the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

BRENT A. STRAWN 151
b. Excerpted Manuscripts and “Authoritative Literature” at Qumran
The question of what constitutes authoritative (or “biblical” or “canonical”)
literature 178 at Qumran is a hotly debated one but has been treated
in a number of useful writings, especially in a series of individual and
joint studies by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 179 These scholars,
and others, have delineated various criteria by which authoritative
texts might be identified. Included are the following:
• Explicit statements or terms indicating the scriptural status of a composition;
• Associating a book or writing with prophecy;
• Compositions attributed to great forerunners, God, or an angel (cf., e.g.,
11QT, 1 Enoch, Jubilees);
• Compositions with Davidic superscriptions (e.g., Pss 151A–B);
• Books with a large quantity of preserved manuscripts;
• Translation of a composition into Greek or Aramaic;
• Books on which commentaries or pesharim are composed;
• Compositions that are quoted or alluded to as authorities; and
• Works that later works are dependent upon, either explicitly or implicitly. 180
178. The issue of nomenclature is an important but vexed one. It cannot be resolved
here, though the excerpted manuscripts add further to the complexity. For now, I
point out Peter W. Flint’s appositional equation (“Noncanonical Writings in the Dead
Sea Scrolls: Apocrypha, Other Previously Known Writings, Pseudepigrapha,” in The
Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation [ed. P. W. Flint; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001], 116)—“especially authoritative, that is, as Scripture”—as a possible
but not definitive and perhaps problematic construction. Cf., similarly, VanderKam,
The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 153: “other compositions among the scrolls may also have
been considered revealed and therefore authoritative” (emphasis mine). Elsewhere,
VanderKam defines authoritative collection as “a group of works whose authority is
accepted by a community,” especially “ones whose witness…[was] regarded as decisive
in settling questions or proving points” (“Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” DSD 5 [1998]: 384; emphasis his).
179. See Flint, “Noncanonical Writings,” 80–126; idem “‘Apocrypha,’ Other
Previously-Known Writings, and ‘Pseudepigrapha’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The
Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P.W. Flint, J.C.
VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden, Brill, 1998–1999), 2:24–66;
VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 150–56; idem, “Authoritative Literature,”
382–402. Note also VanderKam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 172–80.
180. This list largely follows VanderKam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, 172–77 with some phraseology from Flint, “Noncanonical Writings,” 116–21.
Other important studies include Ulrich, “From Literature to Scripture,” 3–25;
Devorah Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to