Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal—Israel’s Department of Antiquities Joins Conspiracy to Keep Scrolls Secret

018

They will never do it. They will never do it because they cannot do it. They have failed—utterly and completely. The time for equivocation, explanation and apology has passed. It is now time to face the situation squarely and unflinchingly: The team of scholars assigned more than 30 years ago to publish the Dead Sea Scrolls will never publish them because they cannot! The task was simply too great.

The team of editors has now become more an obstacle to publication than a source of information.

And Israel’s Department of Antiquities and the Committee of Israeli scholars appointed to oversee Dead Sea Scroll publication has now joined the conspiracy of silence and obstruction.

While significant Dead Sea Scrolls were published during the first 25 years or so after their discovery (the first Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947), the principal accomplishment of the team of editors during the last 15 years has been successfully to prevent other scholars from studying the vast store of as-yet-unpublished scroll materials.

Over a decade ago, the distinguished Oxford don Geza Vermes called the failure to publish the Dead Sea Scrolls “the academic scandal par excellence of the twentieth century.”¹

In 1976 the eminent American scholar T. H. Gaster lamented that the secreting of unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls “will, by the hazards of mortality, prevent a whole generation of older scholars from making their contribution.” Gaster is now 83; Vermes is 65.

In 1985, prominent Columbia University scholar Morton Smith, who is now retired, called the situation “disgusting.”²

Other prominent scholars have joined the growing chorus. The highly-respected editor of the Anchor Bible Series, David Noel Freedman of the University of Michigan and the University of California, San Diego, has called for “a basic publication of all new inscriptional materials … within a year of the discovery.”³

Philip J. King, past president of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Catholic Biblical Association and the American Schools of Oriental Research, has endorsed Freedman’s call. This, said King, would “give all qualified scholars equal opportunity to try their hand at decipherment and interpretation.” That “would put an end to proprietary attitudes vis-a-vis scrolls,” King concluded.⁴

As early as 1978 BAR began pressing for prompt publication of the unpublished Dead Sea Scroll materials.⁵ Over the years, the drumbeat continued.⁶

As of our last issue, we thought some progress had finally been made. For the first time a timetable for publication was being negotiated between Israel’s Department of Antiquities—now headed by a newly appointed chief, General Amir Drori—and the scholar-editors to whom scroll publication was entrusted nearly 35 years ago. Moreover, with one obstinate exception (J. T. Milik), the scholar-editors who controlled the scrolls were making subassignments to their students so that the publication process was being speeded up. 019“This solution may not be ideal,” we opined, “but in all the circumstances it must be regarded as practical.”⁷

Since this was written, the Department of Antiquities has supplied us with a copy of the alleged timetable. It is a hoax and a fraud. It is not a timetable at all. It is a “Suggested Timetable.” It is not even signed. We don’t know who suggested it or who agreed to it. It binds no one. It doesn’t specify what happens if the scholars don’t meet the timetable. It doesn’t provide for progress reports and evidence of compliance. It contains no mechanism for oversight—all this, despite the fact that the scholars are now given until the end of 1996 (that is, 1997) to produce the last of their work.

When we received this so-called timetable, we asked the Department of Antiquities some very specific questions—for example, did anyone agree to the “Suggested Timetable”? We asked to see the letters in which the scholars agreed to the “Suggested Timetable”? What was being done to assure compliance with the “Suggested Timetable”? What happens if the suggested timetable is not met? Did J. T. Milik, the French scholar who is sitting on more than 50 different documents agree to the dates (1989 for the “Apocrypha” documents; 1993 and 1996 for the “Sectarian Texts”; and 1996 for the “Miscellanea”) set forth in the “Suggested Timetable” with respect to the documents he exclusively controls—exclusively by grace of Israel’s Department of Antiquities?

The Department of Antiquities declined to answer our questions, as if this was none of our business. They would not even give us greater specification of the texts involved. The “Suggested Timetable,” we were told, was “what we wish to bring to the attention of the public.” “Its deadlines,” we were assured, “will be supervised closely by the appropriate authorities.” We were thanked for our “sincere concern,” but we were told nothing else.

The general public has great difficulty understanding how this can happen. Is it really true, they ask, that the scholars to whom the scrolls were assigned for publication over 30 years ago can prevent anyone else, including their fellow scholars, from seeing the scrolls?

People don’t believe such stupidity, but it’s true. According to scholarly convention, a scholar assigned to publish a text has exclusive control of it. This is nowhere written, but is accepted as custom. But no one ever thought that publication of important documents would be delayed for more than 30 years, with no end in sight.

Most of the time, the assignment of a text for publication is made by the excavator who uncovers the text. In the case of the scrolls, however, the government of Jordan assigned publication rights to the Dead Sea Scroll documents under its control. (Before 1967, Qumran, where the scrolls were found, and the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem, where the unpublished scroll materials are housed, were under Jordanian control.)

Father Roland de Vaux of the French École Biblique in East Jerusalem was given the privilege of assembling the scroll publication team. Father de Vaux divided the documents among a small coterie mostly of his closest colleagues: Father J. T. Milik, Monsignor Patrick Skehan, Father Jean Starcky, Dr. Claus Hunzinger, Professor John Strugnell, Professor John Allegro and Professor Frank Moore Cross.

When Father de Vaux died in 1971, he bequeathed his scrolls to Father Pierre Benoit, also of the École Biblique. When Monsignor Patrick Skehan of Catholic University of America died in 1980, he bequeathed his scrolls to Professor Eugene Ulrich of the University of Notre Dame. Never before had publication assignments actually been passed from generation to generation, while the rest of the scholarly world was excluded.

When East Jerusalem and the West Bank came under Israeli control in 1967, ultimate responsibility for control of the unpublished scrolls fell to the Israeli government. Initially it exercised this control very lightly: Israel confirmed the editorial assignments, on condition, however, that the scholar-editors would, in Yigael Yadin’s words, “proceed quickly with the publication of the thousands of fragments they had at their disposal for so many years.”⁸ At that time, the scholar-editors, Yadin wrote, “had published very little of the material, and this had been a great loss to the scientific world … Now that we were in control, we wanted that rectified.” Clearly, more than 20 years later, the scholar-editors who control these texts have not met the condition Israel imposed on them when it affirmed their assignments.

But now, after great urging, Israel’s Department of Antiquities has come up with a “Suggested Timetable” that will only provide a facade for further delay.

In view of the lack of progress in the last 15 years, we should not be surprised at the new “Suggested Timetable.” The slow pace of publication and the extremely tentative nature of the “Suggested Timetable” make it clear that the scrolls will never be published by the current team of scholar-editors.

For example, in 35 years, the major publication of Professor Strugnell of Harvard, who is now the chief editor of the scroll publication team, has been a lengthy critique of a scroll published by Professor John Allegro. Aside from this, between the time of his initial assignment and 1977, Strugnell published only one 27-page article on some small scroll fragments. That’s all! (Since 1977, Strugnell’s students have published several texts, and Strugnell himself is preparing to publish, in conjunction with Israeli scholar Elisha Qimron, a 120-line letter.) At that rate, how in the world can the 021scroll team be expected ever to complete its work?

J. T. Milik (he is no longer a priest) has published considerably more than Strugnell; nevertheless at the pace Milik has been going, he will not publish all his scroll materials if he lives to be 120. Moreover, as General Drori has admitted, Milik will not even communicate with the Israeli government in writing.

A relatively quick test will soon tell us how well the “Suggested Timetable” is working. According to the “Suggested Timetable,” Milik is due to complete all of the “Apocrypha” texts in 1989!⁹ We shall soon see whether he delivers. We would be happy to be proved wrong, but it seems most unlikely that this first deadline will be met.

Moreover, all the chicanery that is associated with secrecy is threatening to overtake the scholarly community. One scholar who was about to join a scroll protest movement reported that he was, in his own words, “bought off.” He needs to see certain scroll materials for his research, and he has been led to believe that he will be given access to the materials if he doesn’t cause trouble.

It is clear that some excluded scholars are no longer willing to wait. The new generation is not as docile as its elders have been. On March 16, 1989, Robert Eisenman, chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at California State University, Long Beach, and Philip Davies, Professor of Biblical Studies at Sheffield University, Sheffield, England, made a formal request to see certain documents that had been assigned to Milik.

In their request, Eisenman and Davies noted that “We and many others feel that 35–40 years is enough time to wait for these materials to become generally available on a scientific basis to the scholarly community” (emphasis in original). Eisenman and Davies say that “at this point [they] find it no longer possible to continue our work” without access to these materials.

Eisenman recalls that he made a similar request a few years ago when he was spending a year in Jerusalem doing research, but he received no answer to his request. As a result, he says, “I was unable to proceed with my research, and the year that I spent in Jerusalem was basically a wasted one”; he could have done the same work in California.

A special seminar of senior scholars from all over the world will assemble in Jerusalem next year under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Study of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The scholars will hold weekly meetings over a 12-month period to do research on the scrolls. Will they have access to the unpublished scroll fragments in the Rockefeller Museum, a few miles from where the seminar will be meeting? Right now it looks very doubtful.

Regarding the materials Milik controls, Eisenman and Davies state, “[He] has been controlling in Paris some of the most controversial material in the whole corpus and as is well known, [he] shows no signs of relinquishing this or disseminating the materials under his control to a wider public anytime soon.”

Eisenman and Davies call the situation “abnormal in the extreme.” In a letter to General Drori they called it “arcane and medieval.” They asked for a reply to their request within 30 days. As of this writing, they have received none. They say if they are not given access, they intend to take the matter to court.

From time to time there have been rumors that the reason the scrolls were being secreted was because of the threatening material they contain—perhaps in some way undermining accepted beliefs or interpretations. At one point, we tried to scotch these rumors,¹⁰ but they are surfacing again even in the scholarly community. Within the past three months a reputable scholar wrote us that “As I look at these facts, I really do see Vatican involvement and perhaps suppression. Basically de Vaux made a deal with King Hussein allowing the Church to take these materials off his hands. The ‘committee’ was only eyewash.” We do not believe there is any credible evidence for this conclusion, but it does illustrate the kind of speculation that results from nearly 35 years of secrecy.

Moreover, there is a real danger that some of the scroll fragments are deteriorating so rapidly that if the outside world cannot see them soon, it may never be able to see them. In a letter to BAR, Professor Eisenman has raised questions about the “disappearance or unreadability of originally extant materials.” He has complained to General Drori that “the materials are rapidly deteriorating, and many are now illegible in the original.”

Princeton Theological Seminary recently embarked on a project to publish an edition of all of the Dead Sea Scrolls—over 170 documents—but it is necessarily limited to the materials that have already been published. It cannot get access to the materials—over 400 documents—still controlled by the editor-scholars.

The secreting of the Dead Sea Scrolls for 35 years contrasts sharply with the treatment accorded other major inscriptional finds. Professor Gaster long ago contrasted the extended delays in making the Dead Sea Scroll materials available with “the promptness and rapidity with which the important cuneiform tablets from Ras Shamra or the Hittite texts from Boghazkoy are being made available.”

Professors Eisenman and Davies compared the situation of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the famous Cairo Genizah documents; in the latter case, the texts were “thrown open to the scholarly community as a whole in a wide-ranging venture in which everyone could participate from the beginning.”

More recently, Professor James M. Robinson of The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont Graduate School, assembled a team to publish the Nag Hammadi codices, Gnostic texts from Egypt. Robinson became head of the team in 1965 and began work on the codices in 1970. They became available in published form in 1977.

Control of the unpublished Dead Sea Scroll materials 055has permitted the editor-scholars with scroll assignments to control research in the field; it has enabled them to give their students access to scrolls and thereafter to place these students in university positions. Quite a plum for a professor. And patently unfair! As Professor Eisenman has written, “A small circle of scholars has been able to dominate a field of research for several generations (even though some of these scholars have been defunct in this field for years), and to continue to do so through their control of graduate studies and placing their coterie of students and scholars in the most prestigious academic chairs.”

In light of all the history that has been recited in this article, it seems clear that the publication of Dead Sea Scroll material is simply beyond the capacity of the present team of scholar-editors, especially J. T. Milik. How long must the excluded scholars wait before this is sufficiently demonstrated to the Israeli authorities so that they will take appropriate action?

It is time to cut our losses and stop playing the game. To change metaphors, it is time to open the doors and permit any scholar who so wishes, to enter.

They will never do it. They will never do it because they cannot do it. They have failed—utterly and completely. The time for equivocation, explanation and apology has passed. It is now time to face the situation squarely and unflinchingly: The team of scholars assigned more than 30 years ago to publish the Dead Sea Scrolls will never publish them because they cannot! The task was simply too great. The team of editors has now become more an obstacle to publication than a source of information. And Israel’s Department of Antiquities and the Committee of Israeli scholars appointed to […]