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
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>