Accusations and Retractions at New York Scroll Conference

066

The Letter Attacking Eisenman and Wise

We are saddened to have to raise serious issues of professional ethics and integrity in connection with the recently published volume, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 40 Years, by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise (Element Books, 1992).

This volume misrepresents itself as presenting fifty texts for the first time and, in a number of ill-documented cases, makes use of the work of others, either published or distributed as handouts at scholarly conferences, without proper acknowledgment.

Before detailing these charges, we should like to emphasize that the objections we are raising about this volume do not in any way stem from a desire on the part of the editorial team to maintain a monopoly or to forestall the publication of texts by others. As is well known, the photographs of the scrolls are now available to all researchers, and no monopoly exists. On the contrary, our criticism here stems from the authors’ misuse of the newly available material and from their dishonesty in the manner in which they relate to previous research, in most cases, the present editors of the scrolls are not the original editors who “withheld for over 35 years” these manuscripts, but are recently appointed scholars who have in fact been responsibly publishing the texts. It is precisely because they have edited/published the texts assigned to them that Eisenman and Wise were able to take advantage of their work. The unethical appropriation of handouts and of work in progress (especially by young scholars) reported at conferences, can only lead, we fear, to the limitation of scholarly interchange. After all, such interchange is always dependent on the understanding that full citation and credit will be given to the authors in publications, and that participants in such interchanges will refrain from unauthorized publication of materials prepared by others until the presenters will have the opportunity to publish their own work first, under their own names.

Let us now spell out the serious ethical and professional problems with this book:

1. The volume claims to publish fifty previously unpublished texts. In describing their work the editors write, “Two teams immediately got to work … Their aim was to go through everything—every photograph individually—to see what was there, however long it took, leaving nothing to chance and depending on no one else’s work” [authors’ emphasis] (Eisenman-Wise, p. 4). This claim, unfortunately, is manifestly false.

In actuality, about half of these texts were previously published before this volume appeared, some of them years ago. Of the remaining half, 50 percent of those (about one-fourth of the total) were partially published previously. This means that only about one-fourth of the material is entirely new. The list of these previously published items is included under what the authors call previous discussions and can be distinguished only if one takes the trouble to do systematic bibliographic research. To this list one has to add several unnamed publications on which the authors base themselves as well.

2. The book deals with this fact in a fraudulent manner. The authors cover themselves in the introduction by saying that some half the materials may have been published (p. 13), but in their bibliographic notes at the end of each chapter (e.g., pp. 49–50, 7.3–74, etc.) they mention “previous discussions” of texts. Under this rubric they list both full-fledged scholarly editions with translations and commentaries and articles containing only brief allusions. This technique is clearly calculated to hide from the reader that many of the citations are to full, often definitive publications which the authors used in preparing their volume, often copying the original transcriptions with only minor modifications.

3. In several easily identifiable cases, despite their claim to have deciphered the material from the photographic plates themselves, the authors depend on handouts distributed at scholarly conferences, the existence of which they intentionally hide from their readers in order to portray themselves as producing an editio princeps of the texts in question. The misuse of handouts is utterly unacceptable. All scholars have a right to see their work appear in print for the first time under their own names. Citing a forthcoming article from which a handout was used, without acknowledging the existence of such a handout, can in no way be considered appropriate scholarly behavior.

4. The claim of the editors not to have used the previously circulated edition of 4QMMT prepared by J. Strugnell and E. Qimron is laughable and manifestly dishonest. They write, “We have gone through the entire corpus of pictures completely ourselves and depended on no one else’s work to do this … including the identification of overlaps and joins [our emphasis] (p. 9). This claim is especially ludicrous. It must be a miracle that their edition made all the same joins and transitions between fragmentary manuscripts that Strugnell and Qimron had made after many years of research. Their procedure is especially offensive in light of the fact that one of the authors is a defendant in a lawsuit revolving precisely around this very text. Again, we must emphasize that editors of ancient documents have a right to see their work published first under their own name, not under the names of others.

5. The authors are extremely lax in the documentation of the contributions of others of whose ideas they make use throughout the volume. Indeed, not even a pretense is made of accounting for the important research on the scrolls which has taken place in the last forty years, especially when it is all grist for the authors’ mill. They feel no compunctions about making use of important discoveries by reputable scholars, presenting them as if they are their own original ideas, with no credit given to those who truly discovered them. In one egregious case (pp. 273–281), they cite a newspaper article, failing even to mention the names of the young scholars (H. Eshel. E. Eshel, A. Yardeni) who made a major discovery which makes the document so important.

6. The intentional hiding of the debt which the book owes to previous scholarship is clearly linked with the authors’ attempt to present the material as innovative, even explosive, and, hence, to provide some explanation of why these documents, some published decades ago, were “kept secret” (Note the subtitle of the book: “The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years”). This is manifestly a marketing strategy which is blatantly unethical and unbecoming to academic scholars at research institutes and universities. Academic discourse and ethics demand that the contributions of others are always to be acknowledged fairly and openly. This principle may never be sacrificed for sales or sensationalism.

7. Although the objections we wish to raise in this letter pertain to ethics and integrity, we would be remiss if we did not state that the volume abounds with errors and imprecisions in the transcription of the Hebrew and Aramaic documents and in translating and interpreting them.

Let us close by stating that the tremendous strides taking place in the Dead Sea Scrolls as a result of the events of the past few years hold great promise for the scholarly community. We can expect to learn much about biblical studies, the history of Judaism and the background of Christianity. Yet for our work to progress, the usual standards of academic integrity must be maintained. We cannot allow the appropriation of work of others and the wholesale misrepresentations with which this book is replete.

Members of the Qumran Research Group, Annenberg Research Institute, 1992–1993: J. Baumgarten, G. Brooke, D. Dimant, I. Frohlich, 067B. Nitzan, E. Qimron, L. Schiffman, S. Talmon, E. Ulrich, S. White

Qumran Scholars, Meeting of Dec. 2, 1992, Jerusalem: E. Eshel, J. Greenfield, E. Puech, M. Stone, and E. Tov, Editor-in-Chief, Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project

Qumron Scholars, USA: F. M. Cross, J. Fitzmyer, J. VanderKam, E. Ulrich

Statement of Michael Wise, 12/17/92

Having been responsible with my team for the transcriptions in this volume, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, I wish to state that, after fruitful discussion with my colleagues, I have come to understand their position more fully. I regret the impression, unintended by me, which emerges from the introduction concerning the degree to which some parts of the work were done independently. I am sorry that the documentation for certain portions of the book for which I was responsible was incomplete, and that I did not more fully express indebtedness to colleagues whose work I consulted and whom I admire, including professors Devorah Dimant, Emile Puech, Elisha Qimron, and Shemaryahu Talmon. It is moreover regrettable that I did not have adequate input into the final form of the book, and that is something that should not have happened. I hope that there will be future editions of the book so that these deficiencies can be corrected, and look forward to creative work with my colleagues in the months ahead.

Statement of Qumran Scholars Gathered at the New York Academy of Sciences, 12/17/92

We wish to communicate the understanding which we, colleagues in the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, have reached after publication of the Eisenman-Wise volume, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered the statement of protest by scholars, and further discussion at the New York Conference on “Methods of investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site.”

In light of Professor Wise’s statement and after obtaining additional information about the production of the book, those of us who were signatories to the statement of protest hereby retract the statement and all it implies.

All those present at this conference join in supporting this agreement. We affirm the authors’ right and that of all scholars to publish Qumran texts and to make proper acknowledged use of the work of others. We join together in the spirit of collegial friendship and look forward to future cooperation in the domain of studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Letter Attacking Eisenman and Wise

We are saddened to have to raise serious issues of professional ethics and integrity in connection with the recently published volume, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 40 Years, by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise (Element Books, 1992).