The American Jewish Archives Journal, Volume LXI 2009, Number 1

“A Commentary on the Book of Habakkuk: Important Discovery or Hoax?”
published in Jewish Quarterly Review. 114 The theme was the same as that presented
in his paper the following December at the conference at HUC in Cincinnati. 115
The talk laid out the position Orlinsky maintained through the mid-1950s: that
the scroll might be as old as Albright suggested, or it might stem from a later
period (though not as late as Zeitlin argued); but whatever the date, the scroll
had little value for reconstructing the biblical text as it appeared in antiquity.
Orlinsky’s conclusions, when published, made clear that the issue for him was
not the date of the scrolls but their value for understanding the relationship of
the masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible to other early versions. The text in the
St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll differs from the text of Isaiah preserved in the Hebrew
Bible as it has been received. The question, for Orlinsky and others, was whether
the St. Mark’s scroll more accurately and reliably reflected the “original” text
of Isaiah than that in contemporary Bibles. Orlinsky concluded that it did not.
Here his “ifs” are very important to note:
If the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll should turn out to be a document of the Second
Jewish Commonwealth, then its chief value will consist of the fact that it helps
to demonstrate the reliability of the masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.… If
the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll should turn out to belong to the Mishnaic period,
or later, then its value will be even less [than other known versions].…The
unreliable character of St. Mark’s [Isaiah scroll] is inductively determined.…
Under no circumstances is the Hebrew text of St. Mark’s to be given any
independent value. 116
The first conference at Yale made Orlinsky a significant player in the
debate over the scrolls. The second conference helped him secure his place, but
more significantly it was his introduction to HUC’s faculty and facilities in
Cincinnati. Even before Glueck’s inauguration as HUC president, discussions
had been underway to merge HUC and JIR, where Orlinsky was a member
of the faculty. By late 1949 the negotiations were nearing conclusion, and the
merger was completed in January 1950. 117 The SBL conference provided Orlinsky
the first opportunity to get to know his new colleagues in Cincinnati and for
them to get to know him, although it is likely that many knew him already from
interaction at academic conferences and the like. Of the conference, Orlinsky
noted in writing to Glueck, “It was the first time that I had the chance to be
at the College and to meet so many of its faculty. The grounds, buildings, etc.,
are indeed a pleasure to behold.” 118 That Orlinsky commented on the greatness
of the grounds and not his interaction with the faculty may leave his feelings
about it an open question. Certainly a relationship between Orlinsky and Sonne
was begun, but not an entirely positive one. Orlinsky published his first article
on the Isaiah Scroll in June 1950 based largely on his talk in Cincinnati. 119 In
concluding the paper, he notes Tovia Wechsler’s suggestion that the Isaiah Scroll
Optimistic, Even with the Negatives: HUC-JIR and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1948–1993 • 17