Dead Sea Scrolls Controversy in San Diego

« Christian fundamentalism and the Dead Sea Scrolls in San Diego | Main

November 22, 2007

Did Christian agenda lead to biased Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego?

"The truth is, I wouldn't classify these as Jewish texts...."

Curator of Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, San Diego Natural History Museum, speaking on June 2, 2007

Please note: this is a revised version of an article that originally appeared on October 2, 2007, on the NowPublic site.

Was it appropriate for a scientific institution to allow a group of Christian academics to impose their agenda on an exhibit of ancient documents taking place under its auspices? Given what happened with the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit currently taking place at the San Diego Natural History Museum, this question confronts those of us who are concerned with issues of science, religion and ethics in American society.

Take a look at the program of the "Dead Sea Scrolls Institute" at Trinity Western University (which, as its name and website description indicate, is a Christian establishment). The program states: "We believe that Evangelical Christian scholars should play a significant role in the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls." Well, the Institute's co-director, Martin Abegg, did indeed play a "significant role" in creating the exhibit of the scrolls that took place last year at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, even to the point of acting as Governor Christine Gregoire's "personal guide" on her tour of the exhibit; and there can be little doubt that he was involved in the creation of the current San Diego exhibit too -- as indicated, for example, in his role as a "featured commentator" on the exhibit's audio tour.

It is thus not surprising to learn that, in an interview of June 2, 2007, the curator of the San Diego exhibit, Dr. Risa Levitt Kohn, stated:

"The truth is, I wouldn't classify these as Jewish texts... Because I would say Judaism, the way we tend to think about it, even early Judaism, is not yet fully crystallized in this period...."

While flowing naturally from the views of Abegg and a number of other individuals whose names are listed below, Kohn's statement was, unfortunately, tendentious; and it was particularly inappropriate coming from the curator of a supposedly scientific Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. After all, the scrolls are mostly Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts dating from a time when the civilization commonly known as "intertestamental Judaism" flourished in Palestine. What is more, an important group of historians and archaeologists have argued, both from the actual contents of the texts and from the results of the excavations of the past decade, that the scrolls are specifically the remains of Jewish libraries in Jerusalem, removed to multiple locations in the desert for safekeeping shortly before or during the Roman siege and sacking of the city in 70 A.D.

The evidence supporting this Jewish view (treated, let us recall, as one of the two salient theories of scroll origins in the Cambridge History of Judaism) is concealed in the San Diego exhibit, which favors the so-called "Qumran-Essene" theory according to which the scrolls were written, not by multiple groups of Jews living in a major urban center, but by a radical sect (or "community") imagined, without any supporting archaeological proof, to have been living in a military fortress and commercial entrepot in the desert. What is more, all of the Jerusalem theory's proponents have been excluded from participating in the lecture series accompanying the exhibit. Thus, none of the proponents of the Jewish view will have the opportunity to publicly challenge Dr. Kohn's assertion concerning the non-Jewish character of the scrolls.

We must note, moreover, that in the same interview, Dr. Kohn asserted that she studied the scrolls only in a "tangential" way, thereby contradicting her earlier written statement of January 9, 2007, to the effect that she is a "Dead Sea Scrolls scholar."

Bearing these assertions of Dr. Kohn's in mind, let us now turn to the religious background, training and affiliations of the five key individuals who -- in addition, of course, to the above-cited Martin Abegg -- are known to have been involved in the creation of the San Diego exhibit (for full details and links, see my article on Christian fundamentalism and the Dead Sea Scrolls in San Diego, archived here directly below):

David Noel Freedman: Presbyterian minister since 1944, biblical scholar and member of the original team that monopolized the Dead Sea Scrolls for many years; Risa Levitt Kohn's professor at UCSD; co-author, with Pam Fox Kuhlken, of a popular book on the scrolls whose publication was timed to coincide with the exhibit (I will have a word to say about this book below).

Weston Fields: Th.D. from "Grace Theological Seminary," Ph.D. in biblical studies from Hebrew University; affiliated with Christian fundamentalist "University of the Holy Land" network; connected with Freedman and other members of the old monopoly team, through the "Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation" of which he is the director; sells Dead Sea Scrolls ties.

Russell Fuller: professor in the Theology department at the University of San Diego, which (despite its name) is a "Roman Catholic institution" with a declared religious mission. His recent lecture at the museum was sponsored by "Point Loma Nazarene University," which aims to become a "nationally prominent Christian university."

William Schniedewind: B.A. and M.A. from two Christian educational institutions ("George Fox University" and "Jerusalem University College," which was the predecessor of the "Institute of Holy Land Studies"); Ph.D. from Brandeis; biblical scholar at UCLA; described in one news item as a "practicing Christian with a deep appreciation of Judaism"; until recently listed as adjunct professor and member of board of advisors on personnel page of the "University of the Holy Land"; apparently no longer affiliated with that institution.

Robert Cargill: Schniedewind's graduate student at UCLA, holds both a Master of Science in Christian Ministry and a Master of Divinity degree from Pepperdine University (a Christian educational institution affiliated with the Churches of Christ). An article that appeared on a Jewish website two weeks before the San Diego exhibit opened, and for which he was interviewed, states merely that while at Pepperdine he majored in "biblical studies" -- a very interesting way of describing those two degrees -- and quotes him as stating that he "realized that to understand Christianity I had to first understand Judaism."

These five individuals have, both separately and in tandem, (1) taught Risa Levitt Kohn at UCSD and recommended her as curator to the museum; (2) arranged for the scrolls to come to San Diego; (3) served as consultant(s) to the museum's exhibit; (4) defended the old Qumran-Essene theory of Dead Sea Scroll origins in a variety of articles that ignore the major archaeological research developments of the past decade and feature titles like "Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage"; and (5) created a misleading "virtual reality" film that carefully distorts current research on Qumran and is being shown at the exhibit. They have also (6) snitched the title of a book by one of the excluded scholars for a lecture at the museum attacking the excluded scholars' views; and (7) used the exhibit to promote their own books; engaged in sensationalist media campaigns designed to promote their own ideas as well as the exhibit; and remained utterly silent in face of criticism.

With respect to the above-mentioned popular book by David Noel Freedman and Pam Fox Kuhlken: timed, as I said, to coincide with the San Diego exhibit, and entitled What Are the Dead Sea Scrolls and Why Do They Matter?, it presents the Qumran-Essene theory in the manner of a dogma, without even informing readers of the existence of historical and archaeological research to the contrary. One passage, narrated in an earnest tone, suggests that the "secrecy" of the famous scrolls monopoly was wrong -- but keeps it a secret from readers that Freedman himself was part of the monopoly. I am no expert, of course, on the ethical standards applicable to Presbyterian ministers, but shouldn't the ordinary standards of common human decency lead us to have slightly higher expectations from someone who received a Ph.D. and who, in fact, presents himself to the public as a serious scholar? Then again, I seem to recall that telling the truth never earned anyone a fortune.

In the case of Mr. Cargill, it must be emphasized that his work on the misleading "virtual reality" film being shown at the museum was inappropriately funded with $100,000 that the museum obtained from Stephen Spielberg's Holocaust fund. Why was a project of such importance entrusted to a graduate student with a ministerial degree from an institution affiliated with the Churches of Christ, rather than the group of seasoned Israeli archaeologists who, in 2006, published their detailed account of ten years spent re-examining Qumran? Is it because their on-site work led them to conclude that Qumran was a military fortress and commercial entrepot, that no sect ever lived there, and that the scrolls came from Jerusalem?

Was it fair to deny the San Diego public the opportunity to hear from those archaeologists, and instead expose 450,000 people to the speculative reasonings of a young man who hasn't even completed a doctoral dissertation? Was Stephen Spielberg fully aware of the manner in which the exhibitors intended to use his money? Did he know the information would eventually come out that the film's author, in providing a list of "reasons" to mention a particular Israeli scholar in connection with the "theory" that Qumran was a fortress, would implicitly attribute the creation of that "theory" to the wrong scholar in a manner that is arguably defamatory; would indicate that mentioning the name "will shield us from criticism"; and would assert in writing: "There's a third reason, but I never write it down"? Are we to conclude that the museum suggested to the film's author that he not keep a written record of certain reasons? A fine comment on academic ethics and museum exhibits today!

Mention should also be made of the elaborate network of evangelical "Bible blogs" that have in essence advertised the San Diego exhibit free of charge. Take, for example, the case of Jim West (Th.D. from Andersonville Theological Seminary in Georgia; currently a pastor in Petros, Tennessee). West has gone to considerable lengths to promote the above-mentioned "virtual reality" film, even using images from it (including the imaginary reconstruction of a "scriptorium" at Qumran which archaeologists now believe never existed) for his blog header.

Interestingly, West has also risen to the defense of Nadia Abu el-Haj, the Palestinian "sociologist" who is about to receive tenure from Columbia University despite (or indeed because of) her fashionably post-modernist claims to the effect that the abundant material evidence of a Jewish kingdom in ancient Palestine has been largely manufactured by Israeli archaeologists for political purposes. West (who has made his own "anti-Zionist" views clear in numerous postings) condemns Abu el-Haj's detractors on the basis that they have not attempted to "engage" with her. Yet he has had not a word to say about the San Diego museum's refusal to "engage" the prominent scholars who have rejected the theory of scroll origins defended in the current exhibit. Which is worse, various individuals failing to "engage" with Abu el-Haj on internet blogs, or a scientific institution violating the principle of free debate by excluding an entire group of major researchers from a six-million-dollar exhibit?

In addition to the individuals specifically responsible for creating and promoting the exhibit, we may add others who, in one way or another, appear to have been involved in other recent exhibits and/or in various sensationalist attempts to defend the traditional Qumran-Essene theory against the objections raised by the archaeologists of the past decade:

James Tabor ("Lost Tomb of Jesus" and "Essene toilet" claims; professor in religion department in Charlotte, N.C.; former Worldwide Church of God member; listed as "resource" on [i.e., apologist for] "new religions" by Church of Scientology)

Joe Zias (M.A. from Wayne State University; no Ph.D., but presents himself as "anthropologist"; Tabor's collaborator on "Essene toilet" claim; affiliated with "Jerusalem Institute for Biblical Exploration," a Christian fundamentalist outfit based in Tennessee; gives lectures on topics that include "crucifixion and the Dead Sea Scrolls" and "the monasteries of the Judean Desert and their role in preventing and containing infectious disease during the Early Christian period")

Randall Price (World of Bible Ministries; adamant defender of Qumran-Essene theory)

Finally, with respect to David Noel Freedman, we must also mention some of his principal associates, past and present:

Father Roland de Vaux (Dominican priest, now deceased; chief promoter of Qumran-Essene theory, member of original monopoly team)

Frank Cross (Bachelor of Divinity from McCormick Theological Seminary, professor at Harvard Divinity School, member of original monopoly team; "co-wrote" Freedman's Ph.D. dissertation)

Pam Fox Kuhlken (co-author with Freedman of the popular book on the scrolls mentioned above; ministerial degree from Bethel Seminary, founder of an on-line Christian "college")

This, of course, is only a partial list (among many others, one could add, e.g., the Dominicans of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem (one of whom will soon be lecturing at the San Diego museum), or people like Stephen Pfann, David Bivin and Todd Bolen of the "Holy Land" network; for details, see my "Christian Fundamentalism" article and the additional comments appended to it).

All of these people appear to share a conviction (whether it is based on scientific or religious grounds is subject to debate) that the "beliefs, literature and men of the Essene community" were a "vital part of the fabric of Jesus' world." In addition, given the programs of the institutions with which they are affiliated, it appears likely that at least some of them believe that on account of "disobedience ... Israel was temporarily set aside ... but will again be awakened through repentance to enter into the land of blessing." Such "repentance," of course, is Christian evangelical lingo for conversion of the Jews to Christianity. (See, again, the additional comments appended to my "Christian Fundamentalism" article for details).

At the same time, as indicated above, the evidence supporting the views of a group of important Jewish and Israeli historians and archaeologists who disagree with Freedman and his Christian colleagues has been belittled and excluded, the only explanation offered being that "you don't want to confuse people with so many competing theories." The excluded scholars, who include University of Chicago historian Norman Golb along with Rachel Elior of the Hebrew University, Yitzhak Magen, Yuval Peleg, Yizhar Hirschfeld and others, believe that no Essenes lived at Qumran, that the Scrolls came from the Jewish capital and, as Golb phrased it in a Forward editorial, that the "complex history of the Palestinian Jews on the eve of the First Revolt is being pushed aside in favor of a bizarre, Christologically colored thesis."

Incidentally, Golb's review of the museum's catalogue, as well as his review of the "virtual reality" film funded by Spielberg and prepared by UCLA grad student Robert Cargill, expose an entire host of erroneous and mendacious statements in the museum's presentation and essentially place an enormous question mark over any remaining claim to scientific legitimacy that this exhibit may have had. As of this date (November 22) the museum has as yet to offer any explanation of the exposed facts.

Returning to Risa Levitt Kohn, the curator of the exhibit [and author of the above-mentioned catalogue], one must bear in mind that she only recently completed her Ph.D., could well have difficult career choices to make and is probably (I'm happy to be corrected by her or others if I'm wrong) following orders or advice dished out by her mentor Dr. Freedman and the others. How could it be otherwise, given that she only has a "tangential" knowledge of the topic? One can certainly empathize with her on account of the difficulty she is in, but I don't see how that can excuse her conduct, which has contributed to a situation in which the two theories of scroll origins oddly continue to subsist side by side, in parallel universes, without any of the direct public exchanges that alone would allow people to judge for themselves whose arguments are more convincing.

I believe these facts speak for themselves. While there is certainly no easy answer to the question of why any of this "matters," what is now known surely gives rise to an appearance of impropriety. In sum, we appear to be dealing, at the very least, with an exhibition tainted by intellectual antisemitism, with an obscurantist, seemingly irrational fear of debate, and with biased conduct that is abhorrent to our basic social sentiments and to the principle of freedom of inquiry which lies at the core of our system of values.

What is more, the view being defended in the exhibit may well distort the true picture of the historical relationship between Judaism of the intertestamental period and early Christianity -- a topic that is of immense significance to many people. And the exhibitors were clearly worried that the possibility of such distortion might become known. Why else would they be afraid to invite the opponents of the view in question to explain their objections to the San Diego public?

So much for the exhibit itself. As was to be expected, a small number of rational, humanistically minded people have signaled my pieces in a favorable way, especially in England (I am truly grateful to the author of the View from Number 80 blog); but several individuals, apparently associated in one way or another with the exhibit or with the theory defended in it, have attacked me here and there, both privately and publicly, accusing me of "playing the religion card," of being a "bigot," and (as it was put by Freedman's co-author Pam Fox Kuhlken in her dramatic intervention in the comments to my "Christian Fundamentalism" article) of establishing "guilt by association." (These accusations are repeated by the individual who has posted a series of lengthy attempts to defend the museum, replete with ad hominem attacks against me, in the comments below.) 

Well, who are the bigots here? If a shopowner keeps saying "we're closed" when atheists, agnostics, or people of one religion or another show up, does a concerned observer "play the religion card" if he complains about this? Did I condemn the San Diego team members because of their affiliations, or did I not rather condemn their conduct? Did I ever say that proponents of the old Qumran-Essene theory should be silenced in a six-million-dollar museum exhibit? Did I blame David Noel Freedman for being a Presbyterian minister, or did I blame him rather for playing along with -- and profiting from -- an exhibition that stifles debate, excludes a group of major Jewish scholars, and misleads the public by presenting a fabricated Qumran-Essene "consensus" that no longer exists?

The San Diego exhibit, it must be said, is only the latest of a series of similarly vulgar and biased displays, all of them in "science" museums of one sort or another. It thus appears that the same unscientific pattern of conduct that we have seen here has been going on for at least several years in other venues. Yet, for a variety of reasons -- ranging, one can only presume, from general distaste to fear for one's career -- everyone has always delicately passed the matter over in silence.

As for me, I am glad to have set forth the basic facts for anyone to see, and will continue to hope that serious-minded people will think about the situation and draw whichever conclusions are the right ones.

| By Charles Gadda | 12:28 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://sandiegoblogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/125

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Christian agenda lead to biased Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego?:

Comments

Posted by: Gary Martin at December 9, 2007 02:55 PM

Posted by: Charles Gadda at December 11, 2007 01:40 PM

Email "Did Christian agenda lead to biased Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego?" to a friend!

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):