Column of the Copper Scroll

Readers following the continuing Dead Sea Scrolls saga may have seen a recent news release that has appeared under various titles, including  “Warriors May Have Occupied Dead Sea Scrolls Site,” “Warriors Once Occupied Dead Sea Scrolls Site,” and “Dead Sea Scrolls Site Once a Fortress?” We will call it “Warriors Occupied Qumran” for short.

As background, I recall that Dr. William Schniedewind—a UCLA professor of Biblical Studies who stringently adheres to the old Qumran-Essene theory of Dead Sea Scrolls origins—has, with the assistance of his student Robert Cargill, created a “virtual reality” film currently being used to indoctrinate eager throngs of San Diego museum-goers into believing that the famous Khirbet Qumran site was home to a pacifist, purity-loving sect.

(Incidentally, in case anyone is curious about such matters which do not strike me as significant, news accounts have explained that Dr. Schniedewind is not Jewish; more importantly, the topic of his Brandeis Ph.D. dissertation was “Prophets, Prophecy, and Inspiration: A Study of Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles.”)

But let us focus on Schniedewind's film. Its fundamental aim is to demonstrate that even though a series of major Israeli archaeologists have concluded that Qumran was originally a fortress, this does not conflict with the idea that a pacifist sect lived and wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls there—despite the archaeologists' rejection of precisely that theory after ten years of renewed digs at the site.

“Warriors Occupied Qumran” is signed by Ms. Heather Whipps, who holds a degree in anthropology and is a fine contributor to the science columns of various news outlets.

Fortunately for Ms. Whipps, it is impossible to ascertain if she knew exactly what she was doing when she wrote this article, or if she is the unwitting victim of a public relations campaign, as is often the case with such matters.

At any rate, the article Ms. Whipps has signed is a superb example of (1) how to use the media to advertise and promote work that appears to have been plagiarized, by which I mean lifted in pertinent part from other scholars without giving them proper credit, and (2) how to use it to misinform the public as to the current state of research in a scholarly field of studies.  And for this reason, I commend it to anyone who wishes to pick up some basic skills in view of a career in journalism or in academics.

Ms. Whipps neatly explains that our friends Schniedewind and Cargill (together referred to as “historians”) have, in the course of cobbling together their 3-D view of Qumran with a computer software program, “found evidence” that the site was a fortress. Or, as she puts it: “Using the world's first virtual 3-D reconstruction of the [Qumran] site, historians recently found evidence of a fortress that was later converted into its more peaceful, pious function.”

To ensure that this claim of a “pious function” for Qumran does not confuse the public, Ms.Whipps cleverly fails to mention a number of important facts, to wit:

(1) Since at least 1980, University of Chicago historian Norman Golb has been arguing that Qumran was a fortress, pointing out, for example, that the site is strategically located with a view over the Dead Sea towards other Jewish bastions in what is today Jordan, and that its massive watch-tower was mined by Roman soldiers in a pitched battle fought there during the Jewish Revolt.

(2) Archaeologist Yizhar Hirschfeld’s book Qumran in Context (2004) argues at length that the site was originally a fortress (see especially Chapter 3, pp. 49-182), and then used as a fortified manor or trading station. The book provides two technically correct, original drawings of the tower and rectangular building attached to it, first as they existed during the Hasmonean period (p. 86) and then with a new extension of the Herodian period (p. 113).

Note that Hirschfeld, a professional archaeologist, did not need to exercise his imagination with virtual 3-D technology to do his work and conclude that Qumran was built as a fortress.

(3) The leaders of the official Israel Antiquities Authority Qumran excavation team, Dr. Yitzhak Magen and Dr. Yuval Peleg, have concluded that Qumran was originally a fortress “responsible for the security of the Dead Sea shore,” and was then used as a pottery factory and commercial entrepot  (see their report in The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates [Brill, 1996], pp. 102 ff.).

Now the crucial fact here is that none of the key Israeli archaeologists who have described the two stages of Qumran construction have suggested that in the second stage any group or “community” of religious sectarians ever lived there or wrote scrolls there. Indeed, after ten years of digs at Qumran they were unable to find any evidence whatsoever to support such a claim, and have frankly admitted as much in their published books and articles.

But Ms. Whipps, emphasizing the site’s presumed conversion into the home of “pious monks,” carefully fails to mention this fact. Or was it perhaps her source, Dr. Schniedewind, who carefully failed to mention it, thereby misleading this budding talent and placing her in an embarrassing situation?

Well, many have accused me of misrepresenting the facts before, and I can just see what people are going to say now. “Charles,” they will say, “what you are doing here is suggesting, in a truly poisonous manner, that Schniedewind’s ‘virtual reality’ film, and the sensationalist press campaign surrounding it, rehashes the findings of several prominent Israeli archaeologists and presents them as Schniedewind’s own discovery.”

And, of course, they won’t stop there. “Charles,” they will say, “you are suggesting that Schniedewind has failed to explain to the 500,000 estimated viewers of his film that his true aim all along has been to concoct a reconciliation of the now generally recognized identification of Qumran as a Hasmonean fortress, on the one hand, with the Qumran-Essene theory on the other—and this, without informing the public that Magen, Peleg and Hirschfeld have all concluded that no sect ever lived at Qumran.”

People can say what they like, but I would be happy if even a few of my readers understand that I would be the last person in the world to suggest that the great William Schniedewind would try to steal the credit due to his opponents, who have refuted fifty years of research.

So what, then, am I saying? Merely that Schniedewind’s “virtual reality” film, and the sensationalist press campaign surrounding it, must be seen in context. The film is being presented as one of the main features of the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit at the San Diego Natural History Museum. And a principle aim of that exhibit, according to the words of its curator Risa Levitt Kohn quoted in the pages of the Los Angeles Times, is to prevent the public from becoming “confused” as to the current state of research on the question of who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Seen in this light, the film is a worthy endeavor. It ably misrepresents the facts, and allows the traditional Scrolls establishment—to which, we recall, Dr. Kohn herself has belonged since her announcement on Jan. 9 that she is a “Dead Sea Scrolls scholar”—to retain its prominent role in the academic world for many years to come. What better result could have been hoped for? Let us congratulate Dr. Schniedewind on his sensationalist campaign, and Ms. Whipps for contributing to it!

For further background, see my pieces http://www.nowpublic.com/dead_sea_scrolls_exhibit_misleads_public
and
http://www.nowpublic.com/dead_sea_scrolls_san_diego_natural_history_museum_update
and the references provided in them.