The Dead Sea Scrolls have been mentioned to me various times in the religion courses that I have taken – so many times in fact that I naturally felt that the readings for the day were not even strictly necessary. How shocked I was to read the first assigned article by Hannah Wortzman and learn that, in her opinion, the scrolls were not written by the Essenes! I had always been taught that the scrolls were from a group of Essenes who moved out to the desert area of Qumran, likely to wait for the coming mashiach. The Essene group in general was a sectarian faction during the second Temple period. This period was especially rife with sectarian movements due to, according to Lee I. Levin’s article, different groups coming to different conclusions regarding how they should interact with the dominant Hellenic powers in that part of the world at that time. This issue was equally divisive when the Romans overcame the Hellenic power and took charge of Israel in the year 63 CE, their officials causing controversy as they demanded high taxes and, in some cases, sacrifices for the Roman Emperor. Wortzman, however, presents evidence that suggests that the group that wrote the scrolls could not have been the Essenes. She states that the group refers to themselves as ychad, meaning “together” or B’nei Zadok, “sons of Zadok”. They never use the term “Essenes” to refer to themselves in their writings. She also notes that the texts mention “sisters” and female holy leaders which would not have been characteristic of the Essenes at all. They are traditionally known as an ascetic group that shunned interaction with females and devoted themselves wholly to communal living centred around ritual activity and the study of holy texts. Wortzman’s article really threw me for a loop. This text, that I had always understood as coming from the Essenes, was actually not from them but from a different group entirely of which I had never heard! Returnign to Lee I. Levine’s article, I was only confused more. He supports my initial knowledge of the scrolls and refers to them as having been preserved at an Essene community at Qumran. It seems that the discovery is still so new to the academic world that even scholars in the field cannot yet reach a consensus. In an attempt to discover which theory might be correct regarding the group, I checked the date on each article, only to fail to find a date on the Wortzman article but to date Levine’s work to 2002. I did notice, however, from Wortzman’s profile on the academic site to which we were referred that she is a PhD candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, her youth perhaps indicating that hers is a newer theory based on evidence that Levine was either unaware of or did not consider. Which is the correct theory on the group that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls? I do not feel qualified to judge, but the diversity of opinion brings the field of religious studies to life for me. Even though the material that we study is often quite ancient, there are still new ways to look at them and new theories regarding authorship appear all the time. The study of Religions is truly a living field in the process of evolving and there are always new things to be said about a discovery made as long ago as 1947. I had learned things about the scrolls that were utterly unexpected simply by referring to some articles online and clearly experts were experiencing new and unexpected things even as they continue to look at the scrolls today, some formulating new theories of authorship based on close reading of terminology.
When I read the articles by Sidnie White Crawford and Lawrence Schiffman, I realised that the reversal of expectations that I and other experts had experienced in seeing and reading about the Dead Sea Scrolls was not the only reversal to be associated with these prized discoveries. White Crawford records the revelation regarding canon at this time in history in her article “The Dead Sea Scrolls: Retrospective and Prospective”. This article focuses on the fact that the scrolls contain books that are not considered to be a part of Jewish canon – books such as Enoch and Jubilees, now considered to be apocryphal. Their presence in the scrolls indicates that a standardization of sacred text was not extant at this time. White Crawford notes that it would be until the 2nd century at least before any sort of canon was established. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls changed the way that we understand the development of canon and confirmed that practicing groups at the time were still divided on issues of canon, the group at Qumran retaining books that other Jews at the time had discarded from their study of sacred text. Lawrence Schiffman concentrates on media-generated expectations in his article “Inverting Reality: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Popular Media”. This article was interesting due to its in-depth discussion of the ways in which the media twisted the discovery of the scrolls, often printing complete falsehoods in order to appeal to a wider audience. Schiffman bemoans the fact that this gave the public a warped impression of the new discovery, acknowledging at the same time the necessity of media in the archaeological process in order to make a discovery known and to ensure funding for archaeological expeditions. He goes on to cite certain films that depicted the scrolls and theories surrounding them in an accurate light, recommending them for their balanced presentation of opinions. Prior to reading this article, it had never even occurred to me that the media would play such a pivotal role in the discovery and representation of an item. According to Schiffman, the media did play a large role and led to a disgraceful amount of misinterpretation of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that created some expectations regarding the scroll that were very false. Early scholarly interpretation reached the tabloids that, due to a mention of Jesus of Nazareth, the scrolls were the foundation of Christianity and only of interest to Christians. This would have led to wide interest in the large Christian market (where Schiffman notes archaeologists can make the most money) but would have caused many to ignore the implications of the scrolls for early Judaism. White Crawford illustrates these implications when she addresses the realities of Jewish canon and sectarianism that can be inferred from the scrolls’ discovery. The scrolls may tell us a lot about early sectarianism, but they are equally relevant to Christians and Jews, Christianity as a sect of Judaism and Judaism as it was divided at this time. Just as my expectations were flouted in my reading on the scrolls, so were those of the public as they were bombarded by premature theories from tabloids and misled by various films that misrepresented the scrolls and their contents.
The relationship between the public and archaeological discoveries was demonstrated very well at the Israeli Museum. While Schiffman discussed what it was like for the public to read about the scrolls and take in various erroneous facts from the tabloids, I had the privilege of actually seeing the scrolls. The readings had surprised me in their debate of authorship of the scrolls and the museum surprised me even more as it presented the scrolls, not just as artefacts, but as works of art. I was very conscious of the fact that I was in a museum and that I was encountering a work on display as I entered The Shrine of the Book, the area that holds the scrolls. The artistic element is best represented by the building, which is shaped like the jar in which the scrolls were found, reminding the viewer of the discovery of the scrolls and adding a sense of involvement in the discovery. Just as Bedouins had discovered the scrolls, so was I about to enter and encounter the scrolls themselves! Following this, we entered a corridor lined with excerpts from the scrolls presenting information as to who this group might have been. The placards discussed traits of the group including their communal lifestyle and their burial practices. Coming out of the corridor, we were in a round room with a Xerox copy of the scrolls in the middle, wrapped around a cylindrical pillar in the centre on a raised dais. The outer circle contained real excerpts from the scroll with translation and an explanation of the significance of each segment of text. The circular shape of the room indicated to me, again, the jar in which the scroll was found and even connoted the circular shape of a rolled scroll. A great deal of thought had been put into how the public would interact with this artefact when they were actually in the room. This method of display made me feel that the scrolls were more than just an artefact – it made them feel like a piece with aesthetic value as well, demanding proper presentation. The shape of the building and of the actual display also served to engage the viewer very effectively. The pervading cylindrical jar shape made the viewer feel that they were participating in the discovery and understanding of a very relevant ancient work. This served as a stark contrast with Schiffman’s assessment of media portrayal, which warped the discovery and portrayed it in certain ways in order to gain a larger paying audience. The museum environment works instead to bring the individual closer to the discovery of the work itself through clever architecture and design.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls necessitated an adjustment of expectations and existing notions for scholars at the time of their discovery. Further, new and changing scholarship around the scrolls continues to (hopefully) surprise students and other members of the academic community, just as I was surprised when I did the day’s readings. A further addition to my day’s reversal of expectations is the discovery as a work of art when it appears in an institution like a museum. Its setting was designed especially to inspire feelings of participation in the discovery and real engagement with the work. Today I learned a fact that I think most scholars and archaeologists are already very sensitive to: the artefacts that they unearth are so much more than pieces of history. They will change our understanding of history for years to come as they are reinterpreted again and again and they will, when made available to the public, be portrayed in a certain light. The introduction of a new artefact to the public can be done through media channels as in Schiffman’s analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls in popular culture or it can be done through a museum environment, where the viewer gets a real sense of involvement in the artefact and its discovery.