DSS.950131 Minutes, Dead Sea Scrolls Class, 31 January 1995
University of Pennsylvania, Religious Studies 225, Robert Kraft
David Slarskey, recorder; Nagin Kormi, quality control

[Here's the minutes.  No subliminal messages.  No jokes.  Nothing
extraordinary.  Just good old-fashioned notetaking.  Don't look for
anything to amuse you, because you ain't gonna find it in here. DS]

I. Pre-Class stuff

  Dr. Kraft updated the class on the subjects of posting minutes, the
Clemson thaang, a lecture on 9 Feb. at Lehigh by Sidnie White Crawford
(whose name you will encounter in the bibliographies) on the Canon at
Qumran, a new article in Bible Review (Feb '95) entitled "Tracing the
Evolution of the Hebrew Bible; What the Dead Sea Scrolls Teach Us" written
by some famous Dutch guy [Adam S. van der Woude], and responded to a
question about the value of Norman Golb's new book (see the list of books 
for review). 

    -Minutes will be posted to our class archive on the ccat.sas gopher
both individually (class by class) and collectively (one growing file) to
make it easy to find a particular date or search the entire body for a
particular topic. 

    -There's nothing new to report about the Clemson cooperation thing.

    -For articles in Bible Review (BR) or Biblical Archaeology Review
(BAR) and similar new materials or materials of general interest (some by
Dutch guys, some not), a shelf will be set up in the Religious Studies
graduate student lounge on the 4th floor of Duhring Wing (414 Duhring). If
the lounge is locked, request access from the main RelSt office (415). 

    -Norman Golb's book will be especially valuable to those interested in
the question of the connection of the scrolls to the Qumran ruins, and
alternative theories and discussions, but Dr. B*B did not suggest that it
be required (or necessarily even recommended) reading at this introductory
stage of the course [see VanderKam pp.95f for a discussion of some of
Golb's earlier ideas].  Though some have disagreed with de Vaux's theory
that Qumran was a radical religious community that produced the scrolls,
suggesting instead that it may have been a military post, resort area, or
the first all-night Mini Mart, Dr. Kraft doesn't seem to want to get
distracted by these problems at this point [they will be fair game at a
later stage!].  Irv has some articles from the Jerusalem Post that also
may be of some interest to those who are most interested in Golb's point
of view. 
 
Lance Laughed.
 
II. Class Stuff

  Here Dr. Kraft attempted to continue the discussion of the written
"scriptural" materials important to the classical Jewish tradition, the
different Jewish "sects," and the general question of "authority" in early
Judaism, but he was [happily!] kept from his goal by numerous questions. 
Here goes.

  First, Dr. K. reminded us again that when studying the scriptures of the
period to cast away [or "bracket"] our pre-conceived notions about
"Bible." We should be careful not to read the "canonized" Bible that we
have today, and associated ideas about its meaning and authority, back
into the heads of the DSS authors/transcribers.  They certainly attached
authority to various "scriptural" writings, both individually, and in some
relation to each other, but not necessarily as a concrete collective whole
as we have come to do with our ideas of "the Bible."
 
 				For those of you to follow,
  	  Dr. K. reminded us here
 						Not to indent minutes [since 
   it makes it very difficult to edit them].
 
  There was a question here about why Dr. K. prefers to use the term
"scriptures" instead of "Bible" in reference to the writings and attitudes
of the period.  Dr. K.  graciously entertained the question, though it had
been answered a bezillion times before in previous classes (no offense to
whoever asked it, just my own personal bias).  Basically, there was no
formally "canonized Bible" in the later sense, so we refer to the
scriptures as works which stand on their own merit, not the merit of that
to which they belong.  Before long, we were discussing the Pentateuch. 
 
  The Pentateuch (also known as the Five Books of Moses, Torah, and the
Greek Septuagint = LXX, strictly speaking) is comprised of the first five
books of Jewish scriptures, Genesis-Deuteronomy.  The name Septuagint
comes from an old Greek tradition that 70 (thus "LXX" -- but actually 72
as Lance pointed out) translators translated (different stories came up)
the Pentateuch into Greek for the library in Alexandria in the 3rd century
BCE.  For more information on the Septuagint, look it up in VanderKam (pp.
123ff).  Plagarism was considered a miracle in ancient Greece [with
reference to the tradition that all the translations produced by the
segregated translators agreed].  Spell "septuagint" like this: 
s-e-p-t-u-a-g-i-n-t.  *Note:  when Dr. K.  uses the term septuagint, he
means the pentateuch.  When he wishes to refer to the larger collection of
Jewish Greek scriptures (including Prophets, Psalms, Apocrypha, etc.) he
uses "LXX/OG" ("Old Greek" translations). More generally, be aware that
the terms we choose to use are of basic importance for defining and
discussing such things as the community or communities revealed in the
scrolls, as evidenced by the different names even *they* gave themselves
(i.e.  sons of Zadok, brotherhood, community, remnant, etc.), but also 
what we decide to call them (e.g. "sectarians"!).

  Dr. K. here made the observation that there is a surprising lack of
Pentateuch commentary (Pesher) from the Qumran fragments.  (Pesher being
the commentary format in which the author distinguishes the text from its
meaning).  It was pointed out (by Tal) that there are fragments of a
Genesis pesher although for some reason Garcia Martinez has it in a
separate section from the main grouping of "Pesharim." Here Dr. K. also
described how we have "para-biblical" works, works which may be earlier
than our accepted biblical versions or later than them, but in any case
bear remarkable resemblence to the biblical text while telling the 
stories, etc., in noticeably different ways.  One such example is the 
"Genesis Apocryphon" from cave 1.
 
  An explanation of the term "exegesis" followed in which Dr. K. 
distinguished between the idea of deriving meaning out of a text
(exegesis) and reading things into a text (eisegesis).  Both are common
ways of interpreting text and depend on assumptions about how to determine
"correct" meanings ("hermeneutics" is a fancy word for approaches to
interpretation).  It was asked if the Q. community had principles for
exegesis, as the later Rabbinic Jews did, but Dr.
K. was unaware of any firm evidence of such at Qumran, in the same sense
as those formally associated later with Hillel (the "middot"). 
 
(Here there was a superfluous conversation about swimming and diving.  
Insert at own risk.)
 
  It was next asked why the Q.ites felt that they were the ones living in
the "final days" (the question of eschatological orientation).  After a
long explanation and references to Habakkuk 1:5 in the Qumran pesher, it
became clear that they presupposed the relevence of scriptures to their
times, as many others before them had (any many did after, including Dr.
K's mother).  It doesn't matter that everyone else thought they were
living in the final days, when the Q. scholars (or any scholars of the
time period, this was not a unique belief to Q.) read the scriptures they
believed that they were directly related to their own lives. 
 
(Here there was a bit of text criticism discussion, whether the 
"nations" of Hab 1.5 should be "traitors" or perhaps a piece of 
clothing. [Dr. K. said the class as a whole is not yet ready for such 
exercises!]) 
 
  Dr. K. made allusion to the "Masoretic Text" (= MT; see VanderKam 123)
which would later become formalized as the classical Jewish Bible. This 
represents the textual work of the Masoretes (many of which were Karaites) 
who were concerned with standardizing the texts in the "middle ages." 
 
(There were some interesting observations about the relationship of the 
collections of Josephus and Philo to the discussion of scriptures and of 
the DSS people.)

  Next question, asked with admittedly "ulterior motive" by our
favorite swimmer, Hunter: "What was the New Covenant in the OT?" Dr. K.
again referred to the passage in Jeremiah 31.31 which promises the "new
covenant that *tetragrammaton* will make with his people in the final
days." This is not a Christian idea -- the concept of a new covenant has
firm roots in Judaism. 
 
III.   Random Thoughts
 
-Next time we will examine the designation "the Teacher of
Righteousness" and its implications for understanding inner Jewish 
dynamics in the period.

-Pay close attention to the characteristics of the Sadducees and the
Pharisees in VanderKam, and the ancient sources for such information.  It
will be important next class. 

-"Kittim" (see pesher Habakkuk) seems to refer to the Romans.

-"Targum" (literally "interpretation/translation") usually refers to an
Aramaic translation of Hebrew scripture (often obviously interpretive in
the translation).  There are Targums on Leviticus and Job from Qumran. 
The LXX is sometimes called a "Greek Targum."

-The Temple Scroll contains halakic material about the Temple.

-Next Class: early Jewish groups and authority structures.   
 
//end dss.950131//