================================================================== @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ Jaffee on @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ Spring Murphy @ @ @ @ 1995 @ @ @ @ @@@@@@ @@@@@@ @@@@@@ ================================================================== R E V I E W S ================================================================== Dead Sea Scroll Book Reviews, for Religious Studies 225 University of Pennsylvania, Robert Kraft, Spring Term 1995 Copyright by the respective authors; reproduction with appropriate credits is permitted. [[NOTE: The assignment was to summarize the reviewed book and to compare it especially with the textbooks used in the course, by James VanderKam The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Eerdmans/SPCK 1994) and Joseph Fitzmyer Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Paulist Press 1992). As with this note, any comments by the course instructor are enclosed in double brackets below.]] ----- Roland E. Murphy, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1956. Pp. xi + 116. Reviewed by Jake Jaffe jjaffe@sas.upenn.edu [[See my comments at the end -- more information about the author would be most useful, especially given your concluding paragraph.]] <0.1> Written in the time when DSS material was still being discovered, Murphy provides an introduction and background to the scroll material and then attempts to relate them to both the Old and the New Testaments as well as provide some general historical conclusions based on archaeological evidence associated with the DSS. <1.1> The Introduction immediately points out possibilities that make writing on the DSS dangerous, namely that not all DSS material had been discovered and that more material may be discovered in the future. However, M. states that he will use the evidence available to him to try to fill in gaps in historical and sociological knowledge around the time of the origin of Christianity. <1.2> The book is divided into three sections: first the introductory material to the scrolls is given, then information about how the DSS relate to the OT is relayed, and finally M. draws NT analogies and parallels from the DSS. His introductory material is written during the excavation of Cave 11, and he mentions this find only very briefly. M. relates the obligatory story about the transmission of the scrolls from Bedouin to researchers, and explains the various methods for dating them (his numbers are from 167 bce to 233 ce, p. 5). M. intimately connects the Qumran site with the caves in which the scrolls were found by pottery comparison, and he repeatedly refers to the site as a "monastery" (p. 7). Although he briefly touches on the nature of the Qumran community, M.'s main concern is with the documents themselves, and he offers a list of the major documents identified at the time of his writing. <1.3> The treatment of the OT relation to the DSS begins with a genealogy of the Bible and its transmission through various traditions (summarized in Appendix B) M. points out the value of biblical parts the DSS as a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text which can be used to corroborate or correct existing versions in various languages and traditions. He also raises the possibility of Babylonian influence on the texts, as supported by some characteristic spellings found in the DSS. The DSS can also serve as a dating mechanism to push back theoretical dates for the writing of some of the later books in the current canon. Finally, M. comments on the value of the DSS in tracing the development of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the period in which they were written, and uses the fact that a significant volume of Aramaic text was recovered to support claims Aramaic was a contemporary language during the time in which essential Christian literature like the Gospels was written. <1.4> The meat of the book is concerned with DSS data in relation to the NT. In this section M. attempts to draw parallels between the DSS/Qumran/Essene hypothesis and early figures and practices in Christianity. He does not explicitly suggest direct connection between these figures and the DSS, but merely points out that the environment portrayed in some of the documents concurs with some early Christian foundations. He cites the ritual purification described in 1QS as an antecedent or parallel practice to the water baptisms of John the Baptist and notes the similarity between Essene asceticism and John's lifestyle. However, he goes a bit far in insisting that John must have known and been influenced by the Qumran community (p. 63). Then M. uses the idea of "light and dark" dualism to draw a comparison of the DSS to the writings of St. John. He also suggests that this dualism must have been a pervasive idea during both the times the DSS were written and the beginnings of Christianity (which he assumes are contemporary) and hence the idea turns up a lot in both the DSS and the Gospels. Furthermore, remarkable analogies are drawn between Jesus' teaching, Jospehus' description of the Essenes, and material from 1QS. Finally, M. brushes closely with the question of Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the scrolls. Although M. does not advocate that they are one and the same, he states that they have remarkably similar characteristics and especially comments on each ones mode of demise. In concluding, M. restates that all of these are only hypotheses to be put to the test as more evidence becomes available, but also claims that Jesus and the writers of the NT MUST have been acquainted with Qumran and its variety of Judaism. <2.1> This book is admirably one of the first attempts to grapple with the DSS and their interpretation. The archaeological treatment and historical evidence is accurate, and M. realizes the preliminary nature of his work limits its future value. <3.1> Issues become muddled for M. once discussion of the NT begins. His bias is obvious, even if one just looks at the amount of pages he dedicates to his discussions (53 pages on just the NT, as opposed to 55 pages for all other subjects!). It is obvious from the style of his writings that he very much wants to associate Christianity in some way with the DSS. He makes some bold proclamations that John the Baptist MUST have known of Qumran and Jesus and his followers MUST have been aware of and influenced by Qumran teachings. Even today, the Qumran/Essene/DSS debate rages on; yet M. just takes for granted that the Qumran community was the sole producer of the DSS and that they were Essenes. Admittedly, he did not have the benefit of the range of evidence available today, but at the same time, it is somewhat irresponsible of him to make such claims without waiting for such conclusions to be arrived at independently. He also assumes quite a bit about communication of ideas in the DSS period without archaeologically explaining how all his characters got their information. One also must consider his affiliation with the Catholic University of America when interpreting his work. While M. does point out some key possibilities of parallels between DSS material (mostly 1QS) and some types of early Christianity, he fails to prove the uniqueness of these parallels when they can perhaps be drawn with other ideologies rather then solely the Qumran/Essene/DSS milieu. [[Interesting. One would expect someone of the background of Murphy to be much more "conservative" in assessing the relation of the DSS to early Christianity! Do you know anything more about him? Is he perhaps somewhat of a "renegade" among Catholic scholars?]] Reviewed by: Jacob D. Jaffe University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA U.S.A. 19104 c/o jjaffe@sas.upenn.edu /end/