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

400 THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE MEAL FORMULA
romance commonly called Joseph and Aseneth. 11 We shall first consider
the claims of a direct connection—claims that exhibit symptoms of the
Qumran fever described above. Then we shall offer a new proposal on
how the scrolls, used responsibly in conjunction with other ancient Jewish
sources, elucidate one difficult aspect of Joseph and Aseneth once the Qumran
fever has subsided and is replaced by a more circumspect method. 12
11. In this study Joseph and Aseneth is assumed to be a Jewish work dating between
the early first century B.C.E. and the early second century C.E. The Greek text
employed is that reconstructed by C. Burchard and published, among other places,
in Christoph Burchard, “Ein vorläufiger griechischer Text von Joseph und Aseneth,”
Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph und Aseneth: Berichtigt und ergänzt Herausgegeben mit
Unterstützung von Carsten Burfeind (ed. C. Burchard; SVTP 13; Leiden: Brill, 1996),
161–209; and now, at long last, in an editio critica maior: Christoph Burchard, assisted
by Carsten Burfeind and Uta B. Fink, Joseph und Aseneth kritisch herausgegeben (PVTG
5; Leiden: Brill, 2003). On the priority of this version over the short recension edited
by Marc Philonenko (Joseph et Aséneth: Introduction, text critique, traduction et notes [StPB
13; Leiden: Brill, 1968]), see Christoph Burchard, “Zum Text von ‘Joseph und
Aseneth,’” JSJ 1 (1970): 3–34; and more recently idem, “The Text of Joseph and
Aseneth Reconsidered,” JSP, in press. My assumptions here represent what were
consensus views until quite recently (see the chapter on “The Present State of
Research” in my From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth [JSPSup16;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995], 65–93), but there are now dissenting opinions.
Recent arguments for the priority of the short version (Angela Standhartinger,
Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag anhand von “Joseph und
Aseneth” [AGAJU 26; Leiden: Brill, 1995]; and Ross S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met
Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered [New
York: Oxford University Press, 1998]) show that the text-critical issue is more complex
than is sometimes supposed and that scholars have erred in pursuing the elusive
“original” to the neglect of the various redactors and settings evidenced by the various
text forms; but they do not, in my judgment, overturn Burchard’s strong case for
the priority of the longer text. I also remain convinced of the Jewish (i.e., non-
Christian) character of the work, pace Kraemer’s recent contention that it is at least as
likely to be Christian as Jewish. See on this John J. Collins, “Joseph and Aseneth:
Jewish or Christian?” JSP, in press. The present study both assumes the Jewish character
of the work and makes a modest contribution in support of this view.
12. The group that inhabited Khirbet Qumran and left behind the so-called Dead
Sea Scrolls is here assumed to have been Essene or at least very closely akin to the
Essenes known to us from Philo, Pliny, and Josephus. Although the Essene character
of the sect and the scrolls can no longer be affirmed in the unqualified and unreflective
way that it once was, a cautious form of the Essene theory still seems to me far
superior to alternative views. Of course, the Qumran sect must not be supposed to
have been coextensive with, or even typical of, Essenism. We must allow for both
local variation and considerable change over time. For purposes of this study, it is not
necessary to decide whether works of disputed sectarian character, such as the Temple
Scroll, were composed at Qumran or only used there.