The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

152 EXCERPTED MANUSCRIPTS AT QUMRAN
Others items might be added to this list; 181 regardless, using these criteria,
scholars have argued that various works—both “biblical” and “nonbiblical”—had
“authoritative” or “scriptural status at Qumran.” 182
In the main, most of the criteria listed above are formal. 183 The practice
of excerption adds yet another formal criterion for identifying authoritative
works, one that has typically not been considered in such investigations—
namely, if a composition is excerpted in(to) another scroll, the source text
is an authoritative document. Or, perhaps more precisely, the source text is
being treated as an authoritative document. This slightly different way of
phrasing the matter actually highlights an important aspect, one that is
again undervalued in the search for more secure, formal criteria. It is simply
this: the function(s) of a manuscript—that is, the purpose(s) to which it
is put—has as much to say about its authority as do its formal characteristics.
The purpose(s) and function(s) of the excerpted manuscripts are thus
quite significant in that they press toward a definition of authoritative
literature that goes beyond formalistic categories. Said differently, they help
toward viewing this question in more functionalist ways. 184
Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for
Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (ed. D. Dimant and L.
H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 23–58; Charlotte Hempel, “Interpretive
Authority in the Community Rule Tradition,” DSD 10 (2003): 59–80; and Philip R.
Davies, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (ed. D. A. Knight;
Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 152–68.
181. See, e.g., VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature,” 385–87, on the use of paleo-
Hebrew letters.
182. For example, Flint, “Noncanonical Writings,” 121, concludes with a provisional
list of non-canonical works that had “scriptural status at Qumran”: “Daniel, Psalm
151A, Psalm 151B, Psalm 154, Psalm 155, the canticle (Sir 51:13–30) found in
11QPs a [11Q5], 1 Enoch, and Jubilees.…The following compositions were probably
also regarded as Scripture: Tobit and the Letter of Jeremiah.” See VanderKam, The
Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 151–53; and “Authoritative Literature,” 394–95, for biblical
texts that are quoted as authorities. For “nonbiblical” authorities, VanderKam
includes Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and the Temple Scroll (see The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 153–57;
and idem, “Authoritative Literature,” 396–402). Note also “Authoritative Literature,”
386–88, which adds the pesharim and 4QMMT. Further discussion can be found in
VanderKam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 172–80, esp. 177–80 and
tables 7.3–7.5. See further there (170–71) and VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature,”
388 and n13 for discussion of the important passage at 4QMMT C 9–11.
183. Note, e.g., the attention paid to the various ways citations are introduced in
VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature,” 391–94. Cf. on this point, Elledge,
“Appendix: A Graphic Index,” 367–77. Esp. notable are the occurrence of such formulae
in non-commentary texts such as, e.g., 4Q159 (4QOrd a ), CD, 4QD,
4QTohorot (4Q274-279, 281–283), and so forth, as well as formulae that introduce
citations from unidentified sources (e.g., CD 4.15; 9.8–9; 16.10; 4Q228 frag. 1 1.9).
184. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 153 is aware of such possibilities when
he writes: “If other criteria were used, one would perhaps have to add more books to