At Least Publish the Dead Sea Scrolls Timetable!

056

A new timetable for the publication of still-secret Dead Sea Scroll fragments is being negotiated between Israel’s Department of Antiquities and the scholar-editors to whom publication was assigned 35 years ago.

Fragments of approximately 400 different documents found in caves near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea remain unpublished and inaccessible to all but a select few scholars—the “charmed circle” Columbia’s Theodore Gaster has called them—to whom the manuscripts were given for publication more than three decades ago.

The date currently being discussed for completion of the scholars’ work is 1996. But Harvard Professor John Strugnell, newly appointed chief editor of the scrolls project, warns that it will probably be another two or three years after submission of a manuscript until Oxford University Press actually brings out each book containing the scholars’ work. It is anticipated that their publication will consume between 16 and 20 volumes.

Over 1200 “plates” of fragments rest in the vault of the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, less than half of which have ever been published, although they have been assigned for publication to individual scholars. Up to now, 14 volumes have appeared in the publication process, compared to between 16 and 20 left to go.

According to most observers, considerable progress has been made in the past five years in moving the scrolls toward release and publication. This progress results from several factors.

The first was a number of accounts in BAR^a that gave widespread publicity to what Oxford’s Geza Vermes has called “the academic scandal par excellence of the twentieth century.”^b As a result, considerable pressure has built up both within and outside the academic community to take steps to resolve the situation.

Second, the death in 1987 of Père Pierre Benoit, chief editor of the scroll publication team, required the appointment of a new chief editor. This, in turn, required an appointing authority and unavoidably raised the question as to whether the Israeli government would be involved. BAR had already pinpointed the Israeli authorities as having responsibility for the publication of the scrolls.^c The Israeli authorities decided that they would be involved in the appointment of Benoit’s successor; under governmental auspices, Benoit’s successor, Strugnell, was officially appointed, although in this Israel accepted the consensus of scholars on the team, technically ratifying Strugnell’s appointment.

Third, an indecisive director of Israel’s Department of Antiquities was replaced by 51-year-old Amir Drori, a former Deputy Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, who served in the Israel Defense Forces for 33 years.

Drori is actively pursuing negotiations with Strugnell and other members of the team. “For the first time,” he insists, “there is going to be a timetable.”

Moreover, for the first time there is financial support for the scholars’ efforts. A grant of $350,000 has been made by an offshoot of the Wolfson Foundation to provide the scholars with the expense money inevitably required. This should be enough, says Strugnell.

At first Strugnell proposed that all manuscripts be completed for publication by the year 2000. At last report, this had been reduced to 1996. We “pushed, fought and threatened,” said one Israeli involved in the negotiations.

According to another insider, Drori is doing an excellent job in a difficult situation: “He can push a little, but not too much. If he pushes too hard, they won’t get published. Taking it away from the scholars at this point would mean still further delays.”

In the past, BAR has outlined two possible solutions to the delay in publishing the scrolls: (1) reassign some of the materials; or (2) publish photographs of the fragments so that all scholars would have access to them.

What is happening is a modified version of the first alternative. The reassignment is not official, but it is occurring. The action is being taken de facto, by the scholars themselves—who are reassigning (or subassigning) fragments to their students, former students and certain limited colleagues, but with the original scholars’ retaining supervisory rights. This solution may not be ideal, but in all the circumstances it must be regarded as a practical 057and therefore happy one.^d

Moreover, scholars with original assignments have also understood the importance of completing their work as quickly as possible. A sizeable number of scholars have received publication reassignments or subassignments from the original member of the publication team.

The major stumbling block at this point is a single member of the original team, J. T. Milik, a former priest who lives in Paris. Milik refuses to respond in writing to correspondence from the Israeli Department of Antiquities. Accordingly, says Director Drori, the department will simply assume Milik’s agreement to the timetable. But that is not the end of the problem with Milik. According to several reliable sources, Milik is an old-fashioned, authoritarian European scholar who will not agree to reassign any of his voluminous material to his students or to other scholars. Strugnell confirms that Milik has not “distributed” any of his plates, to use Strugnell’s word for the reassignment or subassignment of scroll fragments for publication. Moreover, according to one of the few people in a position to know, Milik has the most interesting material—including the fragments of the so-called Damascus Document, which might bear directly on the origins of the Essenes who wrote the scrolls. Strugnell says he has an oral agreement from Milik to finish the Damascus Document fragments by 1993.

We asked Drori what would happen if a scholar didn’t meet the deadline in the new timetable. “I don’t know,” he replied. He added, however, “I believe what we are doing is fair. I don’t have the right to take it away [from the scholars] unless and until they fail [to live up to the new agreements.] [If this happens,] no one can blame us in the future if we take it away.” According to Strugnell, however, the Israel government has no authority to reassign the documents for publication; “I am the chief editor,” he says. Drori disagrees: “Israel has the responsibility for determining who has the right to publish the scrolls.”

We asked Drori what he would do if a reputable scholar asked him to see an unpublished scroll fragment. He replied, “I’m quite happy no one has asked me. If someone asks me, I’ll have to decide.” On this issue, however, Strugnell is clear: “They can’t see it.” Next year, at great cost, a special advanced seminar of senior scholars from all over the world will assemble in Jerusalem, under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Study of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and hold weekly meetings over a 12-month period to do research on the scrolls and to share their insights. Some of these scholars have already raised the question as to whether they will have access to the unpublished scroll fragments in Jerusalem’s Rockefeller Museum, a few miles from where the seminar will be meeting. Strugnell’s answer is clear: “No.” Drori says he “will have to think about it.” The scholars themselves are not sanguine about the possibility of their seeing the unpublished scroll fragments.

When we asked Strugnell what sanction would be imposed on scholars who did not complete their work on time, he replied, “If not 1989, then 1991 … or 1992.” But, he adds, “I am encouraging them [members of the publication team] to distribute [plates to others to prepare for publication]. I only took this job because I’m convinced it’s the correct way of publishing the material. Taking on this job is a matter of considerable financial loss—one-half of my salary. I’m spending seven months of the year here in Jerusalem. I’m the person who can push the scholars and still review their work. I believe I have a reasonable chance of doing it. That’s why I took the job.”

It seems clear that the most effective prod will be pressure on the scholars from the academic and non-academic community to complete their own work and to reassign more material to students, former students and colleagues.

But there is something the public has every right to expect—and demand—which can make whatever pressure is needed more meaningful. That is a list of the plates of unpublished material with a short description of each plate, the person to whom it has been assigned (and, if applicable, reassigned 058or subassigned), and the date when the completed manuscript is due to be submitted for publication.

Moreover, the public is entitled to at least annual reports on the progress each scholar is making. If advisable in any particular case, the committee of Israel’s Archaeological Council that has been specially appointed to monitor the progress toward publication should review the scholars’ interim efforts. This committee consists of Professor Emeritus Chaim Rabin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Professor Shmaryahu Talmon, also of The Hebrew University; Magen Broshi, curator of the Shrine of the Book; and, representing the Department of Antiquities, its director Amir Drori. Ayala Sussman of the Department of Antiquities and Museums serves as secretary to the committee.

The public will be looking to this committee to assure that the Dead Sea Scrolls editorial team is making the promised progress—and to let the public know if it isn’t. Here is where ultimate responsibility lies.

At this point, although Strugnell has submitted two reports to the Israel Department of Antiquities, both Drori and Strugnell refuse to release them to BAR. The reason, according to Drori, is that the contents are still “under discussion.” Clearly what is most needed now is prompt release of the timetable. It has been nearly five years since BAR decried the failure to publish the Dead Sea Scrolls.^e It appears that progress is now being made. But there is no legitimate reason for not allowing the public to know precisely what the scholars are agreeing to and to see the documents that represent their undertaking.

Another happy report from Jerusalem is that two scholars, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, from the École Biblique (the French Biblical and Archaeological School, in Jerusalem), and Robert Donceel from the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, are actively preparing a final report on the excavations at Qumran directed by Père Roland de Vaux. Unfortunately, Père de Vaux died in 1971 before completing the final report for publication. His interim conclusions have been widely assumed to be correct, but scholars have been unable to check them with the information that would be available in a final report. More recently, de Vaux’s conclusion have been seriously questioned.^f

A new timetable for the publication of still-secret Dead Sea Scroll fragments is being negotiated between Israel’s Department of Antiquities and the scholar-editors to whom publication was assigned 35 years ago. Fragments of approximately 400 different documents found in caves near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea remain unpublished and inaccessible to all but a select few scholars—the “charmed circle” Columbia’s Theodore Gaster has called them—to whom the manuscripts were given for publication more than three decades ago. The date currently being discussed for completion of the scholars’ work is 1996. But Harvard Professor John Strugnell, newly appointed […]