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

was in fact a scroll used for the haftarot (supplemental scriptural readings) as
part of the Sabbath liturgy. 120 Sonne took offense that Orlinsky had cited the
conclusion in Wechsler’s name despite the fact that Orlinsky and Sonne had
discussed the latter’s April 1949 conference paper, where he made the same
argument. 121 Orlinsky replied courteously that:
I did not cite you to this effect for the simple enough reason that I do not
make it a practice to cite any one from word of mouth. Mr. Wechsler’s statement
was in print, and so I cited it. Of course this should not prevent you in
any way from claiming priority in the matter, since you read a paper to this
effect in April 1949, as you write. 122
Sonne was not particularly pleased, but he responded: “I know that this issue is
not particularly important, and is not worthy, but I thought that since we are
brothers, it is in good spirit to clarify the issue and to establish the truth of the
matter.” 123 Although it appears they remained cordial to each other, behind the
scenes they made clear that any issues between them were never quite resolved. 124
For the most part, though, Orlinsky’s dealings with Cincinnati faculty were in
matters of curriculum development and administration; it was rare for him to
have direct contact with Sonne in the years that followed.
Orlinsky in this period was an insider of the Albright circle who demanded
a hearing for Zeitlin’s questions even while he disagreed with some of his conclusions.
125 Following the appearance of Zeitlin’s second attack on the early dating
of the scrolls, Albright wrote to Orlinsky:
I wish [Zeitlin] hadn’t taken the flyer into paleography, since I had no conception
how ignorant of this field he turns out to be. This article will cook his
scholarly goose for good, in so far as discussions of this type of material are
concerned. I am sorry, since I like him personally and we have always got along
well together.… [N]othing will induce Zeitlin to change his mind. 126
At least in the early years, Orlinsky was not entirely convinced of the
paleographic and archaeological evidence for the early dating of the scrolls.
More troublesome, though, was that he was convinced of the importance of
Zeitlin’s critique, and no one in Albright’s camp was taking it seriously:
I have not yet seen as yet Zeitlin’s second article.… However, I must say this,
that it simply will not do for scholars to continue to ignore his arguments
from the contents, or to dismiss them with such adjectives as “extreme.” I
have in mind [John] Trever’s note in the latest BASOR, 127 and [Ovid] Sellers’
uncalled for reference to Zeitlin in the latest News-Letter of the Schools [of
Oriental Research]. Ernest Wright is at least honest enough to admit that he
does not control the material at all. Surely those among our mutual friends
who keep on pooh-poohing Zeitlin’s arguments and do have some control
over the rabbinic material, ought either to respond in a scholarly vein in
18 • American Jewish Archives Journal