The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Archives of Jerusalem

Abstract

by Lynette Naomi Dobson

(Lynette Dobson is a third-year undergraduate in the M.A. honours programme in biblical studies at the University of St. Andrews.--JRD)

Norman Golb presents perhaps one of the most radical views concerning the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He rejects outright the Essene Hypothesis, and any other arguments which state that the scrolls were owned by a single sectarian group. My paper outlines his arguments and then discusses the problems which can be found with them.

Firstly, he rejects the possibility that the scrolls might have been written by Essenes, on the basis of contradicitons between the texts and Essene beliefs, such as the assertion in 1QS that the pious will be blessed with "fruitful offspring" and the nature of the War Scroll - which can be seen as contradicting Pliny's description of the Essenes as a peace-loving celibate group. He also believes there are too few "Essene" texts among the scrolls to warrant this conclusion.

Likewise, Golb also believes an Essene group could not have lived at Qumran. For this he points to the presence of graves of women, as well as evidence that a battle took place at the site. He also believes that the developed nature of the site is in contradiction with Pliny's description of the Essenes' isolated existence. In addition, he sees Pliny's comments that at the time of the Essenes Engedi was "now like the other place [i.e., Jerusalem] a heap of ashes" as evidence that Pliny wrote post-70 CE and therefore cannot have been referring to Qumran, since at this time it was occupied by Roman soldiers.

Golb also believes that the scrolls cannot have belonged to any one sect, citing disagreements between texts, the large number of scribal hands and the wide-ranging types of literature among the scrolls as support for this contention. In addition, he finds the absence of documentary records a problem, particularly in the light of 1QS VI.19-20.

His theory also rejects that there is any connection between Khirbet Qumran and the scrolls. Particulary important arguments for him here concern the identification of a scriptorium based on "drastically insufficient evidence", as well as the absence of any scribal tools among the ruins. He states as well that a lack of autographs among the scrolls is evidence that they were not composed at Qumran, and he questions the location of the caves in light of the fact that they are to the north of Qumran, heading towards the Roman advance from Jericho.

Golb's explanation of the origins of the scrolls is to say that the site was actually a fortress. The scrolls, he says, came from the libraries of Jerusalem as the inhabitants of the city removed them for safekeeping during the siege between 67 and 70 CE. He believes that the reports of Origen and Timotheus that scrolls had been found in the past "near Jericho" are evidence that scroll-hiding took place over a wide area of wilderness. Likewise, he believes that the presence of a copy of the Angelic Liturgy at Masada as well as copies at Qumran can be explained by their common origins in Jerusalem. The most important text for his theory, however, is the Copper Scroll, in which he finds more evidence for the widespread hiding of scrolls in the wilderness.

There is a number of problems with Golb's proposals. For instance, the military features have been explained as earlier features and later additions that in no way indicate the usage of the site during the first revolt. In addition, it does not follow that a site attacked by Romans was necessarily a fortress. The likelihood that a large quantitiy of scrolls could have been removed from Jerusalem during a siege is also debatable. Golb also appears to underestimate the number of common sectarian themes in the texts and the unusually high number of copies of sectarian texts. My paper concludes that Golb raises some valid questions concerning the Essene Hypothesis, but in doing so presents a thesis which seems implausible.

(c) 2001
Reproduction beyond fair use only on permission of the author.