Bible Review

A review of the biblical texts from QumraÆn and publication data on those that have been edited may be found in P. W. Skehan, “QumraÆn. Littérature,” Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 9, cols 805–828. Cf. F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran, rev. ed (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, 1980), pp. xi-xxi [Preface to German edition, supplementing 1961 English edition).

In fact, the Nash Papyrus had already given a glimpse of an earlier stage of the Pentateuchal text before the fixing of the Rabbinic Recension, but its witness was largely ignored. See W. F. Albright, “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 56 (1937), pp. 145–176.

The history of the textual scholarship of this era, the emergence of the “one-recension” theory, the “archetype” theory, and the confusion of the two in subsequent scholarly discussion, is given definitive treatment by Goshen-Gottstein in the article listed above (note 4).

To be sure, it must be recognized that Josephus was writing a polemical work addressed to a Greek-speaking audience and does not hesitate on occasion to overstate or exaggerate.

Contra Apionem I, 42 (ed Loeb, trans. H. St. John Thackeray).

The English edition was published shorthly before Yadin’s death: The Temple Scroll (The Israel Exploration Society: Jerusalem, 1983) 3 volumes.

On this whole question see Lionel Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton University Press, 1971).

The description of Lucian in Navigium, 5 is cited by Casson, op cit, pp.158–159.

Cf. G. P. Burton, “Proconsuls, Assizes and Administration of Justice Under the Empire,” Journal of Roman Studies 65 (1975) pp. 92–106.