introduction<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Judaism<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The study of Judaism in Late Antiquity has developed rapidly over the\npast century, spurred on by more general developments in the field of religious\nstudies, as well as by the rise of the State of Israel, where Judaic studies in\nall areas play so important a role. Major steps have been taken in the\nproduction of textual editions, archaeological research, manuscript studies,\nphilology, and in tracing the history of the primary documents\u2014the Mishnah,\nTalmuds, and Midrashim. Yet there still are fundamental questions left to be\ninvestigated and answered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Judaism in Late Antiquity and the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The basic questions to be asked of Judaism in the Second Temple and\ntalmudic periods relate to the \u201ccrossroads,\u201d that turn of the eras which is\nfamiliar to us but which went virtually unnoticed in contemporary texts. It was\nin this period that the temple-centered Judaism of the First and Second\nCommonwealth periods gave way to the Torah-centered rabbinic tradition. It was\nin this period that Judaism turned so assiduously to the cultivation of the\noral law, that vast corpus of traditions later to be redacted into the Mishnah,\nMidrash, and Talmuds.1<\/sup><\/a> It was in this period that messianic\ntendencies and yearnings would lead many Jews into the Great Revolt against\nRome in 66\u201373 c.e., the Diaspora\nRevolt of ca. 115\u2013117 c.e., and\nthe Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132\u2013135 c.e.\nIt is this set of transitions that must be the primary point of departure for\nour research. We can ask how the variegated Judaism of the Second Temple period\neventually would yield the consensus that developed around rabbinic Judaism by\nthe onset of the Middle Ages. What were the processes and developments that led\nto this consensus? How did the biblical traditions of the Hebrew Scriptures\nlead, ultimately, on the one hand, to the rabbinic tradition and, on the other,\nto the new Christian community with its distinctive religious traditions?<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is no accident that this turning point was\nneglected for so long by scholars of rabbinic Judaism. The modern, scientific\nstudy of Judaism in Late Antiquity began with the Wissenschaft des Judentums<\/em> in the nineteenth century.2<\/sup><\/a> Scholars at that time, like their\ncounterparts who worked on the history of Christianity, were only slowly\nuncovering the variegated texture of Second Temple Judaism.3<\/sup><\/a> Judaic scholars\ndealing with this period were primarily rabbinic scholars for whom the tasks of\nthe day were otherwise. Rabbinic manuscripts were still to be cataloged and\nstudied, critical editions were to be made, and new texts published, especially\nfrom the Cairo Genizah, and the methodologies of the fields of history and\nreligious studies were still to be brought to bear, primarily in the twentieth\ncentury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among its treasures, the Cairo Genizah yielded\nup the Zadokite Fragments,4<\/sup><\/a> later to emerge as well from the\nQumran caves.5<\/sup><\/a> When the Dead Sea Scrolls began to appear from 1947\non, it became clear immediately that this find would enrich the study of\nJudaism in Late Antiquity. Yet, because of the prevalent definitions of the\nacademic fields involved, and due to a variety of other factors,6<\/sup><\/a>\nthis impact was minimized. Rabbinic scholars, by and large, continued to limit\ntheir corpus\u2014or better, canon\u2014to the traditional rabbinic writings,7<\/sup><\/a>\nwhile the new scrolls were left to scholars of the Hebrew Bible and students of\nthe New Testament and the rise of Christianity. Presently, however, research\nhas attempted to permeate these barriers and to redefine the chronological and\ntextual limits of the study of Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism8<\/sup><\/a>\nso as to allow these new scrolls to cast their increasingly brighter light on\nrabbinic Judaism and talmudic literature. This approach illuminates the context\nfrom which the talmudic tradition developed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Halakhah and Sectarianism<\/p>\n\n\n\n From the earliest discussions of the nature of the group that we now\nterm the Dead Sea sect, much attention has been given to issues of Jewish law.\nThe original debates regarding the identity of the sect took place soon after\nthe discovery of the Zadokite Fragments\n(Damascus Document)<\/em> among the manuscripts of the Cairo Genizah.9<\/sup><\/a>\nThese debates only intensified after the discovery of the Qumran scrolls in 1947.10<\/a><\/sup>\nThe publication of the Temple Scroll<\/em>,11<\/a><\/sup>\n4QMMT<\/a>,12<\/a><\/sup>\nthe Qumran manuscripts of the Zadokite\nFragments<\/em>,13<\/a><\/sup> and the remaining halakhic fragments from\nQumran,14<\/a><\/sup> has further placed the subject of Jewish law at the center\nof the debate regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By Jewish law, we refer to what the rabbis\nwould later term \u201chalakhah.\u201d15<\/a><\/sup> Such English words as\n\u201claw,\u201d \u201clegal,\u201d etc. imply for Western readers civil and criminal law. For\nancient Jews, indeed for Jews throughout the ages until the rise of modernity,\nthe life of Torah, in its various interpretations, was the dominant form of law\nand religious expression. The commands of the Bible were understood to\nencompass all areas of human life, including civil, criminal, political,\nreligious, moral, ritual, and familial issues. The determination of proper\nbehavior in all these areas was believed to be accessible through exegesis of\nthe biblical text and, in the case of the Pharisaic-rabbinic teaching, from the\ntraditions enshrined in the oral law. Technically, the term \u201chalakhah\u201d should only\nbe used to describe the legal system developed in rabbinic literature,\nrepresenting the Pharisaic-rabbinic trend within Judaism in Late Antiquity.\nHowever, no English term can possibly describe this system of law and practice\nas well as the term \u201chalakhah\u201d and so, with due apologies, for lack of a better\nterm, it will be employed here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An appreciation for the central role of Jewish\nlaw in the study of Second Temple Judaism is crucial to the very definition of\na sect in this context. Whereas in the sociology of religion, the use of the\nterm \u201csect\u201d implies a normative \u201cchurch\u201d to which the sect may be contrasted,\nit has become customary to use this term for the various competing trends which\nexisted among the Jews in Second Temple times. Among the distinguishing\ncharacteristics which separated these groups from one another was their\npractice of Jewish law.16<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n To some extent, the view that halakhah can be\nan important key to understanding Jewish sectarianism is best substantiated by\ntaking a long view of the history of the Jews and Judaism. For us, as scholars\nworking in the field of Dead Sea Scrolls, it may already come naturally, since\nthis form of analysis has been utilized since Solomon Schechter first published\nthe Fragments of a Zadokite Work<\/em> in\n1910.17<\/a><\/sup> It can be shown that issues of Jewish law were at the root\nof the Karaite-Rabbanite controversy, the rise of the Hasidic movement, the\nreform movement in Germany in the early nineteenth century18<\/a><\/sup>\nand the eventual establishment of Reform and Conservative Judaism in America.19<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n I would contend that all these controversies\nare based on the nature of Judaism, defined as primarily a halakhic system (at\nleast up to modern times). While controversies in Christianity would primarily\nswirl about matters of doctrine and belief, those of the Jewish community would\nboth be based upon and express themselves in issues of halakhah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is in accord with this essentially\nphenomenological understanding of Judaism that we see halakhic issues at the\ncenter of Jewish sectarianism in the Second Temple period. Halakhah and its\ntheoretical underpinnings separated the various sectarian groups from one\nanother. As the various movements sought to define themselves, they, in turn,\nintensified their differences in interpretation of Scripture and in the\nattendant practices that they followed. For this reason, Jewish legal issues\nmust stand at the center of all discussions of sectarianism in Second Temple\ntimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Dead Sea Scrolls present us with documents\ncomposed over a long period of time. In studying the legal traditions preserved\nat Qumran, one must be mindful of the fact that some texts are presectarian,\nrepresenting the heritage that the Dead Sea sectarians brought with them when\nthey established their group. Other texts that include halakhic material were\ncomposed by the sectarians themselves. Further, important texts argue\nimplicitly or explicitly with legal rulings of other Jews, thereby providing\ninformation about competing systems of halakhah with which those who gathered\nthe scrolls would not have agreed. These various texts allow us to reconstruct\nmuch about the state of Jewish law in the Hasmonean period and even earlier in\nthe Hellenistic era. These texts indicate how the various groups manifested\ntheir particular character through their approach to an interpretation of\nJewish law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sectarian Halakhah<\/p>\n\n\n\n The study of the limited corpus of Qumran texts available in the early\nyears after the discovery led to significant conclusions about the halakhah of\nthe Qumran group. Among the important conclusions drawn from this material was\na general sense of how the sectarians understood the authority of Jewish law.\nThe sectarians saw the extrabiblical law as derived in toto<\/em> from inspired biblical interpretation, thus denying such\nconcepts as the \u201ctraditions of the elders\u201d of the Pharisees or the later rabbinic\noral law concept.20<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Further, scholars observed that the legal\nmaterial in the Qumran corpus (to the extent that it was then known) was\nentirely dependent on, or at least linked to, biblical interpretation. Such\nlinkage distinguished it from the Pharisaic view. Nevertheless, many sectarian\nregulations appeared to have no link with the biblical traditions. Yet attempts\nto trace these regulations to Hellenistic origins must be seen as equally\nunsuccessful, despite the efforts of some scholars.21<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Qumran sectarian texts display a unique\ncombination of halakhic views with the particular sectarian regulations of the\nQumran group. While Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition also shows a tendency to\ncombine their sectarian regulations with the halakhic system, this phenomenon\nis certainly more pronounced in the Dead Sea sectarian corpus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the cases we are discussing here, it is not\nsimply that a group follows a particular set of halakhic rulings, as is to be\nexpected. Rather, we are dealing with a use of halakhic rulings, or of an\nadmixture of law and sectarian regulations, which functions to mark off the\nboundaries of the group. It is not simply that halakhic differences divide\ngroups of Second Temple-period Jews. Legal rulings also function as\nsociological boundary markers, a role that they have also played in later\nJewish history and which they continue to play today. We speak here not of\nboundaries with non-Jews or with Jews who deny the obligation to live according\nto any halakhic norms. Rather, we are discussing drawing lines between various\ngroups of Torah-observant Jews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several examples from the Qumran corpus will\nillustrate this phenomenon. We turn first to the rules for entry into the\nsectarian group. Entry to the sect was a process, as it was also for the \u1e25avurah<\/em> described in tannaitic texts,22<\/a><\/sup>\nof ascending a ladder of increasing ritual purity.23<\/a><\/sup> Progression through\nthe ranks meant permission to come in contact first with solid foodstuffs and\nonly later with liquids, which were more susceptible to impurity according to\nsectarian as well as Pharisaic-rabbinic law. Transgression of sectarian norms\ninvolved demotion within the purity context as part of the penalty. The\npunishment of one year meant exclusion from the liquid foods of the sect until\nstatus was regained after the designated period. One penalized for two years\nwas demoted also as regards the pure food and had to wait the full two years\nuntil reentry to the pure meals.24<\/a><\/sup> These meals, governed as\nthey were by sectarian purity regulations, were reflections of eschatological\nbanquets and so expressed as well the messianic aspirations of the group for a\nsociety of perfect holiness.25<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n This example is one in which the sectarian\norder of affairs is expressly linked to halakhic norms. The same may be said,\nfor example, of the role of the mevaqqer<\/em>,\nthe sectarian overseer, in the collection of charity from the sectarians of the\ncommunities (outside Qumran, apparently) described in the Zadokite Fragments (Damascus Document).<\/em>26<\/a><\/sup> In this case, as in\nthe description of the Essenes in Philo,27<\/a><\/sup> the collection and\ndistribution of charity is done in accord with sectarian halakhic norms that\ndiffer to some extent from those of the Pharisaic-rabbinic community. Examples\nof the interaction of halakhah and aspects of sectarian law extend even to the\nSabbath, where the presumption of a communal settlement may explain certain\ndetails of the Sabbath laws.28<\/a><\/sup> In the case of civil law,\nthe role of the mevaqqer<\/em> certainly\nplaces these laws in sectarian context. It is most likely that the same courts\njudged violations of sectarian regulations and offenses against Torah laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most distinguishing features of\nQumran halakhah, the division of the law into nigleh<\/em> and nistar<\/em>,29<\/a><\/sup>\nis intimately related to the sectarian character of the group. Nigleh<\/em>, the \u201crevealed\u201d law, refers to\nthe written Torah or the Bible which contains laws available to all Jews. These\nlaws are contained in what later tradition would refer to as the \u201cplain\u201d sense (pesha\u1e6d)<\/em> of the biblical legal texts.\nThe nistar<\/em> is the \u201chidden\u201d law, known\nonly to the sectarians to whom it has been revealed in divinely-inspired study\nsessions as part of the progressive revelation of God\u2019s will. Those outside the\nsect, the texts tell us, are to be punished for their violation of the \u201chidden\u201d\nsectarian law, even if its prescriptions are unknown to them. Indeed, the\nsectarians are commanded to keep this part of their teaching secret.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, one of the primary features of the\nsectarian outlook is that only members of the group possess accurate knowledge\nof the will of God. To be an insider is to have available this esoteric\nknowledge. To be an outsider is to be denied, or at least to lack, such\nknowledge. Halakhic knowledge, then, defines or at least is characteristic of\nmembers of the group, and outsiders are characterized by ignorance and\nviolation of the true laws of the Torah.30<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n This feature is intimately linked to the\neschatological expectations of the sect. The War Scroll<\/em> and related texts expected that in the end of days the\nsectarians and their heavenly retinue would emerge victorious from the great\nwar of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. In this war, the\nsectarians expected the downfall and death of the nations but also of all\nIsrael except for those who had joined, or who were predestined to join, the Qumran\nsect. The rest of Israel had been predestined for its lot and, therefore,\nlacked the teachings of the sectarian law. Hence, they do not merit\nparticipation in the eschatological banquet of the Rule of the Congregation.\nThus, halakhah, sectarianism, and eschatology are intimately linked for the\nQumran sectarians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Common Halakhah<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite Pharisee-Sadducee- and Dead Sea sect-disputes, it must be stated\nthat the vast majority of legal rulings regarding the observances of\nsacrificial law, Sabbath, purity laws, and other halakhic practices were common\nto Second Temple period Jews.31<\/a><\/sup> This common Judaism was\npracticed by the masses (later termed \u2018am\nha-are\u1e63<\/em>)32<\/a><\/sup> who had little to do with the detailed\ndisputes of the various elites who enrolled in the sectarian groups. The\ndebates and differences of opinion we observe are often blown out of\nproportion. It must be remembered that our sources tend to emphasize\ndisagreements over commonalities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this respect, let me cite one example: the tefillin<\/em> (phylacteries) found at Qumran.\nWhile indeed these have been shown to reflect some differences with later\nrabbinic rules for the making and copying of phylacteries,33<\/a><\/sup>\nthe basic practice of wearing tefillin<\/em>\nwas not limited to one sect. Numerous tefillin<\/em>\nwere found in the Qumran caves which were in use at the same time as\nPharisaic-rabbinic Jews wore them. Two types of phylacteries seem to have\nexisted.34<\/a><\/sup> One contains the same exact scriptural passages as\nrequired by the rabbis, and these may be termed \u201cPharisaic\u201d tefillin.<\/em> The other type is based on the\nsame selection of basic texts but adds additional material to each passage, something\nclearly forbidden by the later rabbis.35<\/a><\/sup> These phylacteries are\napparently reflective of the Qumran sectarian approach or that of some other\nnon-Pharisaic groups. Yet these differences in detail pale when taken in\ncontext: the practice of wearing tefillin<\/em>\ntranscended sectarian bounds, and the tefillin<\/em>\nof the competing groups were generally constructed in similar fashion. The law\nwas even observed in Egypt in Hellenistic context, although we cannot be\ncertain how widespread it was. Yet if the Nash Papyrus was intended for tefillin<\/em>,36<\/a><\/sup> the dissemination\nof this observance would have extended into the Fayyum as well.37<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n We cite this example only to show how the\ndisagreements were greatly outnumbered by aspects of common halakhic\nobservance. Numerous such common Jewish practices could be cited from the\nscrolls, Josephus, the New Testament, and Pharisaic-rabbinic sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Continuity and Discontinuity<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Qumran materials widen our understanding of rabbinic Judaism in the\npost-70 c.e. period, the question\narises: To what extent was there continuity and to what extent was there\ndiscontinuity from pre-70 to post-70 c.e.\nJudaism? Do we observe a radical break, a cleavage, or even chasm, at the\ndestruction? Was the rabbinic tradition largely the creation of the post-70\nTannaim?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recent trends in scholarship have tended to\nadopt a model of extreme discontinuity. Careful study of the Qumran materials\nwould argue against such a viewpoint in a variety of ways. It appears now that\nall the groups of Second Temple Jews for whom we have evidence already shared\ncertain of the traits that were later dominant in rabbinic Judaism. These are:\nthe centrality of Jewish law, the notion that there must be some form of\nextrabiblical Jewish law, the substitution of some sort of ritual for the sacrificial\nritual (including daily prayer), the development of a nontemple liturgy, the\nextension of ritual purity from the temple to daily life, and other areas such\nas messianism and mysticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, the very same kinds of issues are\ntreated in the Dead Sea texts as are treated in more developed form in\ntannaitic literature. There is only one possible explanation for these\nsimilarities. It is that these same issues debated later already constituted\nthe agenda of Jewish discourse in Second Temple times, apparently in all Jewish\nreligious circles of whom we know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this regard, 4QMMT<\/a>\nis of especial significance. This text provides us with a number of laws that\ndeal with issues raised in tannaitic literature. Some of these, indeed, are\neven phrased in terminology strikingly similar to that of later\nPharisaic-rabbinic texts, even if the rulings that the texts record do not\nagree. In m. Yad<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/a> 4<\/a>\nthere are five debates said to have taken place between Pharisees and\nSadducees. Four out of five of these appear together in MMT<\/a>.38<\/a><\/sup>\nThis leads us to suggest that these debates may have circulated as a collection\nalready in the pre-70 period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One law in the Temple Scroll<\/em>, pertaining to permissible sexual unions, has been\nshown to be formulated in a manner similar to that of tannaitic literature.39<\/a><\/sup>\nCertain tannaitic formulations indeed must be sought in the Hasmonean period.\nIt is simply impossible to continue to maintain that the entire corpus of the\nMishnah and Tosefta is made up of ideas, concepts, and sayings that were\ncreated in the post-70 period. We are slowly discovering that some materials\nwere formulated, perhaps in a few cases even redacted, in the Hasmonean period.\nThe entire matter needs to be reconsidered, and it may be time to reexamine the\nanonymous portions of the Mishnah and Tosefta and those sayings attributed to\nearly sages. By the careful use of linguistics and philology, as well as\ncomparative study of legal traditions, we may find that a fair amount of\ntannaitic material was already moving toward its present form before the\ndestruction of the Temple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown us that we must\nbe open to the existence of a greater degree of continuity between pre- and\npost-70 c.e. Judaism than was\nhitherto assumed. Nevertheless, rabbinic Judaism is predominantly a\ncontinuation of the Pharisaic tradition, although ideas and trends from other\ngroups seem to have entered as well in the last years before the destruction\nand in the Yavnean period. The bulk of the Qumran corpus cannot be expected to\nbe congruent with Pharisaism in light of its having been collected by a group\nthat was diametrically opposed to many Pharisaic teachings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has\npresented us with the opportunity to learn a great deal not only about the\ngroup that collected the \u201cancient library,\u201d but about the entire constellation\nof sects of the Second Temple period. Therefore, now that the texts from the\nQumran caves have been published, our knowledge of the background against which\nrabbinic Judaism emerged will become much clearer. We will see that ideas and\npractices that we could date no earlier than the destruction of the Temple can\nnow be shown to be earlier. The Tannaim will increasingly be seen as inheritors\nof tradition who expanded, developed, and adapted that tradition to new\ncircumstances, most notably the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of\nsacrificial worship. Yes, the Second Temple was a period in which different\napproaches vied with one another for the mantle of history, and the Dead Sea\nScrolls negate the assumption of a monolithic Judaism. Yet these very same\nscrolls are helping us to understand how, after the revolt and the destruction,\nthis period of great variegation gave way to that of standardization and\nconsensus, and the emergence of rabbinic Judaism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we are to understand the transition that\nbrought about what we call talmudic or rabbinic Judaism, it will have to be\nagainst a much wider backdrop than that previously drawn. For in this way we\nwill be able to see not only the marked changes that took place in this new\nmanifestation of Judaism but also the essential continuity that it evidences\nwith the varieties of Judaism of the Second Temple period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Scholarly Controversy<\/p>\n\n\n\n chapter 1<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Many \u201cBattles of the Scrolls\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The study of the Dead Sea Scrolls is undergoing a virtual revolution.\nScholarly interest has risen sharply in the past few years and has been\nmanifested in a plethora of books, articles, and colloquia. Most importantly,\nthe reorganization of the scrolls publication project has led to the rapid\npublication of the entire corpus, and, as a result, major changes in our view\nof this collection of texts and its significance for the study of the history\nof Judaism and Christianity have also taken place. Yet for the most part, these\nnew ideas have percolated only among a small group of scholars who dedicate themselves\nto the study of the scrolls. In what follows I hope to introduce readers to\nsome of these new ideas, placing emphasis to some extent on the results of my\nown research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the early days of Dead Sea Scrolls research,\nin the early 1950s, it was customary to speak of \u201cthe battle of the scrolls.\u201d\nThis phrase referred to the heated public debates that swarmed over the\nimportance of the scrolls and the identity and dating of their authors. Later\non, in the \u201970s and \u201980s we again witnessed a battle of the scrolls, this time\nover the publication of the texts and access to them for scholarly research.\nNow that the scrolls are published in their entirety, it is time to turn our\nattention to the important contribution that the scrolls make to our knowledge\nof Second Temple Judaism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is in these scrolls, why are they\nimportant, and is anything new likely to come out of the study of the newly\npublished material? Indeed, has anything changed in the last sixty years of\nresearch? These questions will turn out to be complex, and the answers reveal\nmuch about the fascinating discipline of Dead Sea Scroll or Qumran studies, the\nfield that has now occupied me almost full time for forty years.1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n History of Research<\/p>\n\n\n\n The field of Qumran studies really began long before the discovery of\nthe Dead Sea Scrolls by Bedouin in 1947. In 1896, Solomon Schechter, then\nReader in Rabbinic (sic)<\/em> at Cambridge\nUniversity in England, a talmudic scholar (later president of the Jewish\nTheological Seminary of America), traveled to Egypt to locate and purchase the\nremains of the Cairo Genizah,2<\/sup><\/a> a vast treasure trove of Hebrew\nmanuscripts from the storehouse of the synagogue in Fustat, Old Cairo. Even\nbefore his trip, Schechter had acquired for Cambridge Genizah manuscripts of\nthe apocryphal Ben Sira, previously known only in Greek and Syriac (Eastern\nAramaic) translations. Later, Hebrew copies would be found at Qumran and\nMasada. Manuscripts from the Genizah had already been purchased by various\ncollectors and eventually ended up in libraries in Europe, Russia, the U.S.,\nand Israel. Among the materials Schechter brought back to Cambridge was another\ntext of particular significance for what would become Qumran studies, two\nmedieval manuscripts of part of a hitherto unknown work, entitled by Schechter,\nFragments of a Zadokite Work.<\/em>3<\/sup><\/a>\n(Many scholars now term this text the Damascus\nDocument.<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n This work, later found in several manuscripts\nin the Qumran collection,4<\/sup><\/a> consisted of two parts, a section\ntermed the \u201cadmonition,\u201d a sort of historical and homiletical discourse, and a\nbody of laws. Schechter immediately realized that these overlapping manuscripts\nrepresented the texts of an ancient Jewish sect that he identified with the\nDosithean sect of the Samaritans whom he saw as closely linked with the\nSadducees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was Louis Ginzberg, an even more important\ntalmudic scholar (who later joined Schechter at JTSA), who in a series of\narticles5<\/sup><\/a> on these texts was able to outline the nature of the\nQumran sect even before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. He realized that\nthis document represented the remnant of a sect of Jews who had separated from\nthe dominant patterns of Second Temple Judaism, and he described their laws,\ntheology, and even aspects of their history. Only in regard to his emphasis on\nthe closeness of these sectarians to Pharisaism do we now know Ginzberg to have\nmissed the mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Besides Ginzberg\u2019s analysis, the new text\nsparked numerous other theories, identifying the sect as early Jewish\nChristians, medieval Karaites, Sadducees, and practically any other imaginable\nJewish group. The only true unanimity was in the rejection of Schechter\u2019s claim\nof Samaritan provenance. All these theories would emerge again when the Qumran\nscrolls were later discovered. The furious debates about this text had only\nbriefly died down, quieted as they were by the interruption of scholarly\ndiscourse that resulted from World War II and the effects of the Holocaust on\nJudaic scholarship, when the discoveries in the Judean Desert reignited them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1947, Bedouin shepherds wandered into a cave\non the cliffs near Wadi Qumran, overlooking the Dead Sea just south of Jericho,\nand discovered the first scrolls. This cache of seven scrolls was eventually\nsold, in two lots, to the Hebrew University and the new State of Israel and is\nhoused today in the Shrine of the Book of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Yet\nas the British mandate over Palestine drew to a close and the State of Israel\nwas proclaimed, action shifted to the Kingdom of Jordan, which, as a result of\nthe military action of the Israel War of Independence, now controlled the rocky\narea from which the scrolls had emerged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While archaeologists attempted to search for\nadditional scrolls, the Bedouin were quick to uncover enormous numbers of\nfragments and some complete scrolls, leaving the archaeologists and the\nJordanian Department of Antiquities to follow in their wake. In the 1950s, vast\nnumbers of fragments, now known to be the remnants of some nine hundred\nmanuscripts, were collected at the Palestine Archaeological Museum (now the\nRockefeller Museum) in East Jerusalem, then under Jordanian control. These manuscripts\neventually included the Samaria papyri from Wadi Daliyeh dating to the fifth\nand fourth centuries b.c.e. and\nsome materials from the period of the Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome (132\u2013135 c.e.) as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These manuscripts were carefully sorted by an\ninternational team of scholars assembled primarily from the American Schools of\nOriental Research and the \u00c9cole Biblique, the French Catholic biblical and\narchaeological school in Jerusalem. The initial achievements of this group,\nincluding assembling the fragments into larger columns (stored in \u201cplates\u201d),\ntranscription of the texts, and the preparation of a concordance, were\nremarkable. It was only later, when funds ran out and other factors, personal\nand political, intervened, that work came to a virtual standstill for almost\ntwenty years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the meantime, in Israel, the work of\npublishing the complete scrolls that Israel had acquired proceeded fast apace.\nThree of the scrolls had already been published by the American Schools of\nOriental Research before Israeli acquisition.6<\/sup><\/a> The remainder, with\nthe exception of parts of the Genesis Apocryphon (a retelling of the book of\nGenesis), were speedily published.7<\/sup><\/a> The late Israeli\narchaeologist Yigael Yadin recovered texts from Masada and from the Bar Kokhba\ncaves, and these have now all been published. Three volumes of Masada texts\nhave appeared8<\/sup><\/a> as well as the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic materials\nfrom the Bar Kokhba caves Na\u1e25al \u1e24ever9<\/sup><\/a> and the Na\u1e25al \u1e24ever\ntexts that had been misidentified as originating in Na\u1e25al \u1e62e\u2019elim.10<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The five legible columns of the Genesis\nApocryphon, the last of the Israeli scroll acquisitions to be published,\nappeared in the edition of Yigael Yadin and Nahman Avigad in the fall of 1956.11<\/a><\/sup>\nThus, Israeli scholars had completed their obligation to publish the scrolls in\ntheir possession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Research on the scrolls was sufficiently\nadvanced so that in July of 1957 International Team members Joseph Fitzmyer and\nlater Raymond Brown and Willard G. Oxtoby began to compile a concordance on\nindex cards. This concordance was eventually used by Ben Zion Wacholder and\nMartin G. Abegg to produce the multivolume computer-reconstructed text, the\nfirst volume of which effectively broke the monopoly of the International Team\nin 1991.12<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n In July of 1958 the last of the Cave 4 texts\nwere purchased from the Bethlehem-based antiquities dealer Khalil Iskander\nShahin, known as Kando. He had single-handedly served as the agent for purchase\nof all materials found by the Bedouin, on behalf of the Palestine\nArchaeological Museum. This brought to a close an important stage in the\nhistory of Qumran research. These fragments, however, would wait years before\nseeing the light of day and, indeed, were finally published only in 2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Throughout this period, Israeli archaeologists\nhad watched with great interest as Bedouin continuously unearthed scrolls in\nthe Jordanian-controlled part of the Judean Desert. In March 1955 the first\nseason of an archaeological survey was carried out at Masada, the Herodian fortress\nfurther south on the shore of the Dead Sea. Masada had been the last stand of\nthe rebels in the Jewish revolt against Rome in 66\u201373 c.e. Some of the same texts found at Qumran were also found\nat Masada.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the spring of 1960, the appearance of John\nM. Allegro\u2019s edition of the Copper Scroll<\/em>14<\/a><\/sup>\ncaused great friction amongst the scholars. Allegro, as a member of the\nInternational Team, had gained access to the scroll while it was in Manchester\nbeing unrolled. The Copper Scroll<\/em> was\nassigned to Josef T. Milik for publication, and he, indeed, had published a\npreliminary edition in Revue<\/em> Biblique<\/em> in 1959.15<\/a><\/sup> Allegro\u2019s book was the\nfirst major rival edition of a text to be published by a team member\u2014and he was\nnever forgiven for this, perhaps especially because of his view that the\ntreasure purportedly described in the scroll was real. In the early 1960s,\nAllegro conducted two expeditions to try to find the treasure. None was ever\nfound, but the quest continues even to the present day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 1960, funding by the Rockefeller family\ncame to an end. The members of the International Team scattered to their\nvarious universities. By this time the work of sorting the entire collection\nhad been basically completed, and almost all the texts had been transcribed in\npreliminary fashion. Had publication ensued quickly, the International Team\nwould have emerged as heroes for their expert and speedy work. But the various\ndelays that took place after they left Jerusalem, coupled with the denial of\naccess to other scholars, eventually led to the controversy of recent years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the International Team disbanded, 511\nmanuscripts of Cave 4 had been identified and arranged on 620 museum plates,\nwith 25 plates of material still unidentified. The final series of photographs\nwas also completed then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As early as 1955, the Israeli government\nplanned to build a permanent home for the scrolls and to put them on display.\nWith the help of the Gottesman family, who had purchased the four scrolls in\n1954, the Shrine of the Book of the Israel Museum was completed and dedicated\nin 1965 to house those four scrolls amongst more recent purchases.16<\/a><\/sup>\nThe Shrine of the Book in West Jerusalem remains one of the most distinctive\nlandmarks of the city today, located opposite the Knesset, Israel\u2019s parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In November of 1966, the Jordanian government\nnationalized the Palestine Archaeological Museum. This step became significant\nwhen Israel conquered East Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War, for the Israel\nDepartment of Antiquities would come to control this important collection of\nunpublished Dead Sea Scrolls in the renamed Rockefeller Museum. A few scrolls\nthat had been on exhibit at Amman during the war, as well as several of the\nfragmentary Cave 1 manuscripts, still remain in Jordan along with the Copper\nScroll, recently conserved by the French Electric Company (EDF).<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the crown of Israeli achievement in this\narea was the recovery of the Temple\nScroll<\/em> in the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967. This was the end of a\nstory that had begun in 1960. A certain Reverend Joseph Uhrig showed Yadin a\nsmall sample of a scroll in return for a deposit of $10,000, but the deal never\nmaterialized.17<\/a><\/sup> By 1967 Yadin was apparently aware that\nthe scroll was in Kando\u2019s hands. In the early days of the war, he sent\nintelligence officers to Kando\u2019s house in Bethlehem where they seized the\nscroll, thereby saving it from rotting under Kando\u2019s floorboards. Later Kando\nwas compensated with a payment of $108,000. The subsequent publication of the Temple Scroll<\/em> by Yadin in Hebrew and\nEnglish editions18<\/a><\/sup> made this important text available to\nscholars. Other texts began to appear in the late 1970s from the original\nJordanian lot, now in Israeli hands after the war. Along with Enoch<\/em> fragments published by Milik19<\/a><\/sup>\nand important liturgical texts published by Maurice Baillet,20<\/a><\/sup>\nthe Temple Scroll<\/em> sparked renewed\ninterest in the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The physical location of the scrolls and the\npolitics of the Middle East affected the publication process as well. One\nresult of these factors was the exclusion of Jews, and certainly of Israelis,\nfrom Roland de Vaux\u2019s editorial team in the 1950s through the mid-1980s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So why were the scrolls kept secret for so\nlong? The answers are in reality prosaic. Those who were supposed to publish\nthem failed for a variety of reasons. Funding was insufficient. Some lost\ninterest, some died, and some were stricken with alcoholism. Some lacked\nsufficient linguistic skills to get the job done in a reasonable amount of\ntime. Some believed that only they could do the job correctly and that they and\nthe students they chose had rights to the material in perpetuity. The Israeli\nconquest of East Jerusalem would set off a chain of events that ultimately led\nto the release of the entire corpus and to a wider understanding of the nature\nof the ancient library. But this was a delayed reaction lasting well into the\n1990s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Immediately after the war, Israeli officials\nagreed to let the existing International Team continue their work, expecting\nthat it would soon be completed. In retrospect, the allotments of texts to each\neditor were simply too large for publication within a reasonable time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yadin\u2019s revelation of the Temple Scroll<\/em>, first in a series of public lectures and then in his\nedition of 1977, capped a process already observable earlier of seeing Qumran\nmaterials in a Jewish context. Now a scroll entirely of Jewish law, the same\nsize as the book of Isaiah, was on the reader\u2019s table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Yadin had identified the authors\nof the Temple Scroll<\/em> with the Qumran\nsectarians. Therefore, his new scroll led to full recognition of the halakhic\ncharacter of that group, that is, their grounding in Jewish law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In September 1971, Pierre Benoit succeeded de\nVaux as editor-in-chief of the International Team and the Discoveries in the\nJudaean Desert (DJD) series. Although several publications did appear, much of\nthe work, especially on the Cave 4 texts, was not really proceeding at all.\nThese problems were already clear in September 1984 when Benoit retired and the\nIsraeli Department of Antiquities confirmed John Strugnell of Harvard as\neditor-in-chief of the scrolls publication project. Strugnell expanded the team\nto include some twenty members, amongst whom were a number of Israelis\u2014Devorah\nDimant, Elisha Qimron, and Emanuel Tov. He also furnished a timetable to the\nIsraeli Department of Antiquities (that in the meantime had become the Israel\nAntiquities Authority), but the deadlines he specified there were not kept and\ncould not be enforced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The revelation of a few lines of the Halakhic Letter<\/em>, also known as 4QMMT<\/a>,\nby Qimron at the 1984 International Conference on Biblical Archaeology\nnaturally greatly stimulated curiosity as to what other such \u201cbombshells\u201d might\nstill lay hidden in the unpublished corpus of Qumran texts. Scarcely a year\nlater, at the New York University Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Morton\nSmith delivered an impassioned plea for the immediate publication of\nphotographs of the entire corpus. Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR)<\/em>, took\nup the struggle in his popular magazine. He editorialized extensively on this\nproblem and began in earnest his campaign to \u201cliberate\u201d the scrolls. The call\nfor release and publication of all the documents grew progressively louder,\nsurfacing regularly at scholarly conferences and in the press. Amir Drori,\nDirector of the Israel Antiquities Authority, was beginning to feel the\npressure for change. However, the \u201cmonopoly\u201d was soon to be broken by the\nefforts of scholars themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The clamor for open access was greatly\nincreased when Robert Eisenman and Philip Davies formally requested to read the\nunpublished Zadokite Fragments<\/em> in the\nRockefeller Museum and were rebuffed by Strugnell. The exchange of letters was\npublished in BAR<\/a><\/em>.21<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1990, Stephen A. Reed of the Ancient\nBiblical Manuscripts Center in Claremont, California, came to Jerusalem to\nprepare the first complete catalog of scrolls materials and negatives, making\nuse of an earlier private catalog of Qimron\u2019s. Reed\u2019s catalog clarified the\nextent of the still unpublished material and focused attention on its proper\nconservation and restoration.22<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The official editorial team, while\nsignificantly widened by 1990 to include some thirty scholars, Jewish and\nnon-Jewish of many nationalities, still was holding exclusive access to texts\nand producing text editions much too slowly for use by other researchers. Many\ndisenfranchised scholars proposed that access be granted to any and all on the\nbasis of research or university affiliation. Shanks stressed this point in his\njournal and proposed that photographs of the texts be distributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then in November 1990, Strugnell\u2019s health\ndeteriorated, and after inappropriate remarks in an interview in an Israeli\nnewspaper,23<\/a><\/sup> the Israel Antiquities Authority stepped in to appoint\nEmanuel Tov of the Hebrew University in his stead as editor-in-chief of the\nInternational Team and head of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series.\n\u00c9mile Puech of the \u00c9cole Biblique, Eugene Ulrich of the University of Notre\nDame, and Tov were designated general editors by the members of the team. They\nexpanded the International Team to some fifty-five editors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the new team began to edit their\nassignments, events leading to the eventual release of the scrolls swiftly\nfollowed one another. In 1991, the newspapers carried the reports of the\ncomputer-aided reconstruction of the still-hidden texts by Ben Zion Wacholder\nand Martin Abegg of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. This edition was produced\nfrom a privately-distributed concordance prepared by the original editorial\nteam in a limited edition of about thirty copies. The Wacholder-Abegg\nreconstruction was published by the Biblical Archaeology Society with a\nforeword by BAR<\/a><\/em> editor Shanks.24<\/a><\/sup>\nThe date of release of the reconstructed edition was chosen to precede a Nova\ntelevision documentary that had been in the works for over a year. On September\n22, also before the airing of the Nova documentary, the Huntington Library in\nSan Marino, California, announced that it would release its full set of\nphotographic negatives of the scrolls. On October 15, 1991, the Nova\ndocumentary, \u201cSecrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls,\u201d appeared on nationwide\ntelevision in the U.S. It had been hastily updated to include the latest events\nin the scrolls publication controversy. An audience of more than 13 million\nviewed the Nova special, and it amply demonstrated the role of the media in the\nrelease of the scrolls by making people aware of the controversy and\nstimulating further press reports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It had to be expected that in a world growing\nincreasingly democratic, the concept of freedom of information would triumph\nover all other considerations, even legitimate scientific concerns. Beginning\nin 1990 new technological advances and aids to scholarship were produced that\nnot only opened up the scrolls to all scholars but allowed better readings of\nthe manuscripts. In that year carbon 14 tests of a selection of manuscripts\nwere run, and these generally supported the palaeographic and archaeological\ndating that had been previously proposed.25<\/a><\/sup> Several editions of\nphotographs were released of varying degrees of usefulness. The microfilms of\nthe Huntington Library, while they struck a blow for the \u201cliberation\u201d of the\nscrolls, were not of sufficient quality for serious research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At about the same time, copies of photographs\nof the unpublished fragments were reaching Robert Eisenman, Chairman of the\nDepartment of Religious Studies at California State University at Long Beach,\nfrom an undisclosed source. Eisenman was a natural conduit for such photographs\nbecause of the outspoken position he had taken demanding the release of the\nscrolls. Together with James Robinson of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity\nat Claremont, he organized these for publication in a two-volume set,\neventually preceded by a foreword by Shanks discussing the publication\ncontroversy and relating his role in it.26<\/a><\/sup> These publications led the\nIsrael Antiquities Authority to reformulate its own policies on access to\nphotographs of the scrolls. In October of 1991, it allowed open access to all\nphotos, but asked scholars to refrain from publishing editions of texts\nassigned to others for editing. Since then, all scholars were able to view any\nphotographs of the manuscripts in either Jerusalem, Claremont, or Oxford.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Along with the photographs, Shanks published a\ntranscription of the Halakhic Letter<\/em>,\nthen being prepared for publication by Qimron and Strugnell. Qimron sued Shanks\nin Israeli court for copyright violation of his reconstruction of the text and\nwon, and he even won an appeal before the Supreme Court of Israel.27<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n With the release of the Huntington microfilms\nand the Eisenman-Robinson-Shanks facsimiles, it was clear that high quality,\nproperly indexed photographs of the entire Judean Desert corpus would have to\nbe issued. The Dutch publishing house Brill, with the cooperation of the Israel\nAntiquities Authority, issued a set of positive microfiches in 1993. This\nproject, of high quality, is the most complete set of photos ever issued and\nhas recently been supplemented with the Allegro collection of 1,600 images and\na CD-ROM edition. Today, anyone who can read Second Temple Hebrew and Aramaic\ntexts in their original scripts can study the entire corpus. Finally, this\nimportant part of humanity\u2019s heritage is available to all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With the opening of the entire corpus to scholars,\nthe speed of publication progressed, and all the texts have been published in\nofficial editions. More texts had been published between 1990 and 2000 than in\nthe preceding forty years! The greatest benefit of open access is that it is\nnow possible to gain an accurate sense of the nature and significance of the\nentire collection. A new era of intense, in-depth research is now well under\nway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The publication controversy encouraged\nincreased publication efforts, and the team of scholars was widened in order to\nspeed up the publication process. Those of us now doing research in Qumran\nstudies constitute to a great extent a new generation, neither part of the\noriginal publication process nor veterans of the \u201cbattles of the scrolls.\u201d We\ncome to the field with new approaches and theories. Indeed, much progress has\nalready taken place. Before discussing these new developments, we shall first\nhave to assess the old theories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Initial Theories<\/p>\n\n\n\n Already in the early years after the discovery of the Zadokite Fragments<\/em> and their publication\nby Schechter, a fierce battle raged over the identity of the sect. The Qumran\nscrolls simply raised all the same issues anew. One group of scholars,\nfollowing Solomon Zeitlin, argued for medieval Karaite origins, constantly\nmisinterpreting the documents to suit their theories, while at the same time\npointing out many valid parallels with Karaite halakhic and exegetical\nliterature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another group argued for a dating in the late\nfirst century c.e., seeing the\nscrolls as connected with the Zealots or early Christians. These theories did\nnot succeed because they flew in the face of the archaeological dating of the\nruins of Qumran, the dating of the scrolls by palaeography (the study of the\nforms of the letters), and the carbon 14 dating of the cloths in which the\nscrolls were wrapped in ancient times. The end result was a virtual consensus\nthat the scrolls are to be dated primarily to the Hasmonean and Herodian\nperiods, with some earlier material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This dating was strengthened by the constant\nexcavation in the early 1950s of the Qumran ruins and caves by the\narchaeologists who followed in the wake of the Bedouin. Unfortunately, the\nleader of the dig at Qumran, Roland de Vaux of the \u00c9cole Biblique, never\nsucceeded in publishing his excavation reports, although preliminary reports\nand a survey volume appeared.28<\/a><\/sup> Nonetheless, the evidence\nwas enough to convince virtually everyone that the ruins of Qumran were\nconnected with the scrolls found in the area, and that Qumran was inhabited in\nthe Hasmonean and Herodian periods and up to the destruction of Judea by the\nRoman armies in the Great Revolt of 66\u201373 c.e.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But there was still the issue of who the\nsectarians were. It was not long before there developed the Essene hypothesis,\nfirst put forth by E. L. Sukenik.29<\/a><\/sup> This theory states that\nthe sectarians are to be identified with the Essenes described by Josephus,\nPhilo, Pliny, and other ancient sources.30<\/a><\/sup> This view was fully\nelaborated in the works of Frank M. Cross,31<\/a><\/sup> Millar Burrows,32<\/a><\/sup>\nand others, and quickly became and still remains the reigning theory. But who\nwere the Essenes, and why do scholars connect the Qumran sect with them?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The evidence of Josephus, Philo, and Pliny the\nElder, when taken together, describes a sect of Jews who had a center at the\nshore of the Dead Sea and members spread throughout the cities of Judea as\nwell. This group was said, in the view of these scholars, to have lived a\ncommunal life and to have practiced the same initiation rites and\norganizational patterns as the sect that had left behind the library at Qumran.\nThis Essene group was assumed, therefore, to be the authors of virtually all\nthe scrolls except those of the Bible and some previously known apocrypha.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was another dimension to this theory too.\nIt followed well on some views already expressed before the discovery of the\nQumran scrolls, namely, that there were certain parallels between the doctrines\nof the Essenes, now taken to be synonymous with the Qumran sect, and early\nChristianity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The identification of the sect with the Essenes\nwas quickly supplemented with a circular set of arguments: If the sectarian\nmaterials could be identified with the Essenes, then all information in the\nGreek sources (Philo, Josephus, and Pliny) could be read into and harmonized\nwith the evidence of the scrolls. And if the scrolls were Essene, then they\ncould in turn be used to interpret the material in Philo, Josephus, and Pliny.\nBut this was not enough. By this time the scrolls and the Essenes were\nre-created as a precursor to Christianity, perhaps even a harbinger, so that\nmaterial from the New Testament regarding the early church was read back into\nthe scrolls and vice versa. This approach, the dominant hypothesis for some\nforty years, yielded the \u201cmonks,\u201d \u201cmonastery,\u201d \u201cbishop,\u201d celibacy, and numerous\nother terminological exaggerations used to describe Qumran texts, behind which\nlay a set of distinct preconceptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Somehow this theory escaped the scrutiny of\nmost scholars. For some forty years, however, I scrupulously abstained from\nterming the sectarians of Qumran \u201cEssenes.\u201d Indeed, it was the late Louis\nGinzberg, in the days when the only available text was the Zadokite Fragments<\/em>, who correctly termed this group \u201can unknown\nJewish sect.\u201d It was a methodological absurdity definitively to identify a sect\nwhen only a small part of its so-called library had been published.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We shall see that a variety of factors came\ntogether to call aspects of this hypothesis into question. More importantly, in\nthe last twenty years there has been a turn more and more to see the Qumran\nmaterials as part of the complex history of Judaism that leads from the Hebrew\nBible to the rabbinic tradition. Indeed, it is only when such an approach is\nfollowed that the true significance of the scrolls for evaluating the\nbackground of Christianity can be understood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Second Generation<\/p>\n\n\n\n In about 1960, most publication and interest on the part of the original\nInternational Team of scholars in the field of Qumran studies came to an end.33<\/a><\/sup>\nThis was certainly the case for those on the publication team who, for the most\npart, ceased to be active in this area in the early 1960s. Among the causes of\nthis loss of interest may be two: First, the specialties of this generation of\nscholars had been primarily in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. It soon\nbecame clear that the biblical texts among the scrolls testified to the state\nof the text of the Hebrew Bible in the first two centuries b.c.e. and would not help in restoring\nan Urtext<\/em> (original text) of the Hebrew Scriptures.\nSecond, it soon became apparent that the texts still to be published contained\nprimarily material relative to the Judaism of the period and not to\nChristianity and the issues surrounding its origins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the second generation were some younger\nscholars, Christian and Jewish, including this author, who were not bound by\nthese theories. These scholars of the second (and even third) generation\nundertook the study of the particularly Jewish issues in the scrolls\u2014Jewish\nhistory, law, theology, and messianism\u2014and gradually began to cast very\ndifferent light on the materials. Regardless of their own religious\nconvictions, these scholars realized that recognizing the Jewishness of the scrolls\nwas the only scientific method by which to utilize this gold mine of material\nfor the reconstruction of Second Temple Judaism as well as for the study of the\nprehistory of Christianity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the publication of the Temple Scroll<\/em> by Yadin and many of the Enoch<\/em> fragments by Milik caused scholars\nto look more and more at the uniquely Jewish aspects of the material. Perhaps\nmore importantly, the public interest that Yadin\u2019s new Temple Scroll<\/em> generated led to greater attention to the scrolls,\nand his monumental edition and commentary opened anew all kinds of questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All along, minor contradictions with the\n\u201cofficial\u201d Essene hypothesis were being observed. Many of these questions were\nbeing raised at a series of conferences. The first of these was the one I had\nthe honor to organize in 1985 under the sponsorship of the Hagop Kevorkian\nCenter for Near Eastern Studies at New York University.34<\/a><\/sup>\nOthers were soon held at many other cities around the world, producing\nconference volumes that added much to the progress of current research. This\ninteraction was symptomatic of the desire of scholars to ask new questions and\nadvance their field of learning. New groups of younger researchers gradually\nbecame the major carriers of this field as the first generation did not appear\nat these conferences and refrained from exchanging ideas on the scrolls. (John\nStrugnell was a notable exception to this rule.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gradually a new nonconsensus was emerging. It\nheld that many issues regarded as settled were not settled, and that these\nrequired thorough study and, of course, the full publication of the still\nhidden scrolls. It also called for postponing definite conclusions on the\nidentity of the sect until the publication of the entire corpus. Accordingly,\nan entire series of issues was opened up. We shall survey here some of the\nramifications of these questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Nature of the Library<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is now clear that the character of the ancient library must be\nreevaluated. Let us recapitulate what is actually in this library. There are\nbooks of the Bible, copies of previously known apocrypha and pseudepigrapha\n(i.e., Second Temple-period Jewish literature), sectarian texts belonging to\nthe Qumran sect itself, and a variety of other types of compositions as well,\nincluding sapiential (wisdom) and liturgical material.35<\/a><\/sup>\nFurther, there are tefillin<\/em>\n(phylacteries) and