BMCR 2009.03.07, Mladen Popovic, Reading the Human Body

Mladen Popovic, Reading the Human Body. Physiognomics and Astrology in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism.
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah vol. 67.  Leiden/Boston:
Brill, 2007.  Pp. xx, 346.  ISBN 9789004157170.  EUR 104.00; US
$155.00.

Reviewed by Joanna Komorowska, Paedagogical University, Cracow
([email protected])
Word count:  1253 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-03-07.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/03/20090307.html
-------------------------------

The interrelated issues of both the presence and spread of astrological
doctrines within the Jewish communities at the turn of eras may well be
defined as presenting one of the more openly fascinating problems in
the investigation of antiquity. After all, most of us are well
acquainted with the famous 'star of Bethlehem' question: what was this
star Matthew talks about, the phenomenon that forced the Magi to
abandon their homes to search for the new-born Messiah? Was there any
such phenomenon or was the passage added solely for its possible effect
on the learned and astrologically sensitive gentiles? Now, any attempt
to answer these or similar questions involves the necessity to deal
with a far more intricate problem, namely the need to address the
question of the presence and spread of astrological (and preferably,
Greek astrological) doctrines within the Jewish community. Popovic's
analysis of two important texts from the Qumran library forms a
valuable contribution to our knowledge of the subject, both confirming
the presence of astral lore in the community and, possibly even more
importantly, suggesting its relative prominence.

The structure of the book appears clear enough: starting from the
presentation of the issues to be discussed in the relatively brief, yet
comprehensive Introduction (p. 1-16), P. moves to the presentation of
the central texts, i.e. 4Q Zodiacal Physiognomy (4Q186) and 4Q
Physiognomy ar (4Q561). Laudably, he presents his version of the text,
together with translation, and general notes, referring the more
philologically oriented reader to the purely textual Appendix One (p.
240-276), a maneuver which serves to preserve the principal focus on
the cultural importance of the analyzed passages, while allowing for a
lengthy discussion of the various variants elsewhere (still, one should
note, P. stresses certain possibly meaningful features of the texts in
question, e.g. the left-to-right writing in 4Q186).  Next (Ch. II, p.
68-118), P. turns his attention to the development of physiognomic
doctrines in Mesopotamia and Greece, highlighting the fundamental
impossibility of diagnosing the Qumranian physiognomy as either Greek
or Mesopotamian in origin and/or character.

Having discussed the issues of pure physiognomy, P. addresses the
astrological import of the 4QAstrological Physiognomy, and pays
particular attention to its unusual and suggestive wording (thus we
read 'this is a horoscope under which he was born: in the foot of
Taurus' and then 'there is a spirit for him in the house of light of
six parts, and three parts in the house of darkness'). The  respective
chapter (Ch. III, p. 119-171) is exhausive, as he discusses the already
existing interpretations, duly stressing the input of Bergmeier,
Schmidt and Albani, and, after indicating their insufficiencies, moves
on to develop his own explanation of the controversial passages (p.
164-171) [[1]]. In this regard, he stresses the importance of the
Ascendant point so predominant in Greek astrology and that of the
internal division of the sign of Taurus attested in the
Teucer-Rhetorios' description of the sign (CCAG VII. 197.24-27) in
order to emphasize the possibility that the mysterious ratio 6:3 (or
the other mentioned in the Qumran text, namely 8:1) reflects the actual
position of the Zodiacal sign with respect to the eastern horizon at
the moment of birth--this position, he argues, would be of particular
interest to anyone interested in the future disposition of the
individual in question.

Relying on the above interpretation, P. moves to yet another problem
posed by his text, namely to the exposition of the phrase 'there is a
spirit for him', hitherto interpreted either explicitly within the
context of the Two Spirits Treatise (Ch. IV, 172-208) or, at least,
against the background of the respective two-spirits doctrine [[2]].
While opposing the latter comparison, P. argues for a close link with
the Testamentum Solomonis and similar works, hence suggesting that the
spirit in question would actually be the Zodiacal spirit, beneficial or
evil according to the portion of the sign already visible above the
horizon.

Finally (Ch. V, 209-239), he concludes with a general discussion of the
role played by the knowledge of physiognomy and astrology in the
Qumranian community and of the spread of this knowledge in ancient
Judea, all the while stressing the importance of physiognomy as an art
of uncovering the Zodiacal makings of man and, hence, as the means to
assess individual's worth for the community. His argument is
supplemented with two appendices--the first, already mentioned here,
deals with the textual problems arising from the text, the other
provides a short outline of physiognomy as attested in Second Temple
literature.

Now, to the possible weaknesses (as seen from the perspective of an
historian of Greek astrology). Firstly, while P.'s suggestion that the
spirit featuring in 4Q Zodiacal Physiognomy is the Zodiacal spirit
comparable to those mentioned in the Testamentum is perfectly
reasonable and persuasive, one could probably expect at least a mention
of the kleros daimonos doctrine attested elsewhere. The kleros,
calculable on the basis of the Sun-Moon distance deducible from the
Ascendant point, is mentioned in some surviving horoscopes (thus, e.g.
P. Oxy. 4277, 4284), and considered one of the seven major points of
the nativity by none other than Paul of Alexandria (El. 23, p. 47-53
Boer). Clearly, one would be hard pressed even to try to argue that the
spirit mentioned in the document analyzed by P. is identical with this
particular daimon, but one wonders whether the concept of the latter
would not exert some influence on the image we get from the scroll. As
it is, the question remains open. Secondly, at some points of the work
(e.g. p. 165) the reader may get an impression that P. considers
Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos to be a standard manual of ancient astrology.
Given the biases and agenda of the latter author, which may account for
some unexpected gaps in his treatise, this is at best risky. Thirdly,
while P. discusses the related issue of the decans (or their absence)
in Greek astrological tradition, one would expect a mention of the
quite vivid trace of an actual employment of the decanal division of
the Zodiac for the purposes of genethlialogy in Hephaestio's
Apotelesmatica I, 1. Also, contrary to P.'s assertion of Ptolemy's
uniqueness (p. 146), Hephaestio does enter, albeit briefly, into the
conception vs. birth debate (Apotelesmatica II, 1). Finally, one could
ask whether any indication that character may be reflected in the
outward appearance should be interpreted as indicative of physiognomic
awareness, which is an impression one could easily get from Appendix
Two.

Nevertheless, in spite of such reservations, P.'s work is a
magnificently argued and careful piece of scholarship. Its additional
merits lie in providing a reader with a comprehensive picture of the
prior academic debate, both accounting for its merits and achievements
and stressing possible points of disagreement. P.'s own solutions to
the controversial issues are careful, lucidly presented and
corroborated by adequate textual and comparative evidence. His
conclusions, indicating a strong presence of a lively interest in both
physiognomic and astrological matters, an interest possibly endowed
with certain far-reaching practical consequences (it seems likely that
physiognomic would be used to determine, by referring to astrological
tenets, the suitability of an aspiring member of Qumran community), are
carefully formulated and appear reasonable enough. Significantly, those
conclusions would possibly indicate the importance and, indeed,
prominence of astrological lore among the elites of the Qumranian
community, a fact with some additional consequences for our perception
of Judea in the first century BCE. Certainly,  the book is hardly easy
or accessible to read--yet it is, at the same moment, a highly
rewarding one.

------------------
Notes:


1.   See respectively R. Bergmeier Gaube als Gabe nach Johannes:
Religions- und theologiegeschichtliche Studien  zum
praedestinatianischen Dualismus im vierten Evangelium, Stuttgart 1980,
p. 79-81, F. Schmidt "Astrologie juive ancienne: essai
d'interpre/tation de 4QCryptique (4Q186)" RevQ 18/69 (1997) 125-41, M.
Albani "Horoscopes in the Qumran Scrolls" in P. W. Flint, J.C.
VanderKam (eds) The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive
Assessment, Leiden 1999, p. 279-330.

2.  Characteristically, the connection is regarded as a matter of
'common opinion' in M. Albani's article 'Horoscopes' (L.H. Schiffman,
J.C. VanderKam (eds) Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls vol. I, p.
370-72).