Character for character, The Maltese Falcon has nothing on the drama of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Humphrey Bogart and Sidney Greenstreet simply are no match for the likes of Père Roland de Vaux and Professor John Strugnell. How can the inscrutable Peter Lorre compare with shy young Elisha Qimron?
In the 35-year struggle over the ancient document known as MMT—the jewel-encrusted Maltese falcon of our story—Strugnell and Qimron are the leading characters. In the volume under review, they officially publish this famous document for the first time for all the world to see. In the movie, you will recall, the little falcon statuette for which murder was committed turned out to be nothing but dross. Whether the comparison ends there is a question we will consider later.
Like Peter Lorre, Qimron is almost painfully diffident. During a recent year he spent doing scroll research in the United States, he did not give a single public lecture, I am told. On the inside, however, again like Peter Lorre, Qimron is tough as nails—aggressive, tenacious, litigious. He sued BAR for a quarter million dollars in a Jerusalem court for re-publishing a pirated copy of the reconstructed text of MMT that had appeared in a Polish journal.a Although he failed to prove any monetary damage to himself, the court nevertheless awarded him 100,000 shekels, now about $60,000, for emotional suffering.b (The pained expression on Peter Lorre’s face comes to mind.)
Yet this same Elisha Qimron, with extraordinary graciousness, has permitted us to publish herein the complete reconstructed text of MMT as it appears in the official publication (see “For This You Waited 35 Years”). Approximately 250,000 copies of this issue of BAR have been printed. The whole world could have it—all for the price of a copy of BAR. By contrast, the Jerusalem court based its award of damages on only 300 copies of the $200 folio edition of unpublished photos in which the pirated text of MMT appeared on a single page.
The difference of course is clear: Qimron owns the reconstructed text of MMT; it appears in this issue of BAR by his leave—and we are duly grateful.
Like the Jerusalem verdict, this volume represents a personal triumph for Qimron. The title page lists his name first and John Strugnell’s name second. No doubt this is because Q comes before S in the alphabet and Strugnell magnanimously agreed that’s the way it should be. Yet the publication of MMT was originally assigned to Strugnell, the elder scholar and famed Harvard professor. The work was wholly his from the 1950s to the 1980s.
In his foreword, Strugnell somewhat plaintively recalls a cold, rainy day in 1979—more than 15 years before this volume’s publication—when a young Israeli scholar was, in Strugnell’s words, “brought up to my room.” As history will record, Elisha Qimron stayed for dinner, so to speak. He soon offered “to help … by studying the linguistic side of [MMT].” Later, “[a]lthough Qimron’s specialisation lay in other areas,” he agreed to assume responsibility for the commentary on the legal section of MMT, but only after a recognized expert, Ya’akov Sussman, “kindly agreed to act as our advisor on halakhic matters.”
It is not as though Qimron ultimately assumed responsibility for the publication, or that all he had were Strugnell’s notes 050or that at the end Strugnell dropped out.d Not at all. In his separate foreword, Qimron says Strugnell “retired in 1990.” But Strugnell stopped working only because he was ill. When he recovered enough to return to work, he did so. Strugnell had begun the project, made significant progress toward publication and continued working (except during his illness) until final publication, even putting the “finishing touches” (Qimron’s words) on part of the final text and adding an appendix to explain his differences with Qimron.
No doubt, by the time this volume was published the partnership had become equal after so many years of collaboration and Qimron’s scholarly maturation. Still, there is something grabby and overreaching about Qimron’s assuming the senior position. Credit is obviously important to Qimron.e He certainly receives it in this volume.
One may still wonder why Qimron alone, rather than Qimron and Strugnell, had the authority to permit us to publish the reconstructed text of MMT in this issue of BAR. The answer lies in the unusual copyright of this volume. All the other volumes in the Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD) series, including volume VIII (1992) by Emanuel Tov, the new chief editor (reviewed in Books in Brief, BAR 17:02), list the copyright under the name of Oxford University Press. Not this volume, however. Although the authors are Qimron and Strugnell (and the book includes a lengthy contribution by the distinguished Hebrew University Talmudist Ya’akov Sussman, as well as a paleographical analysis by Dr. Ada Yardeni, also of Hebrew University), the entire copyright is held, not by Oxford University Press, nor by Qimron and Strugnell, but by Elisha Qimron alone. There is no doubt who owns MMT.
This obviously represents considerable negotiation, which, we are advised, held up publication for a time. An unusual addition appended to the copyright notice states that the copyright is Qimron’s “without derogating from any rights vested in the Israel Antiquities Authority with regard to the Scrolls’ fragments, photographs, and any other material which is in the possession of the Authority, and which the Authority has permitted Qimron to use for the purposes of the Work, and its inclusion therein.” No other publication of Dead Sea Scroll texts, either in the DJD series or elsewhere, has ever contained this notice. Even the Israel Antiquities Authority found it necessary to protect itself from any claims Qimron might later make based on his copyright to the text of MMT.
051
But now, at last, courtesy of Elisha Qimron, it’s available, of all places, in the pages of BAR.
Six copies of MMT were recovered at Qumran (a clear indication of the document’s importance to the community). All six, however, are extremely fragmentary, with only occasional overlaps. As Strugnell tells us in his foreword, the six copies arrived at what was then the Palestine Archaeological Museum (now the Rockefeller Museum) in Jerusalem between 1953 and 1959. Strugnell reveals that as early as 1959, the year in which the last of the six copies came into the possession of the original team of scholars assigned to publish them, “the six manuscripts of MMT had been identified, transcribed, materially reconstructed and partly combined into a common text” (emphasis supplied).
Nevertheless, Qimron and Strugnell kept the text secret until now—so that they and they alone (along with the favored few in their confidence), working in splendid and otiose isolation, could marginally improve the text and write a detailed commentary.f Alas, this volume will forever stand as a monument to scholarly selfishness and greed.
Qimron and Strugnell might be forgiven if the result of their work had been the definitive resolution of the manifold cruxes the text presents. But that is not the case. Their notes and commentary are indeed insightful, evidence of the care one would expect from these great scholars. Yet despite the breadth of their erudition, they are the first to acknowledge that many of the mysteries of MMT are far from solved.
On a number of issues the authors themselves disagree. An appendix by Strugnell is devoted to points on which the junior author disagrees with the senior author. In his separate foreword, Qimron explains that the reader will even find some inconsistencies within the main body of the work, since what Qimron calls Strugnell’s “finishing touches” on one joint chapter conflict with historical conclusions elsewhere in the book.
Even more important, however, almost every paragraph in this book will be the subject of scholarly discussion, research and debate. Only now, 35 years later and 15 years after Qimron joined the project, can this process begin.
To get a sense of the uncertainties that remain in our understanding of MMT, look at the opening paragraph of the authors’ short conclusion to a chapter on the literary character of MMT and its historical setting:
“To sum up, although each of the above pieces of evidence is, to some degree, hypothetical or inadequate, taken together, they tend to support the following picture. Our initial description of MMT … is probably to be modified. … MMT is a group composition, originating in the Qumran group, or in one of its antecedents, probably between. … Their leader was probably. … This individual was in all probability. … Relationships between the two groups … seem relatively eirenic … ” [emphasis supplied].
This truncated quotation is not intended to disparage the first-rate scholarship of this book. Nor do I mean to suggest that the caution that is evident throughout represents a failure to accomplish what should have been accomplished. I call attention to these qualifications only because they emphasize how 080disgraceful it is that only now the scholarly community at large can work on these problems, when the process could have started more than three decades ago.g The composite text, a mere 135 lines, consists of three parts: a calendrical document based on a 364-day year (21 lines); a list of approximately 20 religious laws (halakhot) (82 lines); and an epilogue that discusses the separation of the sect from those who disagree with their laws (32 lines). Apparently there was an opening formula, but that has not survived.
Contrary to early statements by Strugnell and Qimron, the document can no longer be regarded as a letter. As of now, we don’t know the genre of the document.
Indeed, it may not be one document. The first part (the calendar) may be the end of another composition. As Strugnell notes, “It is hard, then, to relate this calendar to the rest of the work.” Originally the calendar was in 12 or 13 very narrow columns listing the sabbaths and festivals in each particular month. While only portions of the list survive, enough is left to restore a concluding sum of 364 days. From other documents, we recognize this as the Qumran calendar, in sharp contrast to the lunar calendar of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem.
What of the second section, a collection of laws? Is it a letter? The ending of the document has survived and, as even Qimron now admits, “It has few of the formal features of letters or epistles.” Qimron suggests it may be part of a treatise. Strugnell disagrees: “[T]he suggestion, mentioned in the main part of this volume, that this was a treatise rather than a letter, should be withdrawn. In its place, we should view these lines [the opening lines on the section of laws: ‘These are some of our rulings … precepts {of the Torah}’] as a free-standing introduction to a collection of laws, perhaps consciously modelled on the opening of Deuteronomy [‘These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel’].”
One thing is clear. The laws speak of “we” and “they”: Our laws are this and your laws are that. Earlier Qimron and Strugnell told us that the speaker was the Teacher of Righteousness (the leader of the Qumran group) and that the Teacher was addressing his adversary, the Wicked Priest in Jerusalem. But now, Qimron and Strugnell conclude that we really don’t know who is speaking or who is being addressed. As the authors note with elegant understatement, “Our initial description of MMT, as a letter from the Teacher of Righteousness to the Wicked Priest, pleasantly startling though it was, is probably to be modified.”h
The third section of MMT states that “we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people,” but it is unknown whether this recalls a separation of the Qumran sectarians from mainstream Judaism, as represented by the Temple authorities in Jerusalem, or some internecine dispute within the sect itself. It is not even entirely clear that the “they” group and the “you” group are the same. Perhaps the “we” group is castigating the “they” group and inviting the “you” group to join the “we” group. In other words, the author of the document (the “we” group) may be criticizing the Pharisees (the “they” group) and inviting some other splinter group probably related to the “we” group to join the “we” group. To add another layer of mystery and speculation, “you” is sometimes plural and sometimes singular, the singular perhaps referring to a particular individual. Who this person might have been is again a matter of much debate.
At one time the document’s polemical tone was emphasized. Now we are told that “The tone of the polemic in MMT is moderate … [T]he addressee is treated with respect … [T]he sect still believed that … the ‘you’ party … could be won over.”
Nor can we be sure what the “we” sect is. In some ways they look like Essenes, and in other ways, like Sadducees. But if they’re Sadducees, the term may include a number of separatist groups rather than the single group usually identified as Sadducees.
Indeed, we don’t even know if the different fragments have been arranged correctly. One fragment of eight relatively well-preserved lines, for example, could go in one of two places—either where Qimron would put it or where Strugnell would put it.
The arcane religious laws (halakhot) that make up the heart of MMT are likely to be at the center of the discussion of the document’s significance. These laws involve mostly ritual purity, especially in connection with the Jerusalem Temple and the sacrificial cult, and marriage laws for priests. It is these laws that divide the sect from its opponents: As Qimron observes in a chapter that is his alone, “[A] lack of [ancient] consensus [on these halakhot] would make it impossible to coexist within a single religious community” (p. 131). This is even more true regarding the different calendars used by the opposing groups, which would result in holidays falling on different days for each of the groups.
To give the flavor of these laws, consider the law regarding the purity of the priests who participated in the preparation of the ashes of the red heifer (or red cow, as our authors call it). In Numbers 19:1–22, God commands Moses and Aaron to prepare the ashes of a burnt red heifer which, when mixed with water, purifies those who have been defiled by contact with a corpse. The priests who prepare the potion include the one who slaughters the animal, the one who burns it and the one who gathers its ashes, which are then mixed with water. Paradoxically, these priests become impure as a result of their participation in this process. They must purify themselves by bathing in a ritual bath (a mikveh) before sprinkling the ash solution on corpse-contaminated people. The question arose as to whether this purifying process of the priests is effective immediately after immersion or only at the end of the day, at sunset.i The Qumran sect, in accordance with Scripture (Numbers 19:7–10), holds that the mikveh purification of those who prepare the ashes of the red heifer becomes effective only at sunset. The sect’s opponents would apparently have it effective immediately after immersion.
Oddly enough, the most profound discussion in this volume of the implications of the halakhot in MMT comes not from Qimron or Strugnell, but from a 20-page appendix written by Talmudist Ya’akov Sussman. Unlike scholars generally, Sussman is able to discuss MMT in these broad terms because he has had full access to the text. This appendix is actually a partial translation of a Hebrew article that was published over six years before this volume appeared. (It is difficult to believe that a major article like this was published without releasing the underlying ancient text on which it was based, but that is how it sometimes works in academia—talk about controlling research!)
As Sussman explains, there is a “wide gap” in Jewish religious history between the end of the Biblical period and the earliest document of Rabbinic Judaism, namely the Mishnah, codified in about 200 C.E. MMT promises to make a significant, though uncertain and at times mystifying, contribution toward bridging this gap. In Sussman’s words:
“One stands awed by the remarkable phenomenon of a fully developed halakhic system, governing all aspects of life and crystallized to its most minute details, which emerges fully formed in the classical halakhic literature of the Tannaim [the sages of the Mishnaic period, circa 200 C.E.]. How did all this evolve? What were the stages of its development?”
It is here, according to Sussman, that MMT may shed critical light. Again, in Sussman’s words, “[MMT] will undoubtedly stand in the centre of all future discussion of the halakha and the identity of the sect and the 082history of the halakha in general.” Sussman tells us that he was “astonished by [MMT’s] similarity to and affinity with rabbinic literature,” so much so that at an early stage in his research he entertained the possibility that MMT might be later than the Mishnah. The way the laws are formulated, as well as their content, have detailed affinities with rabbinic literature.
Although the content of the laws discussed in MMT might seem abstruse and relatively unimportant, according to Sussman they are central to what distinguished the Qumran sect from other Jews. As Sussman notes, the “backbone” of the distinction between the Qumran sect and other Jewish communities “was not religious doctrines, theology, or national or political issues; it was halakha [religious law].”
No doubt a flood of articles on the enigmatic text known as MMT will soon appear. Whether they will clarify its mysteries remains to be seen. If they do not, the Maltese falcon of MMT may yet turn out to be mere bombast. I have talked to several prominent Dead Sea Scrolls scholars who suggest that MMT’s importance has been exaggerated. It may be a little like the naked emperor: Everyone is afraid to say he is without clothes. After all this anticipation, no one wants to admit that MMT is not revelatory. Now, however, at least the process of study can begin in earnest. For this we must be grateful to Qimron and Strugnell.
049
Qumran Cave 4-V: Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert X
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
A copy was included in the publisher’s preface to A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, prepared by Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson (Washington, DC: BAS, 1991). See “Israeli Court Bans BAR from Selling Book of Dead Sea Scroll Photographs,”BAR 18:02; “American Professors Seek to Block Qimron’s Control of MMT,”BAR 19:06.
2.
The case is now on appeal to the Israel Supreme Court. See “BAR Decides to Appeal Qimron Decision,”BAR 19:06.
3.
As late as April 1994, MMT insider Lawrence Schiffman was still referring to Strugnell and Qimron, in that order: “Soon to be ready for printing … [is] the long-awaited edition and commentary of Strugnell and Qimron on 4QMMT, “New Tools For the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Religious Studies Review, April 1994.
4.
Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD) 9 offers a striking comparison and contrast with DJD 10 by Qimron and Strugnell. The senior author of DJD 9 (Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts from Cave 4), published in 1992, is listed as Patrick W. Skehan. Yet Skehan died in 1980, the year in which Qimron began assisting Strugnell with MMT. Eugene Ulrich, who took over from Skehan when he died, nevertheless made Skehan the senior author. Nor is this simply in alphabetical order, for the third-listed author of DJD 9, who joined the project in 1983, is Judith E. Sanderson, whose name appears after Ulrich’s. I do not mean to suggest that when a scholar dies or gives up the work to a subsequent scholar that the initial scholar’s name should always come first. But that was not the case with Strugnell and Qimron. Strugnell began the MMT analysis, he made a major contribution to the work and continued working to the very end, except during the period of his illness.
5.
A key issue in Qimron’s lawsuit was that we had referred to “Strugnell and a colleague,” without naming Qimron, when we reprinted the text.
A form-critical analysis of this sentence suggests the hand of Strugnell, rather than Qimron.
9.
In rabbinic terminology, this is known as the problem of the tebul yom, literally one who was immersed on that day. The same problem of the tebul yom occurs in a number of other contexts as well.
