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

Regarding the scrolls specifically, Glueck’s New York Times review highlighted
a number of issues: that the scrolls provide insight into the lives and
philosophies of Jewish groups in the first centuries before and during the
Common Era; that the group appears similar to the Essenes but that no conclusive
evidence allows for identifying the Qumranites with them; and that the
previous attempts to demonstrate a close relationship between the documents
and early Christianity were no more than exaggerations. The most substantial
portion of the review is Glueck’s treatment of the history of the biblical text.
In discussing the Isaiah Scroll he noted, “This and thousands of fragments of
the Old Testament were found being nine centuries earlier than the previously,
earliest known Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.… They furnish invaluable
evidence of the fidelity of the later Masoretic text.” 242
In formulating his comment in this way, Glueck managed to avoid dealing
with Orlinsky’s challenge to the importance of the particular scroll, but he was
still able to come to a satisfying conclusion. The statement makes clear Glueck’s
commitment to the antiquity of the scrolls generally. Further, Glueck was an
archaeologist who believed his findings confirmed the historicity of the biblical
narratives, as he later claimed:
As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological
discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological
findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail
historical statements in the Bible. 243
Given this mindset, Glueck must have very much appreciated that not only
could the biblical tales be confirmed but that the written source he used to
trace his way through the desert could, thanks to the scrolls, be demonstrated
to be ancient as well.
In 1958, with the appearance of Burrows’s second volume on the scrolls,
Glueck had an additional opportunity to make his views on them known.
However, in contrast to the first review, in which he dealt with the details of the
scrolls, in the second review Glueck spoke to the significance of their discovery.
Noting that some interpreters suggested that it was through his literary talents
that Wilson had been able to arouse interest in the scrolls, Glueck suggested
an alternative reading of the circumstances:
This reviewer wonders if it may not also be said that the times were propitious
for Wilson’s type of article. Could it not be that the Dead Sea Scrolls,
so amazingly exhumed from their long forgotten cave-burials and suddenly
transported over the space of some twenty centuries to the attention of the
world, were hailed unconsciously by myriads as a symbol of luminescent hope
in an age of otherwise unrelieved darkness? 244
38 • American Jewish Archives Journal