Truemors
Digg
del.icio.us
AddToAny
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit misleads public?
by Charles Gadda | July 2, 2007 at 03:02 pm | 5112 views | 13 comments
[October 30 update: I have added a link to a newly issued review that places an enormous question mark over any claim to scientific legitimacy that this exhibit may have had.]
The Los Angeles Times recently carried an interesting report, by Mike Boehm, on the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit taking place at the San Diego Natural History Museum. They asked the curator, Dr. Risa Levitt Kohn, why the museum has carefully excluded all scholars who oppose the old, and increasingly contested, theory of Scroll origins from the lecture series accompanying the exhibit, and she came up with a good reply--"You don't want to confuse people with so many competing theories, so they walk away, saying, 'Well, nobody really knows anything!'"
I for one find that extremely convincing. The last thing in the world we would want is for people to understand why there is more than one interpretation of the facts. After all, that would only confuse them, and in their confused state they might become depressed, or behave in an irrational manner. They might even start asking why the museum has not explained how it came about that an entire series of major scholars rejected the old theory over the past decade, not in favor of "so many competing theories," but in favor of one salient competing theory. Yes, we must protect people from the truth at all costs. Besides, we wouldn't want to do anything that might upset Dr. Kohn's academic friends!
For a somewhat different perspective, see University of Chicago historian Norman Golb's articles Fact and Fiction in Current Exhibitions of the Dead Sea Scrolls--A Critical Notebook for Viewers (on recent scrolls exhibits in general) and The Dead Sea Scrolls as Treated in a Recently Published Catalogue (on the San Diego exhibit in particular). And see his editorial in The Forward, Take Claims about Dead Sea Scrolls with a Grain of Salt. (The titles are links--clicking on them brings up the articles.)
A chronology of this controversy is now available on-line (that's another link). I've posted a picture of the Copper Scroll, easily the most important document found in the caves--and which the museum appropriately treats as a "mystery" because to explain its significance for the interpretation of the scrolls as a whole would also confuse the public.
[Click here for a July 10 update to this story. And click here for my August 2 piece concerning the involvement of individuals affiliated with a variety of "Christian educational institutions" in planning and choosing the content of the San Diego exhibit.]
News Tools
July 2, 2007 at 03:02 pm by Charles Gadda, 5112 views, 13 comments
Add a comment
Comments (13)
at 16:51 on July 2nd, 2007
Charles Gadda, this is a great, well-written primer to the Dead Sea Scrolls theories. Thank you for posting it, and for highlighting this controversial move on the part of the museum. Great stuff!
at 17:19 on July 2nd, 2007
Kaitlin, thanks for your message! Just in case you know of any other websites where you think people would be interested if I posted something on this, I'd be grateful for your advice.
at 17:55 on July 2nd, 2007
Hmmm...not off the top of my head, but I'll think about it. If anyone else knows where this story would be welcome, let Charles know!
at 15:20 on July 3rd, 2007
Charles Gadda, this is Good stuff! Funny I was just watching an older TV special on the Dead SSea Scrolls last night. I have to say that I almost think it would be better for ticket sales to the exhibit to have alternate views -more of a pro/con discussion at an educated level. That might be more enjoyable to people than just going to hear one side.
Controversy sells!
at 21:58 on July 3rd, 2007
It's always interesting to read an insightful comment by an intelligent, humanistic individual, someone who is capable of doing a bit of research, perhaps of clicking on a few links to check the veracity of the statements made in a cultural news item that (oh, how inappropriate!) mixes fact and evaluation of fact, before accusing its author of pandering in "fiction" and "trash." Good work, Monsieur Troll!
at 19:37 on July 3rd, 2007
Charles - let me add my voice to all those who have congratulated you on your item. "The last thing in the world we would want is for people to understand why there is more than one interpretation of the facts. After all, that would only confuse them, and in their confused state they might become depressed, or behave in an irrational manner."
Bravo!
at 03:09 on July 4th, 2007
Hey, thanks a lot for your comment. For some reason, my item seems to have disappeared from the culture section, do you still see it there? I only see it (at the bottom of the first page) if I make some little correction in it, and then a few minutes later I don't see it anywhere on either of the first two pages or anywhere else except through my profile, so I have to keep on making little corrections to make it visible again. Maybe the museum has had it moved into some sort of "maverick" category?
at 10:53 on July 4th, 2007
Charles, great work. Yeah, heaven forfend that people get all confused by "debate" and "science"...
at 20:25 on July 6th, 2007
This is a very well written, well researched and generally well done editorial piece, as well as an interesting counterpoint to the popularly displayed theories of the origin of the scrolls. Very good stuff indeed!
at 23:06 on July 8th, 2007
Charles Gadda, I like this story. It's good stuff.
- reply
lishevitaat 05:59 on July 12th, 2007
I was very interested in this article right up until the point I read the bottom of page four where it says,
"that only the Greek translation of the Torah, or Five Books of Moses, and by no
means the Septuagintal translation of the entire Hebrew Bible corpus, was
completed during the 3rd century BC;"
So, who is right? The author of dss_fact_fiction_2007.pdf or http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/septuagint ?
And then the question is, how much of Norman Golb's essay is actual fact and how much is axe grinding? And how much time do I have to go sorting through lots of information to decide? Oh! To heck with it... "Know one really knows" (Actually, I would really like to know. I am just annoyed at the sloppiness factor)
at 14:21 on July 12th, 2007
It is always deeply satisfying to see someone doing serious research on an issue and, on that basis, making a significant contribution to a discussion.
The dictionary definition cited by Lishevita states that the Septuagint is "a Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures redacted in the third and second centuries B.C. by Jewish scholars and adopted by Greek-speaking Christians." I am sure that if Lishevita reads it again, perhaps just a wee bit more closely than the first time around, she will clearly see that it says "in the third and second centuries B.C."
Now, if we compare that with Golb's statement, we see that there is no contradiction, for he says that the Septuagint, contrary to the erroneous statement made in the museum exhibit, was "by no means... completed in the third century B.C.
Furthermore, on such matters it is often advisable to consult a somewhat more detailed source than Merriam-Webster's. For example, if one looks up "Septuagint" on wikipedia, one sees the following statement:
"Modern scholarship holds that the LXX [=Septuagint], beginning with the Pentateuch, was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries B.C."
In conclusion, allow me to suggest that it would be odd for one of the world's leading historians of Jewish antiquity to make the kind of foolish mistake attributed to him by Lishevita. As for her broader question on how much of his article is "actual fact" and how much is "axe-grinding," readers will have to judge for themselves--perhaps if she had discovered an actual mistake there would be something to talk about, but as it stands, the definition she herself cites confirms what he says, so who is being sloppy and grinding an axe here?
at 18:41 on November 6th, 2007
I thought I should post this here regarding the curator's statement, "You don't want to confuse people with so many competing theories."
After reading Golb's review of the exhibit, a friend of mine emailed the Waitt Foundation (one of exhibit's main funders), referring them to the review and suggesting that the foundation's money might have been misused. A few days later, he received a reply from Dominique Rissolo, Director of Research of the foundation. A google search shows that Rissolo got his Ph.D. in 2001 and, before joining Waitt, was a lecturer in the Department of Anthropology at San Diego State University, where Dr. Kohn the curator also teaches.
In his email, Rissolo defended the exhibit's "combined interdisciplinary and interfaith efforts" and said, "the exhibition itself was not designed specifically to confront or otherwise emphasize the controversies or debates that are discussed by Dr. Golb in his commentaries... The level of discourse in which Dr. Golb engages is certainly familiar territory to the curators of the exhibition (and one from which they do not shy away); however, there seemed little value in foisting such arguments on the general public via the exhibition."
To which my friend responded:
"You avoid addressing the allegation that the exhibitors undertook to defend one point of view in those controversies and debates, while carefully hiding from the public the evidence supporting the other point of view... I am somewhat surprised that you would describe the normal process of helping the public comprehend the terms of a scientific debate as 'foisting such arguments on the general public.'"
My friend hasn't heard back from the foundation.