themes and Perspectives” section. This session was convened specifically to address the topic, “Images of the Feminine in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” I arrived just in time to get my laptop ready for Claire Ruth Pfann’ (University of the Holy Land) presentation entitled, “Women at Qumran: Fact or Fiction?” Making use of what she referred to as a revised version of De Vaux’s chronology of the site, Pfann concluded that throughout the history of habitation at Qumran, finds that might indicate the presence of women (e.g. hairnets, feminine fabric patterns, jewelry, spindle whorls, etc.) are absent. During the period Pfann has designated IIb (66-68 CE), however, we begin to find in sealed loci possible indicators of female habitation of the site. These finds continue to appear in layer III (post-73 CE). Pfann thus sees evidence for Revolt-related female habitation at Qumran just prior to the revolt (during a period beginning in 66 CE), but not beforehand.
The discussion period following Pfann’s presentation produced the most heated exchange that I had seen at SBL to that point. Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) questioned Pfann’s decision to posit a separate stage of habitation commencing in 66 CE, rather than a single period beginning some time early in the reign of Herod Archelaus (i.e. around 4 BCE). Pfann’s view, doggedly defended during the subsequent session break by Stephen Pfann (University of the Holy Land), is that an observable change in material culture before and after 66 CE – as well as the eventual presence at the site of Revolt-era coins (97 from Year 2, and 3 from Year 3) – is sufficient to suggest a separate habitation, which may be dated to 66 CE. Magness countered – as far as I could understand (and hear…things got pretty tense!) – that no “change in material culture” in fact occurred. Instead, the original inhabitants from approximately 4 BCE simply adapted to evolving tastes in dishware and the like. In other words, Magness strenuously insisted, no evidence exists that should force us to suggest a fresh habitation of the site in 66 CE.
Once presentations resumed following the break, I returned to the same section only to encounter my least favorite presentation of the conference: Paul Heger’s (University of Toronto) paper entitled, “The Status of Women in Scripture, Rabbinic and Qumran Literatures.” At the risk of oversimplifying things (although this tendency was precisely my problem with the paper itself), Heger argued that while the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls and rabbinic literature all more or less agree that women possess a subordinate legal status, the Rabbis venture even further in saddling women with a subordinate social status as well.
Heger introduced his lecture by presenting what he saw as a simple, unbiased reading of the Fall from Eden narrative. In Heger’s view, the text does not fault Eden any more so than Adam for sinning against God; in fact, as Heger implied at several points during his talk, the biblical narrative may even skew against Adam on occasion.
Heger then seemed to assume that the soundness of his reading should be readily apparent to most, perhaps all those who engage the text. Given this, Heger employed his reading as the standard against which both Qumranic and rabbinic interpretations should be measured. Heger then proceeded to highlight commentary on this narrative from various Dead Sea Scroll sources, which he noted tended to see this episode as a cautionary tale against man’s lustful and generally sinful nature. Eve, he noted, is not implicated as a villain in these readings.
In contrast, Heger pointed to a slew of rabbinic texts, culled from sources as diverse as the Tosefta, Genesis Rabbah, and the Bavli, that cast Eve, especially her feminine sexuality, as the primary culprit in humankind’s Fall. Although noting that exceptions exist, Heger viewed this as the dominant depiction of Eve within rabbinic literature, and as such an indicator that the Rabbis went further than other erstwhile Biblical interpreters in marginalizing women. Heger noted, however, that the Rabbis may not have been directly concerned – at least in this context – with women’s social status per se. Their excessive social demotion of women, therefore, may have been a mere byproduct of an earnest inquiry into the dangers of sexual temptation for males concerned to avoid transgression.
I found Heger’s paper deeply unsatisfying from both a methodological and interpretative perspective. During the discussion period I raised several points with respect to the former. First, I asked that we consider the hazards of attempting to create a coherent programmatic statement out of rabbinic texts drawn from a variety of disparate geographical and chronological contexts. On a related note, I pointed out the problematic nature of referring to “the Rabbis” – as if reducing several hundred years of complex and multivalent development into a single corporate identity somehow makes things simpler instead of vastly more complicated. Finally, I commented that some of the texts to which Heger pointed over the course of his analysis (BT Yoma 18b, in particular) have actually been noted for their reflection of a specifically Sasanian milieu, rather than as merely several points on a broad, rabbinic continuum.
Heger responded rather forcefully that by no means had he suggested that “the Rabbis” only had negative things to say about women. The denigration of Eve, however, is so pervasive throughout rabbinic thought that, in Heger’s view, we may deduce the rabbinic view of women (or some part of it) from the texts in which it appears as a theme. I did not feel at all that this answer addressed my question.
Following Heger’s paper, those who stayed until the end of the morning session were treated to a phenomenal paper by Shani Tzoref (listed as University of Sydney, but announced beforehand as affiliated with the Israel Antiquities Authority). This paper remained my favorite of the conference. Hopefully I’ll have a chance to cover this paper, along with the rest of the lectures I attended throughout the remainder of Day 2, in a subsequent post.
Ari Lamm is concluding a year as a Fulbright scholar based at University College, London and the School of Oriental and African Studies.
One thought on “SBL Conference Day 2 – Guest Post by Ari Lamm”
Thank you for the summaries of the presentations that you attended. I look forward to your further postings.
By e-mail I brought the Day 2 posting to the attention of Dr. Jodi Magness and especially the two paragraphs in which were described the presentation by Claire Ruth Pfann and the subsequent exchanges between the Pfanns and Dr. Magness.
Dr. Magness first briefly replied that in the summary was “what [she] was trying to explain to the Pfanns” and that “The supposed ‘sealed loci’ of their supposed Period IIb are just the destruction level of 68 C.E., not an occupation level of 66-68.”
Dr. Magness then sent a longer clarification of her earlier point, which she has permitted me to share in a posting.
The following are Dr. Magness’s words:
What the Pfanns are identifying as a separate occupation level dating to 66-68 C.E. at Qumran (their “Stratum IIb”) is actually the destruction level of 68 C.E. (end of de Vaux’s Period II).
The Pfanns think that because the material culture associated with the end of Period II looks different from earlier levels, it means that a new population settled at Qumran just before 68 C.E., which they identify as Jewish rebels (similar to Masada).
The problem is that they are comparing the material culture of a level dating to 68 C.E. with levels dating decades earlier, specifically from levels dating to 31 B.C.E. (e.g., the pantry of dishes in L86-89) and from ca. 4 B.C.E. (the dishes in L114) [NB: Pfann’s claim that L114 is later than ca. 4 B.C.E. because there is a coin of Tiberius from this locus does not hold up because, as is well known, de Vaux did not distinguish between levels within a locus, so there is no evidence that coin is associated with the level at which the dishes were found].
Ceramic types changed quite a bit between the first century B.C.E. and ca. 70 C.E. So, of course assemblages from these periods will look different. Similarly, stone vessels appear in the late first century B.C.E. but are most common in the first century C.E., so their presence in the 68 C.E. level (but not the earlier assemblages) is not surprising.
All of this to say that archaeologically, there is no evidence for an occupation level dating to 66-68 C.E. at Qumran, and no evidence that a new population occupied the site during the First Revolt. In contrast, at Masada, the occupation level associated with the rebels could be dated precisely on the basis of associated finds and was clearly distinguishable from the previous occupation of the Roman garrison (for example, the installation of miqva’ot, the installation of a synagogue, the occupation of the casemate rooms by rebel families, and the construction of rebel quarters in open spaces around the site).