28.06.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

the introductory surveys of <strong>Jewish</strong> history, including the history of the Jews<br />

in antiquity.<br />

Rivkin’s role in the story of the scrolls and HUC-JIR might easily be<br />

overlooked. While Sandmel repeatedly challenged their significance in print<br />

over many years, Rivkin dismissed them for various reasons and purposefully<br />

ignored them in his publications. In and of itself, that he chose not to study<br />

the scrolls did not have a major impact in scholarly circles. However, among his<br />

rabbinic students it had particular force. A recent informal survey by the author<br />

of HUC-JIR alumni on two Internet list-servs, “HUCalum” and “RavKav,”<br />

suggests that some pulpit rabbis continue to maintain that the scrolls are medieval<br />

documents as Rivkin taught them. A 1991 rabbinic thesis written under Rivkin’s<br />

supervision concludes: “Concerning Zeitlin’s dating of the Scrolls as medieval,<br />

I suspect that he may be correct...[<strong>The</strong>] Scrolls are, as Rivkin contends, opaque<br />

and atypical—hence not utilizable as a source for any period.” 214<br />

<strong>The</strong> scrolls piqued Rivkin’s interest from the beginning, and his correspondence<br />

with his mentor Harry Orlinsky 215 shows that he discussed the matters<br />

primarily with Solomon Zeitlin and Orlinsky himself, but also with John Trever<br />

and William Albright. Rivkin committed to a late date for the scrolls from early<br />

on. Zeitlin’s attacks on Trever and the others involved in bringing news of the<br />

scrolls to the <strong>American</strong> public left a clear impression. Following Trever’s 1949<br />

visit to HUC (described above), Rivkin wrote to Orlinsky:<br />

Last night Dr. Trevor [sic] of the scrolls spoke to the faculty and students.<br />

His account of how the scrolls came into his hands certainly sounds fishy<br />

to me. He indicated that the original story was a fabrication and the events<br />

that had actually occurred were far different and far more complex than I<br />

had originally believed. Also his mention of the profound interest displayed<br />

by the Syrian monks in financial returns as well as the subsequent rifling of<br />

the cave and the destruction of the jars makes me more than ever suspicious<br />

of the whole business. 216<br />

Could the manuscripts have been lying in the library of the convent for a<br />

long time and the Bedouin story invented to make the finds more palatable?<br />

For the life of me I cannot see how even the Isaiah scrolls can be dated positively<br />

on the basis of our present knowledge of the Second Commonwealth<br />

paleography. Zeitlin’s evidence on the Commentary and on the Sectarian<br />

documents seems to me very well founded and noone [sic] has answered him<br />

yet. <strong>The</strong>y merely refute his position by referring to the Isaiah scrolls and they<br />

ignore his other evidence. 217<br />

Zeitlin continued to correspond with Orlinsky about these matters through<br />

the late 1950s, often calling on “Zeitlin’s evidence” to support his view of the<br />

scrolls. 218 Orlinsky, although sympathetic to Zeitlin’s arguments, warned Rivkin<br />

about accepting Zeitlin’s evidence too quickly: “I agree in general with you<br />

32 • <strong>American</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> <strong>Archives</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!