[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion Wise Abegg Cook translation
For those interested, the new English-language, _The Dead Sea Scrolls_, by
M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook (Harper Collins, 1996) represents what
I think is the most user-friendly, up-to-date, and perhaps accurate edition
of the scrolls in English to date. I thought Martinez's (1994) was
truly outstanding, one of the two events above all others in this
decade which made the Scrolls accessible to the world, both the scholarly
world and the interested public. (The other truly watershed event in my
opinion was the publication of the Brill microfiche edition of the Scrolls.)
Martinez's edition clearly went far beyond Vermes' earlier editions, not
simply in comprehensiveness of texts, but because Martinez's edition
represented much original and innovative text work. (Vermes' editions
I have found to be almost wholly translation of earlier scholars' work,
with all the benefits and disadvantages of the earlier scholars' work--this
is not to criticize the early Vermes editions which in their time made the
limited scrolls public in a way no other scholar had done.)
So Martinez was the standard, I thought, by which any future
comprehensive editions would be judged, stand or fall. The Wise,
Abegg, Cook edition just sparkles, and although it is a close
judgment call between two outstanding editions, I think the WAC
edition is clearly the equal, and in fact has a slight edge, over
Martinez 1994. Serious scrolls people should of course have both,
without question. But if I had to choose just one (or buy a gift for
someone), I'd go with WAC. Like Martinez 1994, WAC 1996 has
sound, original text work that goes beyond earlier editions. Beyond
the fruits of critical text work, the translations and renderings
shine. I work on 4QpNah, and the pesharim are Cook's texts, but
whenever I dip into other texts the translations elsewhere seem also
at times almost to be art. WAC 1996 also has the crucial text 4Q322-324b,
An Annalistic Calendar, with references to historical persons from
the 1st BCE (not in Martinez).
The introduction to the book (unsigned, but I understand largely the
work of M. Wise) contains in its own right important and original
arguments relating to issues of current discussion on orion, concerning
dating and origins and community identity of the texts. This is not to
say I, or others, will agree with every argument there, but the arguments
are good ones, whichever point on the Qumran scholarly map one locates
oneself. Of much interest, I think, is the argument that most of the
texts were composed in the early- to mid-1st BCE. (The fact of
copying in the 1st CE and a 68 CE deposit date is not challenged.)
Finally, the tone. These three authors convey a sense that they
enjoyed writing it. This book works. I am happy that it is on the
market available to all.
Greg Doudna