Dead Sea Scrolls

Often referred to as one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all time, the Dead Sea Scrolls will be making a six month stop in Raleigh at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. The exhibit will feature 12 scrolls from the collection, which consists of about 1,000 texts, fragments, and documents that were discovered in caves around the settlement of Qumran, and date back to 200 B.C.
The exhibit runs from June 28- December 28, 2008. It might seem a bit pricey for tickets ($22 for adults), but a chance to view documents that last saw the light of day 2,000 years ago is worth it.
For more information, visit the exhibit website here.

Vince06/26 02:05 PM

Sweet

View_from_Here06/27 05:09 PM

This is in fact an offensive, biased and misleading exhibit, in which the current state of research on the Dead Sea Scrolls has been carefully distorted to cater to a Christian perspective.

In a word, the Raleigh museum (which is run by the North Carolina Department of the Environment) agreed to downplay and conceal the evidence brought to light by a major group of secular-minded, Jewish researchers who, over the past decade, have rejected the old “Essene” theory of scroll origins, and to physically exclude them from participating in the lecture series accompanying the exhibit.

Since the museum is a state-run institution, the role of government officials in displaying religiously controversial artifacts must be addressed.

This is, of course, a serious issue that should be carefully examined by major news sources. Instead, we have silence, viciously implied innuendo about Jewish culture coming from North Carolina authorities (including an antisemitic statement on the museum’s website), mendacious claims about a fabricated “consensus” that no longer exists, and a continuing pattern of catering to evangelical—and, I might add, financial—interests.

For further information on this propoganda masquerading as an exhibit, previously dished out to the public in various private “science” museums around the country, google, e.g., the article entitled “The Ethics of Exhibition: Romancing the Scrolls” by Robert Dworkin, or University of Chicago historian Norman Golb’s editorial entitled “Take Dead Sea Scroll Claims with a Grain of Salt” on the Forward site.

Magnus07/01 02:22 PM

$22 per adult
$12 per kid

So I’d have to drop $100 to take my family to see some old documents? No thanks.

I, too, am a little peeved at the state’s role in this and that they are only making this exhibit available for the wealthy to explore.

Peter Kaufman07/05 05:51 AM

I’ve read that the curators are describing the exhibit as a “spiritual adventure” involving “sacred books.”

Is it entirely legal for a government agency to use taxpayers’ money to create a spiritual adventure involving sacred books, and ask people to cough up $22 to experience it?

Is there any public accounting of how the profits will be spent?

Is it appropriate for the government to entertain people with religious books in a “natural sciences” museum while taking sides, as it appears they have done, in an acrimonious scholarly dispute?

A lot of questions, apparently of no concern to the news services around here.

David Lowery07/05 12:24 PM

I would love to visit NC to see the Scrolls butt to put 100 dollars in my car, 22 dollars for a museum exibit. It seems that this day and time it is all about the Dollar. And a religious exibit at a museum for charge is rediculous. Most Museums ask for donations.

God07/05 12:33 PM

When do man made scrolls have anything to do with natural science?

Jerome Cooper07/06 10:31 PM

This exhibit is a scandal, aimed at putting money in the pockets of influential members of the old Dead Sea Scrolls monopoly group.

The group’s control over access to the scrolls collapsed in the midst of scandal following John Strugnell’s antisemitic outbursts some fifteen years ago, but they have retained control over the way the scrolls are presented in museum exhibits, even though their views have now been rejected by dozens of major historians and archaeologists.

The Natural Sciences museum should never have gotten involved in this.

War Eagle (The wildboy)07/08 05:22 AM

I agree. 22 dollars for an exhibit were some of the truth is witheld is very wrong, and it is improper that in a forward thinking society that things are still being swept under the table as if we’re protecting the masses. Like chaos would ensue if all of a sudden we found out some of our time honored traditions we’re nothing but myths. I don’t understand the governments role in all of these conspiracies. WHY?? It’s all about the almighty dollar not some almighty GOD. If there is a GOD then I wish he’d strike some of these controlling politicians in the a@#!!! Maybe thin we can truly become a freethinking society instead of the “Oh come to America the free”, yeah right, we maybe lucky as far as not dealing with upheavel, food scarcity, or water shortage, but as far as the TRUE freedom of thinking…ur a fool if u think our government has our best interest in mind when it comes to that. It’s all about the dollar, power, and CONTROLLING our way of thinking. Bunch of manipulative old men pulling our strings and most of us don’t even know it.

War Eagle (The wildboy)07/08 05:34 AM

Well hello its the wildboy again. I know there was a little ranting and raving going on, in that last message. It’s just hard to take some of the crap that we are dealt. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LIVING IN A FREE THINKING SOCIETY! This country should be Utopia on Earth but instead it has become CONTROL COMMAND for a bunch of politicians manipulating the hell out of us. They got their dirty fingers on EVERYTHING, hell their probably watching me as I type this comment. I may sound paranoid, but u never no with the technology they have now. I can tell u this it won’t be long before freedom of speech is took away along with anything else that is supposedly free. Look at all the mystery surrounding these dead sea scrolls or anything to do with Roswell and a million other mysterys. They all get shut down because the government wants to play MOMMA and DADDY and police us like we are children.

Mama07/12 06:30 PM

Why is it so hard to understand that to care for rare documents is expensive.
To break down the cypher of rare documents is expensive. To prepare and transport rare artifacts is expensive.
This is a valuable and exciting experience to view something thousands of years old.
If you were to see any rare exhibit in any part of the country it would cost about $25 and up. (ie: body world, Tut exhibition.
I am truly sorry I am coming to your fine town too late for the exhibit, I would gladly pay
$22 for the chance to see these beautiful documents.

Bill Monroe07/12 11:22 PM

The problem, Mama, isn’t that it was expensive to bring these “rare documents” to Raleigh, but that (1) they are religious texts, surrounded by a religious aura; and (2) if the government is going to put on such an expensive show, then it needs to be done in a neutral, scientific manner. Catering to the Dead Sea Scrolls monopoly group, who have been using these exhibits for years to puff themselves up and smear their opponents, is not neutral and scientific.

Incidentally, I still remember when the head of the monopoly created a scandal with a horrifying antisemitic tirade. The problem is that the Scrolls were originally the property of Jordan. Jewish scholars were entirely excluded during that period, and the Israelis have never really rectified the situation because they want to have good relations with Christian evangelicals.

Jerome Cooper07/18 08:43 PM

One of the people invited by the museum to participate in its “distinguished lecture” series has now admitted that he is not even a Dead Sea scrolls expert. Do a google search for “Bart Ehrman and the Essenes in Raleigh.“

Samual D. Harris07/22 08:36 PM

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not dead in the sense that they are living documents that authenticate the validity of the Old Testament and subsequently the New Testament Scriptures. The discovery of these documents provides a linkage betweem the writings contained in the Old Testament when conparied to what is contained in the Scrolls.

Frank Cross07/22 11:59 PM

The Jewish Museum in New York has announced its upcoming Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, produced by the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Contradicting the Raleigh exhibitors, the announcement describes the Qumran-Essene theory as merely one among several possibilities, and we specifically read that the question of scroll origins is

“still being debated by historians and archaeologists, particularly now that the last of the scrolls have been published and new archaeological studies have been undertaken on material from sites in the Dead Sea region. Just as it took sixty years to study and publish the individual scrolls, it may be many years before scholars can come to a consensus on who wrote and used the Dead Sea Scrolls, where they lived, and how this impacts on our interpretation of their meaning for our lives today.“

This statement, of course, flatly contradicts the assertions of various individuals who have argued that scrolls exhibits should reflect a claimed Qumran-Essene “consensus.“

Indeed, the New York museum’s frank and neutral recognition that no such consensus exists cannot but call further attention to the stance of various “science” museums around the country, where exhibitors have used their displays and lecture series to inculcate belief in the disputed Qumran-Essene theory, their stated aim being to avoid ”confusing people with so many competing theories” (curator of the San Diego exhibit as quoted in the Los Angeles Times).

This, of course, is the attitude adopted by the creators of the Raleigh exhibit (who hired the San Diego curator as their “scientific consultant”). The Raleigh exhibit will be running through December, and will thus overlap with the Jewish Museum exhibit. There is, however, a blatant and inexplicable contradiction between the stances taken by the North Carolina institution and the Jewish Museum. Doesn’t the public deserve some kind of explanation as to how this came about and what it means?

Crabby Ron07/23 12:02 AM

Whoa there Mr. Monroe. Who exactly are you referring to when you say “Dead Sea Scrolls monoply group’? And what are you referring to when you say “the head of the monopoly created a scandal with a horrifying antisemitic tirade”. Please provide specific details and not a bunch of ‘he said’ and ‘she said’. The facts, just the facts

What does any of this have to do with the current Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit? The museum is presenting an exhibition of an archeological find from the ancient past. No more no less. Don’t read religion into the science of archeology.

And for the record, Jordan abandoned Qumran during the Bar Kokhba Revolt of AD 132-135. Jordan antiqities excavated Qumran until the state of Israel was formed and from that time on the Isralies and the Jordanian’s have each excavated the area, only taking time out to occasionally kill each other.

War Eagle, or is it really war vulture? Sounds to me like you just want to bitch about something. Get real or get a lobotomy.

Crabby Rob

Bill Monroe07/25 01:11 AM

Crabby Rob may wish to google the words “Strugnell New York Times” and read the article entitled “John Strugnell, Scholar Undone by His Slur, Dies at 77.“ There he will find out some basic information about the famous Dead Sea Scrolls monopoly (how it consisted largely of Christian scholars, the antisemitic outbursts of its leader, etc.).

The Rockfeller Museum in East Jerusalem, where the Dead Sea Scrolls are kept, was under the control of the state of Jordan until the six-day-war of 1967, at which point it came into the possession of the state of Israel.

What does this have to do with the current exhibit? Everything. As explained in the first comment above, a group of Jewish historians and archaeologists who have rejected the view favored by the old DSS monopoly group, have been excluded from participating in the lecture series accompanying the exhibit. The exhibit was designed by people who used to belong to the monopoly, and they are using it as a public relations tool to convince people that their theory is still the correct one.

Lamar Honeycutt07/27 09:17 PM

Hey Bill,

Do you happen to know who Rachel Elior is? Or for that matter, Lawrence Schiffman? Both are scholars that not only have not been excluded from the Distinguished Lecture Series, are the very first two scholars.

Rachel Elior, a PhD from Hebrew University in Jerusalem would, I imgagine, bristle at being referred to as belonging “to the monopoly.“ Elior’s contention is that Essenes had little if nothing to do with Qumran, a view held by the second guest in the series, Lawrence Schiffman.

He asserts that the occupants of Qumran and the Essenes had nothing to do with each other, and that the occupants of Qumran, may have actually been a group of Sadducees. Shiffman, then, suggests that Essenes had nothing to do with Qumran, even if they were the group referred to by three ancient scholars: Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and Pliny the Elder.

He, too, would recoil at being patently labeled by someone obviously as well read and intelligent as yourself, as part of the group excluded from participating due to a DSS monopoly.

So my real question to you is this: What theory are you even talking about when you say that the NC Museum of Natural Sciences is “using the lecture series to convince people that their theory is still the correct one”?

Having visited the NC Museum today (Sunday, July 27), I can tell you that what I saw and heard gave me much to think about and research. There is no “one theory” that the museum has adopted and promulgates. If anything, the exhibit is so neutral that individuals of most faiths can find something to gripe about (e.g. the use of BCE and CE rather than the traditional BC and AD).

Have you actually visited the exhibit?

TSnow2760407/28 11:13 AM

I was going to go last week but the $22 seemed a bit steep. However after reading many of these comments, I now look forward to going. I don’t mean that in a hateful way but I’m intelligent enough to go to see the physical items and admire their 2000+ year journey and call it a day. I too am not sure why this is at the Natural Science Museum but who really cares? And as far as promoting religion: I see this more as promoting human civilization and I hope that when our state has the opportunity to attract and share important historical items, they jump on them every time. And my last point is that it is my understanding that the Dead Sea Scrolls are housed in the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem so I would direct any contextual presentation questions to them, not anyone here in NC.

Crabby Ron07/28 12:03 PM

I would think that the Natural Science Museum is hosting this exhibit because of the archeology involved in the recovery of the scrolls. I have walked the ruins at Qumran and have taken an outstanding picture of Cave 4. The archeology involved in the entire site, to me, is the reason behind the scrolls exhibit. Being a Christian is merely a plus.

It’s the story of an ancient people and what they did.

John Sturgnell made an error and admited that. So, how long does an error of judgement follow a person? The following is from wickipedia.

“Finally Strugnell was removed from his editorial post on the Scrolls project in 1990 after critics charged that he was moving too slowly in publishing them and he gave an interview to Ha’aretz saying that Judaism was a “horrible religion” which “should not exist”.[3].

In the interview, Strugnell insisted Judaism was “a Christian heresy, and we deal with our heretics in different ways. You are a phenomenon that we haven’t managed to convert—and we should have managed.“[4] There was immediate condemnation of his comments, including an editorial in the New York Times. He was removed from his position as editor-in-chief, and he was forced to take early retirement on medical grounds at Harvard.[2]

Strugnell later said that he was suffering from stress-induced alcoholism and manic depression when he gave the interview. Shortly after he was dismissed from his post, he was institutionalized in McLean Hospital for a period. He insisted that his remarks were taken out of context and he only meant “horrible” in the Miltonian sense of “deplored in antiquity”. In a 2007 intervew in Biblical Archaeology Review, Frank Moore Cross said that despite Strugnell’s comments, which were based on a theological argument of the early Church Fathers that Christianity superseded Judaism, Strugnell had very friendly relationships with a number of Jewish scholars, some of whom signed a letter of support for him which was published in the Chicago Tribune. In addition, Strugnell insists that he tried to publish the scrolls as quickly as he could but that his team was the limiting factor.

At the time of his death he was Professor Emeritus at the Harvard Divinity School”.

Should the Museum ignore the scrolls because of the words of an individual who obviously fought his personal demons Until his deAth?

David07/28 04:59 PM

I wasn’t aware there were so many conspiracies associated with the DSS, but, rather than listen everyone who is telling us not to go check it out, I think I, like another commenter, am more likely to now. Any growth is knowledge of history and what makes us human is a good thing. As for the religious undertones to the artifacts, I don’t have a problem with that whatsoever. Besides, most, if not all artifacts have religious words, symbols, meanings associated with them. It is rediculous to think that the government is acting in the business of promoting a religious church by merely presenting a piece of history that is relevant.

I have noticed the loudest “free-speakers” are often the ones that want to curtail that with which they disagree. Let’s present the information and let everyone decide what they want to about it.

Rusty07/28 06:51 PM

“I have noticed the loudest “free-speakers” are often the ones that want to curtail that with which they disagree. Let’s present the information and let everyone decide what they want to about it.“

I couldn’t agree more. If you have an issue the presentation, or the people showing it, by all means don’t go. Or better yet, go straight to the source and try to do something about it. Religion in general, and more specifically Judaism & Christianity have been a part of our history (as human beings) for much longer than even our own nation.

Directing ad hominem attacks at the entire exhibit based on the comments of one man who was involved in the project nearly twenty years ago isn’t exactly conducive to an open and honest debate.

JMeltzer07/29 08:43 PM

I too am troubled by this exhibit.

I’d like to point out that the Jewish Museum of New York has taken a vastly more liberal approach towards the Deads Sea Scrolls debate in its own announced exhibit.

Here are a few quotes from the Jewish Museum press releases (which can be googled on-line):

“It may be many years before scholars can come to a consensus on who wrote and used the Dead Sea Scrolls, where they lived, and how this impacts on our interpretation of their meaning for our lives today.“

“Visitors will learn that scholars still do not agree about the origins and meaning of the scrolls decades after their discovery.“

“Scholars have two basic theories about who used the scrolls. The first posits that the scrolls all belonged to a single religious sect [living] at the settlement of Qumran…
The second theory proposes that the scrolls were a random collection of texts reflecting the beliefs of many Jewish groups of the period. They represented either a single priestly repository or public library or the sacred texts of various Jewish communities from Jerusalem and elsewhere in the land of Israel. During the Jewish revolt against Rome beginning in 68 CE, refugees from further north hid their precious texts in the Dead Sea caves. This hypothesis holds that there is no connection between the scrolls and the settlement at Qumran, and that the site was a fortress, a villa, a farm, an industrial site, or a commercial center.“

“In assembling the exhibition… Susan Braunstein, Curator of Archaeology and Judaica… selected texts that illustrate the diversity and transformations in Judaism during the Second Temple Period.“

“Scholars have pored over these texts and over the archaeological remains from Qumran, seeking to unravel their mysteries: Who wrote and used them? What can they tell us about the development of early Judaism, the text-oriented and synagogue-based form of worship that evolved alongside the sacrificial rituals at the Temple? And can they shed light on the beginnings of Christianity in the first century CE? Finding the answers to these questions is an ongoing process, one that has already produced lively scholarly debates. The scrolls have opened up a complex world of Jewish diversity and inquiry from which Christianity eventually emerged.“

I think anyone can see that this is different from the approach taken by the museum in Raleigh, which is all “while there are a few people who disagree, most scholars think the scrolls were written by a sect,“ etc.

So instead of bashing each other, maybe people should try and figure out why one of the two exhibits suggests there’s an Essene theory “consensus” and why the other one denies this point blank.

I’d also like to point out that on the face of it, the two “basic” opposing theories can’t both be right. If the Essene theory is wrong, what does that say about the Raleigh exhibit?

Bill Monroe07/30 07:12 PM

Contrary to what Rusty says, John Strugnell was not merely “one man who was involved in the project nearly twenty years ago.“ He was the HEAD, the director, of the Dead Sea Scrolls monopoly group. Opponents of the Qumran-sectarian theory were never included in his “editorial team,“ a policy which has been followed by his successor Emmanuel Tov as well.

Moreover, Strugnell was an antisemite. Why was I not surprised to learn that the Raleigh museum’s press release contained antisemitic language? As for wanting to “curtail” this exhibit, that’s a rather ironic charge, given how the exhibit lecture series was rigged, 7-1 in favor of the “Qumran-sectarian” theory.

Rachel Elior is indeed an opponent of the monopolists, but Schiffman is their biggest Uncle-Tom orthodox Jewish friend. He believes the imagined members of the “sect” were not Essenes, but he has been unable to abandon the old idea that a “sect” of some sort lived at Qumran and wrote scrolls there (see the Jewish Museum press release for details). He is so ferociously enamored of this idea, that he has seen fit to spew vicious venom about those who oppose it. And his level of scholarship is so weak, that it’s stunning to see he was invited to lecture at all.

Why were the key Israeli and American historians and archaeologists who have opposed the Qumran-sectarian theory excluded? This makes no sense at all, until one looks at the Jewish Museum press release and sees the difference between amateur (and really quite sleazy) hicks and professional curators.

Clicking on my name should bring up further info on the Jewish Museum exhibit.

Bill Monroe07/30 07:14 PM

Sorry, linking to the website didn’t work. Just google “Dead Sea Scrolls Jewish Museum” and you will all see what I’m talking about.

Rusty07/30 08:26 PM

Bill, please don’t mischaracterize my comment. Whether Strugnell was a key member, or head of the group (from which he was removed 18 years ago.) Doesn’t change my point.

Directing ad hominem attacks at the exhibit TODAY because of comments Strugnell made 18 years ago (for which he was removed the the project) is absurd. You seem to have some relatively well reasoned arguments as to why not to go to today’s exhibit, and with those I take no issue.

My point was, and remains: If you don’t like it, don’t go, or go talk to the museum curator about their egregious lapse in judgment. Getting angry on the internet isn’t going to change anything. More than likely anyone who was already planning to go to the exhibit isn’t going to change their plans because some guy on the internet told them the host of the exhibition is biased.

Matt07/31 01:32 AM

Why not just enjoy the exhibit and save the debates for the bar room or coffee shop, or where ever you guys in the Triangle hang out.

Bill Monroe07/31 02:00 AM

To Matt:

you might enjoy this kind of an exhibit, I find it kind of disturbing.

To Rusty:

First, you seem to be missing the point, which is the policies implemented by Strugnell have remained in place for the past 18 years—despite Strugnell’s removal from the project—and are exemplified by this exhibit. It takes more than the removal of one man to change a corrupt system.

Second, who’s saying not to see the exhibit? I myself would prefer not to go, but by all means you should go see it, and while you’re at it, mention to the docents that the website presentation is not balanced and that the lecture series is oddly biased in favor of the Qumran-Essene theory. Really now, one out of 8 lectures? Let’s not be ridiculous.

Al White08/01 05:09 PM

Lawrence Schiffman, touted in one of the comments above as an opponent of the Qumran-Essene theory, was exposed as a plagiarist in an interview with Israeli journalist Avi Katzman, in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. For details, see Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? by Norman Golb, p. 215.

Golb discusses Schiffman’s “Sadducee” argument at length and concludes that it is “incoherent.“ British scrolls expert Phillip Davies has similarly concluded that Schiffman’s claims are “not only difficult to accept, but difficult to comprehend.“ See id., p. 212.

Lamar Honeycutt08/02 02:02 AM

Hi Bill…
>
I still say that until you have visited the exhibit, listened to the commentary provided in the audio-tour, and talked to the exhibit staff, none of whom would even remotely subscribe to a simple hickified “It was a bunch of Essenes” theory, you really don’t know what you are talking about. At least not about what is or is not the position adopted by the museum.
>
When I visited this past Sunday, no one I talked to said they, or the museum for that matter, believe Qumran occupants were necessarily Essenes. Historically, however, many scholars have. As history would have it, largely due to the work of Father de Vaux, who acted upon his knowledge of ancient historians and his slight bent toward his Dominican priest background, many scholars did and DO believe Essenes had something to do with Qumran, and by proximity, there’s a good chance they had something to do with the stashing of the scrolls. Regardless, the museum did not take sides on this when I was there, nor did any staff member take sides.
>
On the matter of Lawrence Schiffman being a plagiarist…that’s just great! NYU allowing a known, proven plagiarist to be a stalwart member of its prestigious faculty. Who would have known? Maybe you should be the one to inform them of this grave charge of plagiarism since it is clearly something they have overlooked.
>
As far as the eight distinguished lecturers only including one non-Essene-Qumran theorist (1/8 Rachel Elior)...have you looked at the line-up?
>
2/8 Lawrence Schiffman…whom you don’t like. Oh well. Can’t win ‘em all.
>
3/8 Pnina Shor: conservator. Although she may have opinions on Essenes (I rather suspect she is ambivalent), her expertise is in conservation of antiquities. She is 1 of 4 world renowned conservators working to undo the damage caused by Skeehan, Strugnell, Allegro, et al, with their use of cellotape, plate glass and sunlight.
>
On a side note, I’m surprised you don’t mention the kookiness of John Allegro, with his sloppy scholarship that had to be corrected by John Strugnell, especially since Allegro, a self-described “freethinker” later broke away from his fellow scholars to publish The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), in which he alleges that Jesus was no historical figure, but merely a projected psyche of a group of orgiastic cult members trippin’ on mushrooms.
>
4/8 Eric Meyers, PhD, Duke: yep, he’s one of them Essene-Qumran guys.
>
5/8 Sidnie White Crawford: expertise in women’s studies and the mystery involved in finding women’s remains at a supposedly all male Qumran community.
>
6/8 Jodi Magness, PhD, UNC-CH: expertise in archeology. Careful to qualify theories with her own personal archeological findings.
>
7/8 Emanuel Tov: editor-in-chief of the publication of the 10,000 page, 39 volume set of the translation of the complete DSS. If you don’t want to hear from him, who the heck do you want to hear from? Essenes or not, what does he care? He got the scrolls published, which is more than the Vatican can say…
>
8/8 Bart Ehrman: Ok. I’ll concede to you on this one. He has no business coming. I’m not quite sure why he was even invited, other than the fact that enjoys making a name for himself. Oh, yes, and that he’s a PhD from UNC Chapel-Hill in religious studies, so he may have at least heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls before.
>
So, really, yes, there are probably a majority of speakers who at least give credence to an Essene-Qumran connection, but what of it? The museum, at least in my mind, is allowing different speakers (8) in a limited set of topics (8), and has included opposition to established opinion (Rachel Elior) in its attempt to open discussion about a vast array of connected issues.
>
Me thinks you’re simply being to hard on the Museum. Go see it, then blast it. But at least you got to see it to see that your criticism, although entertaining, is unjustified.

Bill Monroe08/02 05:12 PM

Lamar,
>
Your claim that the museum is “not taking sides” is belied by its own website description of its exhibit, in which over and over again it associates the so-called Qumran “community” (jargon for sect) with authorship of the scrolls. If the museum doesn’t want to take sides, why doesn’t it change its website description?
>
As for the biased lecture series, it seems to me that you’ve come up with clever attempt to conceal the truth, possibly basing yourself on some description you picked up at the museum. Here are the actual facts on the seven remaining lecturers:
>
1. Emanuel Tov is the head of the Dea Sea scrolls monopoly group. Politely calling him (as you do) “editor in chief” cannot hide this fact. He is deeply involved in creating this biased scrolls exhibit that has been traveling around the country, and he has never allowed any opponents of the Qumran-sectarian theory to participate in his so-called “editorial team” that prepared the 39-volume set to which you refer. In other words, he used his authority to have one of the two basic theories [on which see again the Jewish Museum announcement] of scroll origins excluded from the so-called “definitive” Oxford edition of the scrolls. And he is now doing the same thing with museum exhibits.
>
2. Pnina Shor of the Israel Antiquities Authority has no scholarly expertise on Qumran or scroll origins, but is involved (like Emanuel Tov) in creating the biased and misleading scrolls exhibit. I’m happy to consider her “neutral” for the sake of the argument, in which case you would have a 6-1 count with one extra neutral party.
>
3. Eric Meyers, a past president of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), is an archaeologist and biblical scholar, but (just like Bart Ehrman) has never published anything of substance on Qumran or the Dead Sea scrolls. The question arises why the museum would invite a non-specialist to lecture at such an exhibit, while excluding (with the sole exception of Elior) a range of major scholars who have rejected the Qumran-sectarian theory. Well, the answer is clear: you can bet your bottom dollar Meyers will be lending his influential name to support the Qumran-sectarian theory. How could he do otherwise? Would he want to risk the benefits he stands to derive from being friends with Emanuel Tov? Such benefits would include, for example, privileged access for Meyers and ASOR to archaeological sites in Israel.
>
4. Jodi Magness is a doctrinaire defender of the Qumran-sectarian theory, closely tied to the corrupt Dorot Foundation which funds the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem (where the Qumran-Essene theory is presented to the public as a fact). Magness monopolized the two “archaeology of Qumran” talks at last year’s annual ASOR/SBL conference, and viciously attacked key Israeli archaeologists Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg (opponents of the Qumran-sectarian theory) in at least one of them; there are several on-line accounts of this. Why did the museum invite her, and not Magen and Peleg, who are at the forefront of current archaeological research on Qumran? Is it because she is a member of ASOR’s Board of Trustees? Is it because Magen and Peleg conclude, in their published reports, that no sect ever lived at Qumran and that the scrolls are the remains of libraries from the Jerusalem area, taken to the desert for hiding during the siege and sacking of the city by the Romans?
>
5. Bart Ehrman is a popularizer of New Testament and “Jesus” studies but, like Meyers, he appears to have published nothing on Qumran or the scrolls. Yet the description of his lecture states, ex cathedra, that the Essenes “probably” wrote the scrolls. What gives this non-specialist the right to issue such a statement, given that the question of scroll origins doesn’t even fall within his field of studies? He knows Greek, but does he even have any knowledge of Hebrew, let alone a serious scholarly knowledge?
>
6. I will leave others to decide whether Lawrence Schiffman’s conduct amounts to “plagiarism,“ but it is certainly unethical to use an argument first developed by another scholar without attributing it to him. I myself am more concerned by the fact that he has not been truthful: see the footnote in his book where he falsely attributes the “Jerusalem Temple library” theory to University of Chicago scrolls scholar Norman Golb (who, as is well known, has always carefully and explicitly distinguished his multiple-libraries theory from Rengstorf’s Temple theory). Schiffman is known for his convoluted, self-contradictory attempts to demonstrate that the “Qumran sectarians,“ now thought never to have existed by all kinds of researchers, were Sadducees rather than Essenes. He has a big beard and speaks in a big booming voice as if he were absolutely certain of the truth of what he is saying. This charismatic approach to the Dead Sea Scrolls may appeal to popular audiences, but what’s behind it other than a bunch of complicated half-truths?
>
As to your suggestion that Schiffman cannot be a plagiarist because they allow him to teach in a university, isn’t this begging the question? There are many aspects to this scandal, and that is the least of them.
>
7. Finally, Sidnie White Crawford is a doctrinaire follower of the Qumran-Essene theory (she studied with Essene ideologue Frank Cross). Although a professor of biblical studies (she teaches in Nebraska), it is rumored that once, at one of her talks, she had difficulty pronouncing a non-vocalized Hebrew term that properly trained Hebrew scholars know how to pronounce. When asked to give the Hebrew term for a word from one of the scrolls that she was quoting in English, she is said to have read out the consonants one by one instead of pronouncing the word they represent.
>
Crawford’s lecture description claims that the Damascus Document contains “evidence” that “women participated in the Essene movement.“ There is no evidence whatsoever, however, that the Damascus Document was written by Essenes. (Some, incidentally, have attempted to argue that the term “Damascus” in the text is a metaphor for Qumran, but this is an unsupported claim that has been rejected by numerous researchers.)
>
What Crawford has actually been doing in her popular lectures on the “mystery involved in finding women’s remains at a supposedly all male Qumran community,“ is engaging in a misleading attempt to convince people that Pliny erred in saying the Essenes were celibate. While suggesting that the graves of women found at Qumran might actually contain bedouin remains, the main thrust of her lecture will be that since no doctrine of celibacy has been found in the scrolls, the Essenes at Qumran were not celibate. All of this fails to account for the basic problem arising from Pliny’s description of the Essenes of the Dead Sea area as celibate. If Pliny is unreliable, why use him as the source for Essenes at Qumran at all?
>
So what do we have, Lamar? Mind you, I wouldn’t object to this lecture series if, in addition to these various individuals, they also invited their academic opponents; but as it stands the total picture is quite unethical, and I find it difficult to understand why a reasonable, neutral-minded person like you would wish to defend it.

Lamar Honeycutt08/02 10:48 PM

Hey Bill,
>
By the way, I checked out Golb’s book, and he does have quite an impressive array of arguments, making quite a case for the scrolls to be portions of a Jerusalem library. I think I agree with you that I should have liked to have seen him invited. I wonder if the museum staff are aware of his work? He does have quite an indictment of Schiffman, and I did enjoy Golb’s scholarship.
>
And once again, I concede the point that there may be scholars who have little (if any) business coming (Bart Ehrman). Still, I just can’t bring myself to believe that the museum is simply a naive conduit for sloppy (at best) and dishonest (at worst) scholarship.
>
I just don’t have $22 to spend on going back to investigate!
>
Perhaps there is someone on staff who would answer our questions???

The Facts on Schiffman's Plagiarism08/02 11:04 PM

I don’t know how you people define “plagiarism,” but here are the facts, well-known to scrolls scholars and, of course, to the museum curators who continuously invite Dr. Schiffman to lecture at their Dead Sea Scrolls exhibits:
~ In an article entitled “The Problem of Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” published in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124 (1980), historian Norman Golb wrote as follows:
~ “In the ruins of [Masada] were discovered fragments of fourteen … scrolls, including … remarkably, a portion of the so-called “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” – a duplicate of a text found in Qumran Cave IV… The cogent inference to be drawn from the presence of Hebrew manuscripts at Masada is that Jewish sicarii inhabiting the site possessed scrolls which they had brought there after taking the fortress in A.D. 66, while other Jews, of Jerusalem, took scrolls with them in addition to basic possessions needed for survival, in withdrawing to that site.”
~ Golb wrote that the Qumran and Masada manuscripts were writings of Palestinian Jews and were remnants of a literature showing a “wide variety of practices, beliefs and opinions.”
~ The scrolls, Golb suggested, were best to be interpreted “not by pressing them into the single sectarian bed of Essenism, but by separating them out from one another, through internal analysis, into various spiritual currents which appear to have characterized Palestinian Judaism of the intertestamental period.”
~ In the same article, Golb also wrote that the apocalyptic texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the mentality of various Palestinian Jewish groups prior to 70 A.D. were “factors which may … help to explain the zeal which led to the Jewish War.”
~ Then, in 1985, Golb published another article (in Biblical Archaeologist 48), in which he said that the content of the scrolls was “more than sufficient to show the mentality and religious outlook of various groups within Palestinian Judaism” before 70 A.D., and that they “cast important new light on aspects of that period’s history, particularly on the question of the influence of the beliefs and practices then current in Palestine on both the nascent rabbinic Judaism and the earliest forms of Palestinian Christianity.”
~ So much for Golb’s 1980 and 1985 articles which, of course, on account of their detailed and fundamentally novel analysis of the evidence, were rightly seen as posing a severe threat to the traditional Qumran-Essene theory. Five years later, in 1990, Lawrence Schiffman published an article entitled “The Significance of the Scrolls.” The article appeared in a journal entitled Bible Review, and was later (in 1992) reprinted in Hershel Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Schiffman argued that the scrolls were in part written by a Sadducee sect living at Qumran, but here are some of the other things he said in the article:
~ “Very recently several fragmentary texts were published from Masada …, occupied by rebels during the … Revolt against Rome. In addition, a manuscript of the Sabbath Songs (angelic liturgy), known in several manuscripts from Qumran, was found at Masada. Thus, Jewish defenders of Masada possessed books of the same kind as those in the Qumran collection, but that were not directly associated with the sect itself. In other words, many of the works found at Qumran were the common heritage of Second Temple Judaism and did not originate in, and were not confined to, Qumran sectarian circles.”
~ Schiffman did not mention or cite Golb’s practically identical argument made ten years previously. On the next page, Schiffman wrote:
~ “It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Scrolls are the primary source for the study of Judaism in all its varieties in the last centuries before the Common Era. In short, this corpus does not simply give us an entry into the sect that inhabited the nearby settlement, but also has an enormous amount to tell us about the widely varying Judaisms of the Hasmonaean and Herodian periods … these documents are providing a critical background for the study of the later emergence both of rabbinic Judaism and of the early Christian Church.”
~ Compare Golb’s earlier statements about the “religious outlook of various groups within Palestinian Judaism” which “cast important new light … on both the nascent rabbinic Judaism and the earliest forms of Palestinian Christianity.” Schiffman, however, again did not mention or cite Golb’s articles.
~ Instead, on the next page of his article, he went on to state that the influence of the apocalyptic Dead Sea Scrolls could be seen “in the messianic pressures for Jewish resistance against Roman rule that were factors in fueling the two Jewish revolts, the First Revolt of 66-70 C.E., and the Second Revolt, the so-called Bar Kokhba revolt, of 132-135 C.E., both of which had messianic overtones.” Compare Golb’s earlier statement about the “factors which may … help to explain the zeal which led to the Jewish War.” Schiffman did not mention or cite this statement of Golb’s either.
~ Note how Schiffman has changed the wording a bit but kept the basic ideas (including some of the vocabulary, such as “factors”): “various groups within Palestinian Judaism” becomes “widely varying Judaisms”; “cast important new light” becomes “has an enormous amount to tell us”; “the question of the influence … on both the nascent rabbinic Judaism and the earliest forms of Palestinian Christianity” becomes the “background for the study of … the emergence both of rabbinic Judaism and of the early Christian Church”; etc.
~ Now Schiffman had every right in the world to use these ideas—but it was his duty to say where he got them from. Where I come from, if a college student does this, he gets called before a committee on charges of plagiarism and probably ends up getting expelled. Schiffman, however, is not a college student, and so he apparently thought he could get away with it. Israeli journalist Avi Katzman had a different point of view, and so he asked Schiffman why “in different articles you have published, you have not hesitated to take over portions of Golb’s theory without acknowledging as much, and without giving him appropriate credit?” (Haaretz, Jan. 29, 1993).
~ One might have expected Schiffman to give some kind of explanation, possibly even to apologize. He could have said, for example, that he was sorry about the omission and planned to correct it in his next book. Instead, this is what he said:
~ “This isn’t the issue. There’s no innovation in Golb’s theory. He can say what he wants. The idea that we’re not dealing with a sect is self-evident. Does he think that he wrote the Bible?”
~ Well, let’s analyze this, folks: “There’s no innovation in Golb’s theory.”
~ As is well known, Golb, starting in 1980, published a series of articles arguing that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the remains of Jerusalem-area libraries, containing the writings of multiple Jewish groups. At the very end of his 1980 article (see footnote 80 on p. 24), he carefully distinguished his theory from the “overly specific” view of Karl Rengstorf, who in the early 1960’s had argued that the scrolls were the library of the Jerusalem Temple. Golb wrote:
~ “While it is true that a number of the scrolls give prominence to the sons of Zadok and the priestly order, most of them do not, so that [Rengstorf’s] assignment of all of the scrolls to the single library of the Temple becomes a matter of arbitrary choice … narrowing down the conception of intellectual and spiritual life prevailing within Jerusalem before the war.” Golb’s own, broader conclusion was that the scrolls were “remnants of a literature showing a wide variety of practices, beliefs and opinions which was removed from Jerusalem before and during the siege.…”
~ Then, in 1985 (Biblical Archaeologist, p. 80), Golb wrote of “collections of literary scrolls – that is, libraries – removed far from their original home,” and concluded that the scrolls stemmed “not merely from sectarians but from first-century Palestinian Jews in general,” and that they were “removed from Jerusalem by inhabitants of the city before and during the siege on the city.”
~ Let’s look at that statement of Schiffman’s again: “There’s no innovation in Golb’s theory.” The statement is obviously untrue, because no one, until Golb came along, had argued that the scrolls were the remnants of Jerusalem-area literary collections (in the plural). Does the statement reflect Schiffman’s guilty conscience? Or was he simply incapable of comprehending the articles of which he himself had clearly chosen to make use without crediting their author?
~ Whatever the answer to this question may be, Schiffman, not content with stealing Golb’s ideas, also began publishing misinformation about Golb’s theory. According to Schiffman’s above-cited Bible Review article, Golb had argued that the scrolls were the “library of the Jerusalem Temple.” Schiffman then repeated this despicably misleading assertion in his book Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls.
~ Now who other than a plagiarist would misrepresent the theory of the scholar whose ideas he’s decided to filch? Is this normal procedure in academic circles, to play vicious games with one’s scholarly adversaries, misrepresenting their views and stealing from them at the same time without proper attribution? What kind of a human being does that? And what kind of a system elevates such an individual to the status of a popular, bearded “authority,” invited to lecture in that big booming voice in one museum exhibit after another? To some of us the answer is quite clear: it’s a sick system that glorifies an academic thief.

Bill Monroe08/03 12:20 AM

Lamar,
>
Honestly, I think the people at the museum got carried away by their enthusiasm for the scrolls, and were deceived by the people who pitched this exhibit to them.
>
Unless the facts come out in a major newspaper (and this will not happen, because the media always plays along with these exhibits), they will simply adopt a defensive attitude. All you will get from staff is public relations answers: “the museum does not cater to vested interests,“ etc.

Larry08/14 02:25 PM

How bout if you don’t agree just let those who are interested enjoy this opportunity and not complain all the time.

Crabby Ron08/14 02:35 PM

To Larry,

AMEN BROTHER !!!!!!!!

Aurel08/15 04:57 PM

The Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT sponsored by the state or government - they are brought here by the Friends of the Museum, anonprofit group, not a state agency in any way.

Al White08/17 12:11 AM

This is not a very convincing defense of the exhibit.
: The museum itself is run by the Department of the Environment; the Department announced the exhibit on its own website; the museum’s website as well as the museum itself are clearly financed by the government, i.e., by your tax dollars and mine.
: Thus, if the “Friends of the Museum” were involved, this would still not absolve the government of its responsibility in agreeing to host the exhibit.
: What you may have shown, however, is that the Friends of the Museum are themselves partly to blame for this mess. Why have they imposed a biased and misleading exhibit on the people of Raleigh? Why have they remained silent in the face of criticism?

j.connell08/18 03:01 PM

I dont have any problem with the finding or the showing of the dead sea scrolls. I myself dont see any problem in paying to see the dead sea srolls if thats what you want to do. You know i have to much stuff i’m trying to work on, in my own spirit and flesh. I just want to be humble and not judge people. Although it does say in the bible, That money is the root of all evil and Its better to give than to receive. j.connell

J. Hadra08/22 07:00 PM

The Bible DOESN’T say that money is the root of all evil. “...a love of money is the root of all kinds of evil…“

As for the subject, I would love to see God’s word in its most original form possible for us to see. I pray for those that have no interest.

J. Hadra08/22 07:02 PM

I Timothy 6:10

Edelstein10/02 12:58 AM

The Indyweek site has an article which describes the Raleigh exhibit as giving “lip service” to the secular theory. See http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:262024
On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal website has a good article on the New York Jewish Museum’s scrolls exhibit (which opened last week). It’s by Jordana Horn and the title is “Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?“ Anyone can read it to judge whether the Raleigh exhibit comes anywhere near to being scientifically neutral. The link is http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238636935776931.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. Before posting we ask that you read our Comment Policy and we invite you to register with our site. If you want to keep up with the news on our blog, subscribe to the RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.

Ladye Jane Thursday, June 26, 2008