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

were “asking the court to break Qimron’s stranglehold on one of the most
important still-unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls.” 587 Abegg and Wacholder’s legal
team included David Nimmer, a copyright specialist who also served on the
legal team defending Shanks. The previous February, Shanks had turned to
the same Philadelphia court for declaratory relief. 588 The lawsuits were certainly
intertwined, as Shanks himself later noted:
We are going to appeal. The principal reason for [this] is the courageous action
of two American scholars—Professor Ben Zion Wacholder of Hebrew Union
College–Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Professor
Martin Abegg of Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana—who
have instituted their own suit against Qimron. 589
Shanks, who was a well established and connected lawyer before turning his
attention to publishing, certainly had a role to play in both cases. Ultimately,
both Philadelphia suits were dropped. Shanks continued his appeal through
the Israeli Supreme Court. For Abegg and Wacholder, the situation had simply
changed. Because Qimron was an Israeli, the court system in Philadelphia proved
a complicated locus of legal action to fight this particular battle. 590 Further, they
became convinced that Qimron would not come after them. 591 The likelihood
is that they had only been targeted because of their relationship with Shanks
and not for their own work in reconstructing the text. Finally, Qimron’s official
publication of the text appeared in 1994 592 and their “preliminary edition” followed
soon after. 593 The case, and the story of HUC-JIR ’s participation in the
freeing of the scrolls, was put to rest.
Conclusion
From 1948 until 1993, HUC-JIR, its faculty, and its administration devoted
significant resources to studying, teaching, and preserving the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Their efforts showed various commitments, from supporting the State of Israel,
to preserving its cultural heritage and that of the Western religions, to the
importance of archaeology in the teaching of Bible and ancient Jewish history,
to fully participating in international academe. As a seminary, the College
considered the scrolls both in the context of its desire to participate in the life
of the academy but also to exploring these types of discoveries in the context of
Jewish life. As Glueck noted in his second review in The New York Times, the
ability to establish the antiquity of the biblical text had profound implications
for the beliefs of those committed to it and the ability to inspire others.
Additionally, exploring the study of the scrolls on campus provides insight
into the scholarly life of the HUC-JIR community, the debates and concerns
of its members, and its dedication to scholarly freedom. Faculty members were
committed to appearing in public forums of all sorts, to writing for the public
press, and to sharing their honest evaluation of the scrolls with the Jewish
Optimistic, Even with the Negatives: HUC-JIR and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1948–1993 • 81