Where Dead Sea Scrolls Go, “Controversy” Follows

From the moment word of Muhammed edh-Dhib‘s discovery in the Judean desert began to circulate in scriptural and archaeological circles, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been shadowed by controversies. As a subscriber to Biblical Archaeology Review throughout the sturm und drang of the “liberation” of the scrolls in the early 1990s, the Strugnell controversy, and the theories and counter-theories about their origin, I followed the whole story in wearying detail. No one really cares any more, since the text–not the wounded vanity or past sins of an academic elite–is the important thing here, but I’m reminded that nothing–absolutely nothing–is said about the DSS without some controversy erupting from some quarter, often expressed in an alarmingly personal and insulting manner. 

I’m not sure I can say why this is, except for the scrolls’ mystique of “hidden wisdom” that some once believe would rewrite Biblical history. The wife of a friend once assured me that the Vatican was keeping the scrolls secret because they would “blow the lid off the lie of Christianity.” The DSS, of course, were composed by the Essenes (an ascetic Jewish sect), not Christians, some time between the 2nd century BC and first century AD. Although this overlaps with the origins of Christianity, and thus illuminates one aspect of the culture in which Christianity took root, the texts themselves have no Christian connection whatsoever. (No, Robert Eisenman‘s ravings are not true. Not even close.) Oh, and the Vatican never had control of the scrolls. Other than that…

We’ve now seen all the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they are quite clearly sectarian documents from a minor, but fascinating, group, as well as extensive copies of the Hebrew scriptures and some pseudepigrapha. What they tell us about these people, their time, and these texts is priceless, but only by way of fine-tuning what we already know: not by rewriting history. They show–contra Bart Ehrman–that the texts of scripture were actually fairly well preserved and consistent over time, with the variations in texts amounting to little more than minor alterations of language and syntax, and occasional compression or clarification.

Here’s an example from Deuteronomy 5:15 (changes in italics):

Masoretic Text: Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

DSS: And you shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out the from there with a mighty hand and an outstreteched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day to hallow it. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested the seventh day; so the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

I know: mind-blowing! It rewrites the whole story of Judaism and Christianity! I’ve been living a lie all these years! I’m going to have to renounce my faith, write a lot of BSy books, and go on a lucrative speaking tour.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Hebrew scripture will recognize the additions in the DSS example as a kind of midrash: an elaboration of the passage for pedagogic purposes. Textual differences–even among radically disparate textual traditions such as the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Masoretic–rarely amount to more than this: subtle changes of syntax, elaborations, commentary, some censoring of racy material, and the like. There’s nothing earth-shattering, like Moses being the illegitimate son of pharaoh, or Isaiah running a pawn business on the side, or Jesus showing up at Qumran to show the Essenes the proper way to go the bathroom (a topic which, like everything related to the DSS, is fraught with–you guessed it–controversy).

And so I shouldn’t have been surprised when a simple exhibit of artifacts and scrolls brought the trolls out of the woodwork. Honestly, I’m reluctant to even link to these posts, because they are so biased and filled with casual slanders, but here are a couple. Click at your own risk.

First, there’s the idea that the Israel Antiquities Authority has created and supported an anti-Jewish exhibit. Some of the complaints are directed at the preponderance of Christians attending the exhibit, and the way in which the exhibit highlights the “Holy Land” angle and the common threads of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That’s not a bug: that’s a feature. How an exhibit which draws people together and looks at the common wellspring of Christianity and Islam in Judaism can be anti-Jewish is a mystery to me. As for the exhibit’s alleged attempts to “appeal” to “Evangelicals” (meaning: Christians the writers don’t like for reasons of class, politics, and belief): first, I didn’t see that at all; and second, if they are “appealing to Evangelicals,” well … duh. There’s more Christians than Jews in America. Why create something for a narrow demographic when you can create a wide-ranging exhibit that draws in Christians as well as Jews and even Muslims? Again: this is a bad thing … how?

We can also wave away the attacks on Lawrence Shiffman, a renowned scroll scholar who served as an adviser to the exhibit, because most hatred directed towards him is wholly separate from his actual work on the scrolls. However, the bizarre accusations of Schiffman’s “mistreatment” of one of his critics is fascinating. The critic in question is Norman Golb, who we’ll get to in a second. As background, go ahead and read this.

That’s right: Golb’s son Raphael impersonated Schiffman for the express purpose of destroying his career, and was sentenced to six months in jail for his actions, and the author of the Salon pieces reads this as evidence of Schiffman persecuting Golb.

Why on earth would Raphael Golb do this? Who knows, but Norman Golb and Lawrence Schiffman are on opposite sides of the scroll debate, and Golb’s “side” (comprised of, well, Golb and pretty much no one else  of any standing) is losing badly. Golb, you see, thinks the Quram/Essenes/DSS story that’s been the dominant theory since the 1950s is hogwash. He thinks Qumran was a fort without connection to the scroll caves, and that the caves were a repository for scrolls of many sects out of Jerusalem.

Except … Qumran was not a fort, and no reasonable archaeologist believes it is. And if this was a repository for multiple groups, why do all the contents of the community scrolls line up with Essene practices and the evidence of Qumran itself? Where are the scrolls of the Pharisees, for instance?

And, by the way, Cave 4 was so close to Qumran (less than 500 meters) that you’d pretty much have to walk through the settlement to reach the cave. So, no: Golb’s theories are dust and ashes.

I’ve read Norman Golb’s book, and I’ve always gotten the impression that, while he has a clear mastery of the materials, he’s reached all the wrong conclusions. He’s desperate to put forward his theories and tends to attack other scholars, such as Geza Vermes and Schiffman, often on a very personal level. He has a tendency to regard disagreements with the theories of Norman Golb as indication of some hard factual error. That’s a nice rhetorical trick, but it doesn’t magically turn his theories into facts.

The DSS came primarily from Qumran, and were the work of the Essenes. That’s been the dominant narrative from almost the beginning, and I’ve found all the attempts to rewrite that narrative unpersuasive. Golb (and some of the others cited) has an ax to grind, and his use of phrases like “the presumed ‘Essenes’” is a clear indicator that he’s simply being contrarian. The complaints outlined by critics of the exhibit appear to be just more of the background noise that accompanies the scrolls. It’s merely Golb and other scholars trying to whip up outrage at a high profile exhibit in order to draw attention to their own work and theories. Having read him in the past, I feel pretty comfortable ignoring anything he says. He’s not merely wrong, which we all are from time to time: he’s obnoxious in his wrongness.

All of this amounts to a non-story, inflated into an imaginary controversy by a lot of hand-waving, ominous rhetoric (use of the word “Evangelical” is positively Pavlovian for urban elites: you can almost feel them shudder with distaste), and sad attempts to promote minor scholarly work by piggy-backing on a high-profile story. Even if you invent an imaginary “controversy,” the media often feels duty-bound to report the “controversy” in order to provide balance, and thus any old fringe theory might be able to get an airing. Scholars are no more immune from this kind of vain grandstanding than anyone else, and scroll scholarship seems to attract some of the worst.

About Thomas L. McDonald

Thomas L. McDonald writes about technology, theology, history, games, and shiny things. Details of his rather uneventful life as a professional writer and magazine editor can be found in the Biography tab.

  • David_K

    Hello Thomas,

    Since my original comment seems to have set you on the path of your interesting article, I thought I would point out a few things that may help you tighten up your argument.

    First, you are of course entitled to your opinion about the merit of Golb’s critique of the Essene theory. But, just like the museums, you do not provide your readers with information on the parallel work of Yitzhak Magen, Yizhar Hirschfeld, the Donceels and others who have essentially supported Golb’s conclusions, in systematic reassessments of the available information. See, for example, the preliminary report by Magen and Peleg at:

    http://www.antiquities.org.il/images/shop/jsp/JSP6_Qumran_color.pdf

    See especially their conclusion that the Dead Sea Scrolls came from the Jerusalem area. Given Magen’s importance as an archaeologist, your silence on these developments might be seen as damaging your claim that there is only an “imaginary controversy.” In this regard, you point out that the Essene theory is the “dominant narrative.” That may be true (despite Magen, Hirschfeld, and the others), but I think you need to explain your implicit idea that the “dominant narrative,” by virtue of its dominance, remains credible despite the opposing arguments of Golb, his Israeli colleagues, and highly reputable European archaeologists like the Donceels. If the narrative has been debunked, then its popularity isn’t a defense.

    Second, you assert that Raphael Golb “impersonated Schiffman for the express purpose of destroying his career.” So? Tina Fey impersonated Sarah Palin for the purpose of destroying her career, didn’t she? At any rate, here it might be useful to refer your readers to Norman Golb’s article:

    http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/schiffman_response_2010nov30.pdf

    which seems to cast a whole new light on this affair; perhaps you could address the issues raised in it, including Schiffman’s apparent fabrication of a non-existent source (see p. 5). Some readers might wonder whether Schiffman deserved to have a career! Hopefully you can help put this matter to rest, if you have some information that isn’t available online to ordinary people like me.

    Finally, I think there is one other point you may want to clarify: you explain that Raphael Golb was “sentenced to six months in jail” for impersonating (exposing?) Schiffman, but here again, it might be useful to refer your readers to the website devoted to the Raphael Golb appeal:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com

    From what I read there, Raphael Golb’s sentence was stayed by the appellate court in New York, pending review of the “issues of first impression” in the case. It might be a good idea for you to address some of those nagging issues as well. Do you think this trial was a good idea? Do you think it had anything to do with Schiffman’s resignation from his NYU professorship and his move to an administrative position at Yeshiva University?

    I submit this comments in a spirit of dialogue, hoping they can help you improve your article. As you can see, I’m not (yet) convinced by your defense of the exhibits, but I do find your clarifications interesting!

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    I’m grateful for your initial links, which pointed me towards the pieces on Salon, but I was more “inspired” by rereading Jodi Magness’s definitive book on Qumran in anticipation of reviewing her new book, due this month.

    I don’t see anything in this post that would need to be revised or expanded, since it’s not a thesis or an article but a quick casual look at some of the noise that surrounds Qumran. I see no more reason to pick over the minutia of fringe theories any more than I would take the effort to prove heliocentrism. You put Magen, Hitschfeld, and “others” on one side of the ledger, and I’ll put De Vaux, Magness, Vermes, Cross, Tov, VanderKam, and, well, everybody else on the other side, and we’ll see which side “wins.”

    The way you address the Schiffman matter does you no credit, and I only reluctantly let it post. The idea that Golb’s criminal identity theft is somehow equivalent to Tina Fey imitating Sarah Plain is just silly, and the courts thought so as well. His appeal is under consideration. Most verdicts are appealed, so I don’t see how that’s relevant to his admitted identity theft, even if he claims it was some mysterious new form of satire known only to him, and not an attempt to ruin one of his father’s hated rivals.

    I have no need nor intention to address the attacks against Schiffman, since right now they’re nothing more than hearsay. In any case, they don’t have any bearing on this issue or on his work. The sarcasm was unnecessary, since neither I nor you have any “new information” on matters that are little more than unproven allegations, and wholly beside the point.

    You’ve outlined your points, and I’ll let them stand. I don’t need to revise anything since, again: not defending a thesis here. Anything I’d have to say can be found in any number of mainstream opinions on the DSS, and the opinions are not less credible merely for being mainstream. I’d recommend a review of Magness if you want to put your support of Golb to rest once and for all. Beyond that, there’s really nothing more to add.

  • http://rickmasseyblog.com Rick Massey

    I too have followed this controversy from the beginning. And while I disagree with some of your conclusions about Professor Golb’s theory, you make some excellent points. “Qumran was not a fort . . . And if this was a repository for multiple groups, why do all the contents of the community scrolls line up with Essene practices and the evidence of Qumran itself? Where are the scrolls of the Pharisees, for instance?”

    On the other hand, these observations directly support Robert Eisenman’s position that the Essenes were a significant force in opposition to the Herodian Sadducees. No one disputes the fact that the scrolls are messianic documents. And no one disputes the fact that whatever movement was associated with Jesus was a messianic one. The assumption that they were a small group of misfits is not supported by the evidence (which on its face says very little about them one way or the other). If these writings, regardless of their origens do not reflect the thinking of the Zealot movement of Judas the Galilean, then why are there no writings that reflect that (according to Josephus) very popular movement. Did those who subscribed to that movement fail to wirte anything, while the Essenes recorded their speculations about the messianic age without saying anything about them?

    The problem is that none of us know as much as we would like about the Essenes or the scrolls. But we do know that the people who controlled the “official” story about the first thirty years of Christianity had every reason to distance themselves from the messianic movement that was considered to be the enemy of Rome. That if nothing else, should warrant a very suspicious and critical examination of the New Testament version of this point in history.

  • David_K

    Hello Thomas,
    I’m sorry if my comments were badly worded, but I meant my question in earnest. I do not understand what you mean by “hearsay,” because Schiffman’s letter (initially distributed secretly without giving Golb an opportunity to respond to it) was posted on the Internet after Raphael Golb’s trial:
    http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/schiffmancorrespondence.pdf
    and was discussed, along with Schiffman’s trial testimony, on several websites around the time of his departure from NYU. I honestly believe that when this letter became public knowledge, even without Golb’s response on the Oriental Institute site, a very ugly controversy must have been looming at NYU.
    I do sympathize with Schiffman’s situation. To me it seems that this dispute deserves close attention as a case-study in academic culture, secrecy, openness, the Internet, etc.; but I’m far from finding any easy answers to the issues raised, and again I’m sorry if I took the wrong tone in my comments.

  • Pingback: Spiritual Direction Ordinary Form SSPX PHumanae Vitae | Big Pulpit

  • http://Robert-feather.com Robert Feather

    Agree with most of your conclusions. How anyone can suggest Golb, Magen, Hirscfeld, Peleg etc present a unified challenge to the theory that Qumran was a religious centre, is beyond me. The only people who agree with these individuals is themselves. The vast majority of scholars support de Vaux’s original conclusions. However I find all these attacks as peripheral and rather a waste of effort. The real problems lie in the almost complete lack of understanding of who the central characters of the Dead Sea Scrolls are and what the controversial texts really mean. Work on these ‘Black Holes’ , which I have written on extensively, would be far more rewarding.