Crisis in the scrollery: a dying consensus.

The importance of scholarly consensus as a means by which we orient ourselves in a realm of knowledge has been much emphasized in the past generation; recognition of its role in creating the framework that enables us to understand the world is now the prevailing view.(1) A challenge to an existing consensus, whether caused by new evidence or by new approaches to already available evidence, is therefore troubling and often heartily resisted. Some respond to that challenge by maintaining the old consensus unchanged while others may react by making greater or lesser changes to take account of the new perspective. A third possibility also exists: the new evidence may prompt some scholars to propose new ways of organizing knowledge on the subject, renouncing the old paradigm entirely in favor of some new one. Perhaps the best known of these paradigm shifts comes from the world of natural science, the challenge to Ptolemaic astronomy posed by the heliocentric theories of Copernicus.

These considerations are important in understanding the current state of Dead Sea Scroll studies. The Second Temple period (beginning with the return from the Babylonian exile in the sixth century B.C.E. until the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E.) was a determining era for Judaism. Crucial changes took place between the time of the Maccabean revolution in the second century B.C.E. and the end of the first century C.E., notably, the rise of Christianity and the emergence of the Pharisees as the dominant group in Jewish life. Yet our sources for these years are relatively few. Once we exhaust the events covered by the narrative of Maccabees I and II, we must rely on the historian Josephus. He tells us much of interest about this Jewish world of Palestine, about the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. He mentions John the Baptist and alludes to the early Christians, yet his narrative is only at the level of a secondary source. The New Testament fills in some details, but it consists of texts sacred to a group that ultimately parted from the Jewish people and were in conflict with much that was taking place in this Jewish world of its time.

Hence the significance of the Scrolls of the Judean desert, discovered, beginning in 1947, in caves near the shore of the Dead Sea, in the vicinity of the place known by the modem name of Qumran, and therefore usually called the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Qumran texts. Apparently securely dated by paleographic, archaeological, and radio carbon methods to the Second Temple period, these texts offer unparalleled insight into the Jewish world of that era. The Dead Sea Scrolls can help elucidate the transformations which took place in those decisive years. For example, they may be able to enlighten us concerning the place of the Pharisees at moments prior to their dominance. Such information is important, for victorious groups regularly rewrite their past, often claiming that they always occupied the place they only achieved later. For this reason the Dead Sea Scrolls are a subject of great popular interest, whether "at home" in the Shrine of the Book or the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, "on the road," as in the recent exhibition at major museums and libraries in the United States, or "on location" so to speak at Qumran, a regular stop on the itinerary of tourist groups.

Popular curiosity aside, a scholarly consensus on how to view these documents is essential, for without it we are in intellectual chaos. Without a consensus we cannot situate the Dead Sea documents in their time and place, and certainly cannot use them to provide a context within which to position other movements and their histories. A scholarly consensus on how to understand these documents is thus a crucial part of the intellectual framework in which to place definitive moments in the history of Judaism, as well as in the context in which Christianity was born. Challenges to an existing consensus concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls therefore have implications far beyond the narrow confines of Qumran studies.

Consensus Formation

The initial wave of publications of the Dead Sea Scrolls took place within a few years of the discovery. It included several works: the Manual of Discipline or Community Rule (1QS),[2] a set of regulations for the life of the group; the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH), a series of poems thanking God for the life of a sectarian; commentaries on biblical prophets, such as Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab); as well as biblical texts themselves, such as the Isaiah scrolls.[3] Analysis of these works led to the establishment of a consensus that asserted three conclusions: (1) that these were the writings of a single group; (2) that group was the Essenes; and (3) that they arose in opposition to the Maccabees.

None of the scrolls were found at Qumran proper, which was excavated by DeVaux from 1951 to 1956,[4] but only in nearby caves. Nevertheless Qumran -- the site of a sectarian group -- was posited as the central locus of the group responsible for all the scrolls, though from the earliest stages of the discussion it was dear that not all of the scrolls were sectarian: the first finds included biblical texts sacred to all Jews. Next, scholars concluded that the inhabitants of Qumran were the Essenes, known from Greek and Latin authors -- both Jewish and non-Jewish, such as Philo, Josephus, and Pliny the Elder -- who lived as celibate communities of males, with common meals and a common purse.(5) Furthermore, this group was believed to have had important links to the Sadoqite priesthood, which had ruled in the Jerusalem Temple, supposedly from the days of King David onward, until they were displaced by die Maccabees in the middle of the second century B.C.E. The principal cause of the emergence of the Dead Sea Scroll group was posited to be the dissatisfaction of Sadoqite priests with their loss of power.[6] This last conclusion was given definitive form by F. M. Cross Jr., in a paper delivered at a symposium in March 1966, and later published in the collection New Directions in Biblical Archeology, edited by D. Freedman and J. Greenfield. Cross celebrated the consolidation of "coherent patterns of fact and meaning"(7) in Qumran studies: "the ancient Zadokite house gave way to the lusty, if illegitimate Hasmonean dynasty. Essene origins are to be discovered precisely in the struggle between those priestly houses and their adherents."(8) In defeat according to Cross, the Essenes withdrew, forming their own community in exile at Qumran, led by a counter-priesthood, opposed to all the evil ways of the usurpers.(9)

An important place in this scheme was filled by the role assigned to the "wicked priest." This figure, an enemy of the Qumran community, as is obvious from his name, played a significant part in texts such as Pesher Habakkuk. While there was to be vigorous debate concerning his precise identity, the conclusion that he was one of the Hasmonean rulers was widely shared.[10] Consideration of the role of the "wicked priest" thus reinforced conclusions drawn on the basis of other evidence: the identity of the "wicked priest" proved that the community at Qumran was implacably opposed to the dynasty of the Maccabees; understanding their origins as a result of that hostility was thus further strengthened. While there were dissenters from this consensus, some of the latter were dismissed as cranks,[11] while others were simply overlooked,[12] a usual fate awaiting those who do not accept the common view.

The wave of publication of texts that began with the Temple Scroll in 1977 and has continued (too slowly at times) into the present, has brought new sources to the attention of the scholarly community. In the process, a significant challenge to the old consensus has emerged, producing a crisis in the scrollery. Each of the challenges has come independently. Each attacked some other aspect of the old consensus, and each weakened that consensus in some way. The cumulative effect has been devastating. As I have discussed the nature of the relationship between Qumran and the Essenes at length elsewhere,[13] I will focus here on the demise of the old consensus concerning the first and third points above -- the unity of the Qumran library, its origin in the writings of a single group, and the nature of the relationship between the Qumran community and the Maccabees.

Doubts Accumulate and Multiply

The first significant doubts arose while the consensus that was to emerge was still not complete, as early as 1952, at the time of the discovery of the Copper Scroll, a list of Temple treasures buried in the caves of the desert. That text seemed to come from Temple circles, a world very different from that of other Qumran sectarian documents such as the Manual of discipline. What did that source therefore mean for the nature of the works discovered in the caves, as a whole? Could scholars continue to consider them as the products of one group that lived at the site uncovered by the excavations? Was only one group burying works in caves, or might many different hands have secreted the texts discovered in modern times? The difficulty posed by the Copper Scroll was resolved to the satisfaction of most scholars of those days by the conclusion that the Copper Scroll was the product of sheer imagination, thus enabling the old conclusion that all the scrolls discovered were the works of one group to continue to dominate.(14)

Questions, however, intensified with publication of the Temple Scroll (in 1977), a first-person account dictated by God to Moses, containing a revision of biblical law, including a detailed description of the Temple to be built.(15) What did the Temple Scroll indicate concerning the nature of the Qumran library? Was that library a coherent and consistent whole, or a collection of writings of various origin and outlook? In particular, what was the relationship of the Temple Scroll to other works found in the caves surrounding the settlement? The opening salvo in this attack was fired by B. Levine, and he was soon joined by numerous others.[16] Scholars began to posit the existence of a periphery around the Qumran community consisting of groups prior to or contemporary with the settlement at Qumran. Some of our sources came not from Qumran proper, they argued, but from that periphery.

Eventually, the notion that not all works were sectarian, in the strict sense of the word, became widely discussed and accepted. One of the first questions scholars now had to ask themselves in evaluating the place of a work from Qumran was whether that work was sectarian, or part of the periphery of texts (now known to have been quite wide) to be found there. The idea that all the works found in the caves surrounding Qumran originated with one group was now effectively abandoned. These conceptions also enabled new theories concerning Qumran origins to arise. These theories were to be based on reconstructions of the relationship between Qumran and groups in its periphery, established as a result of the analysis of the connection between works in the Qumran periphery and sectarian Qumran sources in the strictest sense of the word. At least some of these theories of Qumran origins suggested trajectories in which disgruntled Sadoqite priests played no part.[17]

A substantial delay in publication of further texts ensued in the aftermath of the appearance of the Temple Scroll. A central part in that delay was played by the halakhic letter known as 4QMMT, which was supposed to have been published by 1985, but did not actually appear formally until 1994.[18] The reasons for that delay and the resultant public scandal are perhaps too well known to require comment, but the role of H. Shanks and of his journal Biblical Archaeology Review as a gadfly in contributing to an environment in which delay was no longer possible cannot be overlooked. One explanation of that delay, however, has been suggested by Golb and it deserves mention.(19) Perhaps scholars were reluctant to publish their texts because they were aware that these new sources posed a dilemma to the established consensus, to which they themselves were loyal. Not sure what to make of the new writings, realizing that they might overturn their own views, scholars simply stalled, hoping that something would emerge that would clarify the significance of these scrolls, while leaving the consensus intact. Hence the delay. Whether Golb's suggestion is correct or not, when the logjam of unpublished texts began to break, in the early 1990s, virtually every new source to appear posed a difficulty of one sort or other to the established consensus.

The first inkling of the new round of difficulties, even if not analyzed in any depth at the time, was an observation made by G. Vermes. The "sons of Sadoq the priests" occupy an important place in texts such as the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document=CD (a work of the Qumran type known first from the Cairo Genizah, and now from additional manuscripts from Cave Four at Qumran).[20] Their prominence in these sources would seem to confirm the hypothesis that priests belonging to (or at the very least loyal to) the Sadoqite line played a distinctive role in the formation of the Qumran community, as posited by the consensus view. That conclusion, however, was now called into question by the Cave Four fragments of the Manual of Discipline discussed by Vermes.[21] In the crucial places where one would expect to find mention of the "sons of Sadoq the priests," based upon our knowledge of the text from 1QS, they were missing in the earlier fragments of the source now becoming known from Cave Four. An uncomfortable question thus had to be asked: if the "sons of Sadoq the priests" really occupied a crucial role in the origins of the sect as the original consensus asserted, how could they possibly not be present in the earliest manuscripts of the Manual of Discipline? Doesn't their later insertion into the Manual of Discipline support the conclusion that Sadoqite lineage did not play a critical role in Qumran origins? Vermes' evidence would seem to support the conclusion, already suggested by some, that the Sadoqite phase at Qumran was an interlude, which took place sometime after the formation of the group, and was not foundational, as posited by the original consensus.[22] Perhaps the Sadoqite connection was nothing more than a fiction, congenial to be argued at some stage in the group's life, rather than history. If that were the case, it would not be the first example of a fiction created to fill a need at some moment in a group's experience.[23] These are but a few of the possibilities opened by the manuscripts analyzed by Vermes. When Vermes published his article, however, none of these possibilities was made explicit: he merely noted the readings of the Cave Four manuscripts of the Manual of Discipline, the differences between them and that of 1QS, without discussing any of the possible consequences of these facts for theories of Qumran origins.

The next problem to emerge was of a different sort, one that could not possibly be overlooked. With the publication of 4Q448,[24] the "Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan," the easy conclusion of Qumran opposition to the Maccabees was in serious difficulty. How was it conceivable that the members of this sect prayed for the welfare of King Jonathan the Maccabee? What was this scrap doing in the Qumran library? How could its being found there possibly be reconciled with the usual view of Qumran origins, particularly as Jonathan was another name for Alexander Jannaeus, one of the leading candidates for the role of wicked priest? A number of answers to this question would be suggested, many of which have a desperate tone, with the insistence of their authors clearly audible: Please do not force us to change views we and many other scholars have held for years!

Thus one set of scholars suggested a conclusion, very difficult to sustain on the basis of the text, that this prayer was not really one for the welfare of Jonathan, but a curse directed against his rule.[25] Another scholar began by arguing (on the basis of other Qumran texts) that Jonathan, that is, Alexander Jannaeus (ruler from 103-76 B.C.E.), not in fact a favorite of the Qumran group. Nevertheless, he proposed, the "Prayer for King Jonathan" did not require us to change our view of the place of Jonath=Alexander Jannaeus in the eyes of the sect. The "Prayer for King Jonathan" also contained a section from the extra-canonical psalm 154, and such works, this scholar argued, were much beloved of Qumran members. Hence they preserved 4Q448, without really paying attention to its contents as a whole, disregarding the prayer for Jonathan's welfare (which would not have been to their liking).[26] To what lengths will lovers of literature not go! Even more extreme is the view reported to me orally by Hanan Eshel, as having been suggested to him. The "Prayer for King Jonathan" is admittedly difficult to read, its decipherment a triumph of skill and determination of the paleographers. Perhaps, it was indicated to Hanan Eshel, the Qumran sectarians found it equally difficult to read, hence they preserved it without quite realizing its contents, and the difficulty this text would pose to accepted theories thousands of years later. If only the Qumran librarians had been better at reading poorly written texts they might have discarded this scrap, and thus saved scholars the need to reconsider long accepted conclusions.

All this might have been disregarded as the difficulty posed by an isolated problematic text. But reasons to doubt the conventional view continued to mount. To take one example, the halakhic letter known as 4QMMT, much discussed even before its recent official publication, was apparently a foundational document of the community, whose numerous copies indicated its status. Based on the existing consensus, we should expect the "priests sons of Sadoq" to play a dominant role there, and the Qumran sect's hatred of the Hasmoneans to be prominent. Neither is the case. The "priests sons of Sadoq" are never mentioned in 4QMMT, and the letter was apparently sent to a Hasmonean ruler, who was viewed with favor by its author. That ruler has the promise of justification in God's eyes, in anticipation of the end of Days, held out before him, should he but choose to follow the advice of the author. All he need do is accept the sect's understanding of biblical law and act accordingly.(27) How can this favorable attitude towards a Hasmonean leader possibly fit with the consensus view that posits an unbreachable gap between the Qumran community and the national leadership?

These texts oblige us to return to a point made virtually thirty years ago by J. Liver. In an article assessing the place of Sadoqite priests at Qumran, Liver noted that the usual view of the role of the Sadoqites could not possibly be correct. The "wicked priest," Liver noted, was described as having been "called in the name of truth when he arose (Pesher Habakkuk viii, 9)." The wicked priest did not begin as an enemy of the truth:his origins and first actions were good.(28) This conclusion, which did not fit the consensus view of Qumran origins, was largely overlooked at the time, the usual fate awaiting those who dare propose conclusions not in accord with the reigning politically correct view of their day. Yet today, in the light of the new evidence from recently published texts, it seems clear that Liver was correct. If the "wicked priest" was some ruler of the Hasmonean dynasty, the members of the Qumran sect thought well of him at the outset. This favorable attitude towards the Hasmoneans displayed in Pesher Habakkuk is now confirmed by a number of other sources. How can we still accept a theory of Qumran origins that argues that lack of acceptance of the legitimacy of the Maccabees on the part of people who felt that they had been deposed by that family, is at the foundations of the Qumran sect?

Other Challenges

The cumulative effect of these independent challenges to received wisdom is devastating. Simultaneously, another line of analysis of the Qumran texts was to combine with these considerations so as to make the consensus view even less convincing. Based on the Jewish-Christian debate of that time, in which the crucial issue was once perceived to be the difference in beliefs concerning the identity of the messiah, scholars assumed that to be the seedbed of sectarian self-definition. Hence they looked to diverging messianic scenarios as a primary cause for the emergence of different groups. This situation prevailed until the late 1950s, when Morton Smith pointed out that Qumran and other bodies of evidence made it evident that one group could hold a variety of messianic beliefs, without being troubled by that situation.(29) If one group could hold a number of views, differences in messianic expectation, Smith concluded, could not have been the seedbed of sectarian self-definition. That role, Smith argued, was to be reserved for the halakha. Disagree over the law, he suggested, and one has the makings for the rise of a new group.(30)

Evidence as published over the year made Smith' perspective seem particularly convincing. This was especially the case when word began to circulate concerning 4QMMT, the halakhic letter from Qumran mentioned earlier, which explained the separation of the sect from other Jews as a consequence of disagreement over the calendar and twenty or so additional points of law. At the same time the identity of the Qumran sect became increasingly muddled. Some points of Qumran halakha, upon closer analysis, turned out to share positions with the law attributed by the Rabbis to the Sadducees.(31) Yet Qumran Sabbath law, as had already been argued by L. Ginzberg at the beginning of the century on the basis of the Damascus Document, was remarkably similar to that of the Pharisees.(32) Qumran halakhic terminology and that of the Rabbis had a number of crucial items in common.(33) How were these overlaps to be explained, and what did they teach us about the history of halakha?

On the one hand, the potential importance of Qumran evidence for writing the history of halakha cannot be overstated. Prior to the discovery of the Qumran texts our main sources for this endeavor were Rabbinic. Within this mass of evidence scholars could proceed to attempt to identify earlier or later strata by means of literary analysis, always a less than certain enterprise. Qumran sources prove that certain halakhic positions were ancient, a conclusion we can then compare with the evidence as seen through the eyes of the Rabbis when subjected to literary analysis.

On the other hand, what did these analyses of Qumran halakha teach concerning the identity of the Dead Sea sect? Could one continue to discuss the group at Qumran as distinctive when their law had much in common with other supposedly rival groups? If law was so crucial, as argued by Smith and others, what was the law which made a Qumran sectarian a member of his group and of no other?(34) Where, in all this complex set of overlaps, was there any room for the explanation of Qumran origins as beginning in opposition to the Maccabees.?(35)

Collapse

One last symptom of the dying consensus deserves mention. When a consensus is reigning, its adherents advance knowledge by working on questions requiring clarification within the context it provides. The consensus itself is rarely challenged: as discussed above, challenges, if any, are either resisted or overlooked. In some senses, the consensus matters more than any mere facts, for these facts only have meaning within a consensus. A dying consensus, however, attracts challengers like flies. As the realization spreads that the old intellectual thought patterns are no longer adequate to the job, many scholars try their hands at suggesting replacement systems.

Such has been the case in the past few years in Qumran studies, with articles and monographs, all proposing new theories, abounding.(36) In spite of Cross's almost triumphant proclamation of the emergence of coherent patterns of thought and meaning around the old consensus, Golb has declared that Qumran was a desert fortress, and the scrolls had no connection to the site, having been placed in caves by Jews with a variety of affiliations as part of their effort to save examples of works significant in their world prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E.(37) And the Donceels have suggested that Qumran was nothing more than an agricultural villa of a rich Jerusalemite,(38) Humbert has suggested that Qumran was a Hasmonean villa, at which the Essenes built a place of worship where they offered sacrifices.(39) Closer to the old consensus, but nevertheless modifying it significantly, Stegemann has argued that Qumran was a center of the Essenes, perhaps their workshop for producing scrolls. The Essenes needed many scrolls for the use of their members, because they were the main Jewish group of the Second Temple era.(40) Taking a different tack, Schiffman has emphasized the Sadducean nature of the Qumran group, insisting that its members were not different from the Sadducees as described by Josephus and the New Testament. One and the same reality, according to Schiffman, stood behind the Qumran covenanters and the Jerusalem Sadducees whom we know from Greek sources. Any apparent differences are merely those of the perspective of the writers of our sources.(41) Thus Josephus, according to Schiffman, knew a subgroup at a later period of the larger movement, hence his Sadducees differed from those at Qumran.(42)

In all these suggestion, very little is left of the earlier claim that the Qumran group arose in protest against the usurpation of the priesthood by the Maccabees.

Which of these proposals, if any, will turn out to be the new consensus? That is too early to tell, but the existence of these numerous new theories, expounded in many monographs and articles, guarantees that intensive discussion will continue. Perhaps the old consensus will yet arise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of its apparent demise, confirmed by explicit statements in some text as yet unpublished. While I consider this outcome unlikely (the nature of the unpublished material is known, and it has been assigned for editing;(43) if these sources contained information of this magnitude of importance, they would have already come to the attention of scholars), the Dead Sea Scrolls have been a source of unending surprise since the day the Bedouin shepherd entered Cave One, and hence no possibility can be ruled out with certainty. As the Dead Sea is in an active seismic zone, along the Syro-African rift, the possibility that some future earthquake will uncover new caves containing new texts also exists.

Recent events, since beginning writing this article, provide a perfect illustration of the fact that Qumran studies are an ongoing saga, that will continue to hold our attention for some time in the future. The area surrounding Qumran has been intensively searched for cave sites for almost fifty years, and all existing caves were supposedly identified and explored. Hence the possibility of new caves being discovered was raised in the text above only as a result of some future earthquake that might uncover them. Nevertheless, on August 11, 1995 Dr. Hanan Eshel, of Bar Ilan University, announced the discovery of four previously unknown man-made caves near Qumran, which will now be excavated by an expedition led by Dr. Eshel and Mr. Magen Broshi of the Shrine of the Book, of the Israel Museum.

Man-made caves are very likely to contain human artifacts of one sort or other (indeed, six of the eleven known scroll caves were man-made). What will be found when these four caves are excavated, and how these finds (if any) will relate to the numerous theories discussed above, is impossible to predict, but these developments confirm the view that the story of Dead Sea Scroll studies may have many more breathtaking turns before it reaches a new resting place.

Whatever the reason, so long as the labor of publishing the full collection of texts is incomplete, no new consensus is likely to emerge. Having been proven wrong in a premature judgment based on partial evidence, the scholarly community is now virtually guaranteed to delay reaching a new common conclusion until all the data is known. The crisis in the scrollery, with all its attendant discomfort, is therefore still far from being over.

Conclusion

Perhaps the best summary of the situation one can offer is to return to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It is unpleasant to be dragged out of the cave into the bright light of day. Those thought wise at identifying the shadows of copies on the wall of the cave may discover that much of their wisdom has been disproved; they may not find the new world of knowledge congenial. New skills are needed to see clearly in the new bright light. Convincing those remaining behind in the cave of the knowledge now available and deserving to be brought to bear on issues of great concern may not be easy: the philosopher forced to return to the cave and explain reality, as only he has come to know it, to the inhabitants may well be executed. Nevertheless, for all the unpleasantness, in spite of all the confusion engendered by wandering around without a reliable guide in a changed world, who would return to the previous conditions? The willingness to acknowledge uncongenial data, and the attempt to understand sources that challenge accepted views are, after all, among the most significant marks of historical scholarship, distinguishing the latter from mere rhetoric or propagandizing.

The fact that a new consensus will likely only become dominant when the full range of Qumran sources has been published is the chief reason, in my view, for encouraging those responsible to complete their labors as quickly as possible. We depend on their work to establish the conditions necessary for a new consensus, and the intellectual order only it can provide. In the meantime, a drama of the highest intellectual order is being played out before our eyes. Even while we are waiting for its conclusion, while the tension of its uncertainty and open-endedness may sometimes seem unbearable, while the pain of abandoning old views can still be felt, there is, in fact, much to learn and even much to enjoy.

NOTES

(1.) L. Fleck, The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979); T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962); M. Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Unversity, Press, 1986).

(2.) The formal system for citing Qumran works indicates first the number of the cave in which the manuscript was discovered (e.g., 1Q, 4Q, or 11Q), followed by either a number or an abbreviation of the accepted title of the work. In this case, 1QS is the manuscript from Cave One of the Manual of Discipline, abbreviated by its Hebrew title Serekh hayahad. The halakhic letter 4QMMT, discussed below, is the work known from several manuscripts found in Cave Four, whose full title is Miqtsat Maase ha Torah.

(3.) Of the many English translations available, the most widely accessible remains G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, 1990(3)).

(4.) See R. DeVaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Oxford University Press, 1973). DeVaux never prepared a final formal report on his excavations. For the difficulties now complicating the preparation of a final report (made even more severe by the loss of finds in the interim) see R. Donceel, "Reprise des travaux de publication des fouilles au Khirbet Qumran," Revue Biblique 99 (1992): 557-73.

(5.) A convenient collection of these sources, with introductions and commentary is G. Vermes and M. Goodman (eds.), The Essenes According to the Clinical Sorvices (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). Josephus also knew of a marrying order of Essenes, ignored in the description above for the sake of simplicity.

(6.) On the role of the Sadoqites at Qumran see J. Liver, "The `Sons of Zadok the Priests,'" Revue de Qumran 6 (1967/70): 1-30. See also the discussion below.

(7.) F. M. Cross, Jr., "The Early History of the Qumran Community," in D. Freedman and J. Greenfield (eds), New Directions in Biblical Archeology (Garden City: Doubleday, 1969), p. 70.

(8.) Cross, Jr., "Early History," p. 81. The notion that the rise of the Hasmoneans created a fundamental change in Jewish life, with the attendant demotion of the old Sadoqite families, is an old one. It goes back, in one form or another, at least as far as A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhanglichkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Madda, 19283) pp. 101-102. Note also Cross's identification of the Qumran group with the Essenes, discussed by him at greater length, "Early History" 75-77.

(9.) Cross,Jr.,"Early History" pp. 77-78.

(10.) A. S. van der Woude, "Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on the Identification of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary," Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 349-59, was to despair of the possibility of suggesting a precise identification for the "wicked priest." He therefore suggested that "wicked priest" was a generic term for aU rulers of the Hasmonean dynasty.

(11.) One of the most notable players of this part was S. Zeitlin, who in a long series of articles in Jewish Quarterly Review denounced the Dead Sea Scrolls as medieval forgeries. A vigorous consensus can be ruthless in branding those who refuse to accept its conclusions as deviants. By a process whose dynamics I leave to others to explain, those regarded as deviants begin to respond as deviants.

(12.) This is especially true of liver's comments on the role of the Sadoqites at Qumran. See further Liver, "Sons of Zadok," 27-30, and the discussion of his views below.

(13.) See A. I. Baumgarten, "The Rule of the Martian as Applied to Qumran," Israel Oriental Studies 14 (1994): 121-42; "The Temple Scroll, Toilet Practices, and the Essenes," Jewish History 10 (1996). For a slightly different perspective on these issues, but reaching a conclusion I share wholeheartedly, see now M. Goodman, "A Note on the Qumran Sectarians, the Essenes and Josephus," Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 161-66.

(14.) For a recent attempt to assert the sectarian nature of the Copper Scroll see S. Goranson, "Sectarianism, Geography and the Copper Scroll," Journal of Jewish studies 43 (1992): 282-87.

(15.) Initial publication in Y. Yadin (ed.), The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University, Shrine of the Book, (1977).

(16.) See B. Levine, "The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its Historical Provenance and Literary Character," Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 232 (1978): 5-23. See also L. Schiffman, "The Temple Scroll in Literary and Philological Perspective," in W. S. Green (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism II (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for Brown University, 1980), pp. 143-155. Many of the essays in G. Brooke (ed.), Temple Scroll Studies (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989 treat this issue. Other important contributions to the discussion include B. Z. Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983); D. Rokeah, The Temple Scroll, Philo, Josephus and the Talmud," Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983): 515-26; H. Stegemann, "The Origins of the Temple Scroll," Supplement to Vetus Testamentum 40 (1988): 235-56; H. Stegemann, "The Institutions of Israel in the Temple Scroll," in D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (Leiden/New York: E. J. Brill; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992), pp. 156-85; D. Dimant, "The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance," in D. Dimant and L. Schiffman (eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (Leiden/New York: E. J. Brill, 1995), pp. 23-58.

(17.) See for example F. Garcia Martinez and A. S. van der Woude, "A Gronigen Hypothesis of Qumran Origins," Revue de Qumran 14 (1990):537. See also P.R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideoloy in the dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 35-36.

(18.) See E. Qimron & J. Strugnell, "An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran," Israel Museum Journal 2 (1984-85); 9-12; E. Qimron & J. Strugnell, "An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran," Biblical Archeology Today: Proceedings of the International Conference on Biblical Archeology Jerusalem April 1984 (Jerusalem, 1985), 400-408. See also L. Schiffman, "The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect," Biblical Archaeologist 53 (1990): 64-73; Y. Sussmann, "Research on the History of the Halacha and the Scrolls of the Judean Desert," Tarbiz 59 (1989/90): 1-76 [in Hebrew]. The official publication was as E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Discoveries in the Judean Desert X, Qumran Cave 4, V, Miqsat Maase ha-Torah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

(19.) N. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search for the Secret Of Qumran (New York: Scribner, 1995), 177-216. Note that Golb's interpretation of the reason for the delays in publication of Qumran texts, attractive as it maybe, is less than perfect: it cannot explain why biblical texts, which posed no dilemma to the established consensus, were also slow to appear.

(20.) See M. Broshi, The Damascus Document Reconsidered (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992). A prepublication edition of the Cave Four fragments can be found in B. Z. Wacholder and M. Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, Fascicle One (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991), pp. 1-59.

(21.) G. Vermes, "Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave Four," Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991):254-55.

(22.) See Davies, Behind the Essenes, pp. 51-72.

(23.) See the collection of studies published by E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds. The Invention Of Tradition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

(24.) See E. & H. Eshel and A. Yardeni, "A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and his Kingdom," Israel Exploration Journal 42 (1992):

(25.) See D. Harrington and J. Strugnell, "Qumran Cave 4 Texts: A New Publication," Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 498-99.

(26.) See D. Flusser, "Some Notes about the Prayer for King Jonathan," Tarbiz 61 (1991/92): 297-300 [in Hebrew].

(27.) These points are based on a summary of the hortatory epilogue of the halakhic letter, 4QMMT section C. The dilemma posed by this section to the old consensus is such that even when 4QMMT was finally formally published, after more than a decade of delay there was no full-scale discussion of section C. As Strugnell concludes in his after word, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, X, p. 205: "such an important study remains to be done."

(28.) See above n. 2.

(29.) M. Smith, "What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?" Journal of Biblical Literature

(30.) M. Smith, "The dead Sea Sect in relation to Ancient Judaism, "New Testament Studies 7 (1960): 360.

(31.) Sussmann, "Research" 11-76.

(32.) See Ginzberg's studies of the Damascus Document, which appeared long after his death, in English, as L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1976). Ginzberg's conclusions have been confirmed by the detailed research of L. Schiffman, Law, Custom and Messianism in the Dead Sea Sect (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar letoldot Yisrae'el, 1993), pp. 90-135 [in Hebrew].

(33.) Sussmann, "Research," pp. 26, 37; E. Qimron, Halakhic Terms in the Dead Sea Scrolls and their Contribution to the History of Early Halakha," in M. Broshi, S. Japhet, D. Schwartz & S. Talmon eds.), The Scrolls of the Judean Desert: Forty Years of Research (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1992), pp. 128-38.

(34.) Cf. H. Stegemann, "The Qumran Essenes: Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times," in J. Barrera and L. Montaner (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March 1991 (Leiden/ New York: Brill; Madrid; Editorial Complutense, 1992), vol. 1, pp. 106-107, and J. Baumgarten, "The Disqualification of Priests in 4Q Fragments of the `Damascus Document,' A Specimen of the Recovery of pre-Rabbinic Halakha," in J. Barrera and L. Montaner (eds.), Madrid Qumran Congress (Leiden/New York: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 14.

(35.) This point was conceded by Cross in the concluding sentences of his "Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies," in J. Barrera and L Montaner (eds.), Madrid Qumran Congress (Leiden/New York: Brill; Madrid; Editorial Complutense, 1992), vol. 1, p. 14.

(36.) In the discussion below I summarize briefly different scholarly positions without attempting any evaluation, and without commenting which proposal seems more or less convincing. I have adopted this approach because the existence of these different views is the crucial fact for my argument, much more important than what can be said for or against the plausibility of any individual interpretive scheme.

(37.) Golb has argued this conclusion in a long series of articles written over the years, now summarized in his Mo Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?

(38.) For a first statement of this view see P. Donceel-Voute "Coenaculum-La salle a l'etage du locus 30 i Khirbet Qumran sur la Mer Morte," Banquets de l'Orient=Res Orientals 4 (1992): 61-84.

(39.) J. B. Humbert, L'Espace Sacre a Qumran," Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 161-214.

(40.) Stegemann, "Qumran Essenes," pp. 82-166. Stegemann has expanded the treatment of these matters in this Die Essener, Qumran Johannes der Taufer und Jesus, in Sachbuch (Freiburg: Herder, 1994).

(41.) Schiffman, "New Halakhic Letter," 72, n. 15.

(42.) See L. Schiffman, "Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls," Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994) has recently expanded his thesis concerning the Sadducean nature of the Qumran community in a monograph length study, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994).

(43.) See E. Tov, "The Unpublished Qumran Texts from Caves 4 and 11," Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 101-36.