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

In 1953 Orlinsky was still suggesting to Albright that Zeitlin’s ongoing
critiques were valuable, even more valuable than those studies being published
on Albright’s editorial watch in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research. 141 By late 1953 Orlinsky was still not settled on a date of composition
for the scrolls:
As I said at last April’s meeting of the AOS, I am not aware of a single conclusive
argument in favor of a B.C. date for any of the scrolls and fragments
discussed, and neither can I point to a single conclusive argument against a
mishnaic date. Scholars have too freely insisted on a B.C. date, when they could
not prove it in any impartial court of competent judges. I myself simply cannot
decide on the basis of the evidence to date, on the date of composition. 142
Even while Albright told Orlinsky of new discoveries being studied by his
student Frank Moore Cross, which moved the date back to the first century
BCE, 143 Orlinsky remained skeptical and suggested that Cross was naïve in his
conclusions. 144 This was not the first time Orlinsky had leveled a critique of a
close Albright colleague or student. Previously he had suggested to Albright
that Trever was a dishonest scholar of little integrity and even drafted an article
trying to prove it. 145 In both cases, Albright defended his colleagues against
Orlinsky’s charge. 146 By the mid-1950s charges of this type, along with Orlinsky’s
refusal to accept Albright’s dating of the scrolls, created some tension between
them, 147 as became clear when HUC-JIR began to plan an international conference
on the scrolls in late 1955 (see below). The real issue between the men by
this period remained the dating. According to Orlinsky, he had managed to
convince Albright that the textual variants in the Isaiah Scroll were not nearly
as important as he had previously made out:
After my paper in Washington on the Isaiah Scroll, Albright admitted that
over 90% of the St. Mark’s variants were worthless, and that I ought not to
continue to try to prove what was now obvious, namely, that the text of St.
Mark’s had little value for the critic of the masoretic text of Isaiah. When I
asked him to mention the name of at least one scholar in addition to myself
who had written derogatorily of the Isaiah Scroll text since its discovery, he
was unable to reply. The fact is, of course, that everyone had written only
favorably of this newly-discovered text, and that it is only now, when they are
being confronted with my detailed word-by-word analysis of these variants,
that they are beginning to realize their utter worthlessness. I was also pleasantly
surprised when Father Skehan of Catholic University, at the request of
Albright … got up to comment on my paper, and said that he did not agree
with Albright that some 90% of the Scroll’s variants were worthless, but that
he was inclined to agree with me, that they were 100% worthless. 148
Optimistic, Even with the Negatives: HUC-JIR and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1948–1993 • 21