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

BRENT A. STRAWN 153
Functional categories are not coterminous with formal ones. A composition
may be functionally authoritative without being formally so.
Examples might include contemporary hymnbooks or prayerbooks that
coexist with, but are not the same as, the Scriptural texts of a faith community.
Attention to function also further problematizes terminology like
“canonical,” “Scriptural,” “biblical,” and the like, if and when such terms
are assessed primarily or only through formal categories. It is not that
formal categories are unhelpful or not useful. On the contrary, they are
exceedingly important and the delineation of various criteria by Flint,
VanderKam, and others is a great advance in our understanding. Even
so, the functionality that is obviously the raison d’être of compositions like
the excerpted manuscripts indicates that socio-religious aspects, not just
formal-textual ones, must be considered when assessing whether or not
a composition is “Scripture.” Of course, much hangs on nomenclature
and definitions at this point, and it may be best to restrict our terminology
to a more neutral designation like “authoritative literature.” That
phrase is more functional; perhaps even better would be “used” literature
or “useful” literature at Qumran. Literature that is used in certain ways—
liturgically, devotionally, corporately, or privately—is exercising a particular
authority over the reader, hearer, user. 185
The functional definition of authority or canonicity raised by the existence
of the excerpted manuscripts may, in turn, have something to contribute
to the debate about the various Psalms scrolls at Qumran. The
literature here is rather large but the options are mainly two. On the one
hand are scholars like Flint, Ulrich, and James A. Sanders, who have presented
evidence that more than one edition of the book of Psalms existed
at Qumran. 186 Using such data they argue, among other things, that
the list. For example, some have said that Chronicles was probably regarded as scriptural
at Qumran because the group accepted the division of the priests into twentyfour
shifts, as stipulated in 1 Chr 24.7–18.” Note also “Authoritative Literature,”
398–99, for other content data pertaining to authoritative status.
185. Again, one might profitably compare Newsom’s work on “sectarian” reception
and use of “nonsectarian” materials (“Sectually Explicit,” 167–87). Contrast Ulrich,
“The Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” 83, who argues that, “simple use does not constitute
normativeness”—at least with reference to notions of “the standard text.”
186. For Ulrich, see the essays in note 123 above. For James A. Sanders, see
“Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (11QPs a ),” HTR 59 (1966): 83–94; idem, “Cave 11
Surprises and the Question of Canon,” McCQ 21 (1968): 1–15; and idem, “The
Qumran Scroll (11QPs a ) Reviewed,” in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of
Eugene A. Nida (ed. M. Black and W. A. Smalley; The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 79–99.
Flint’s work on the subject is vast. The main work is The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the
Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997); cf. the reviews by James A. Sanders in
DSD 6 (1999): 84–89 and Brent A. Strawn in Koinonia 11.1 (Spring, 1999): 145–49.