Reading for History in the Damascus Document

Abstract

Scholars tend to view the Damascus Document as a historical source, but a reading of the text in light of contemporary (audience-oriented) literary criticism finds its emphasis in the ideological construction of history and communal identity, rather than in the preservation of a historical record. An introduction to contemporary literary criticism is followed by a series of thematic readings, focusing on historical narrative, priestly imagery, and gender in the covenant community. Each theme is examined in terms of its potential for multiple (sometimes contradictory) interpretations and for its place in the larger sectarian discourse. This study offers an alternative approach to the historiography of ancient Jewish sectarianism, acknowledging the presence of competing claims to shared traditions and the potential for changes in textual interpretation over time or among diverse communities. Readership Those interested are academic libraries, institutes, researchers, students. For more information see brill.com

Is Ancient Jewish Studies (Still) Postmodern (Yet)?

“…Campbell (1995) brings intertextuality and audience-oriented criticism into his reading of quotation, citation, and paraphrase of Scripture in the sermonic sections of the Damascus Document. His work is influential on Grossman (2002), who uses Campbell’s intertextual readings as the basis for a more thoroughgoing ‘methodological study’ of constructions of sectarian history and identity in the Damascus Document. The latter volume opens with a lengthy discussion of critical theory, with emphasis on intertextuality and reader response (pp.…”

“…Grossman (2004) follows up on her study of the Damascus Document in an article specifically focused on treatments of gender in this text. Again, appeals to multiple, distinct reading strategies allow for an examination of the boundaries on discourse within the Damascus covenant group, in light of their potential for outright misogyny, a more neutral androcentrism, or a (much-less-likely) potential for egalitarianism in their treatment of women, gender, and sexuality.…”

“…We have noted already the presence of academic conversations around textual ‘authority’ and sectarian ‘identity’; similar conversations have addressed problems related to ‘doing history’ in light of the textual evidence of the scrolls. Davies 2010 picks up on some of the questions initially raised in Grossman 2002; the discussion continues in Collins 2011 and Davies 2011, which offer additional food for thought on what distinguishes ‘minimalist’ from ‘postmodern’ historiography. Thus, while Collins ultimately concedes that ‘the historical information that can be gleaned from the scrolls is quite limited’, nevertheless, he finds, ‘the little information that can be gleaned is very important for understanding the context of the scrolls’ (Collins 2011: 315).…”

“…Thus, while Collins ultimately concedes that ‘the historical information that can be gleaned from the scrolls is quite limited’, nevertheless, he finds, ‘the little information that can be gleaned is very important for understanding the context of the scrolls’ (Collins 2011: 315). Davies distances himself from this conception, instead quoting Grossman (2002) to argue that a sectarian scroll like the Damascus Document ‘tells us more about what the covenant community thought of itself, or could potentially understand itself to be, than it tells us, in any objective way, about “what really happened” in the history of this community’ (Davies 2011: 337-38; quoting Grossman 2002: 209).…”

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

“…For the difficulties in determining the provenance of the Barkhi Nafshi, see, e.g.,Pajunen 2012, 355-376. 23 For an introduction to the Cairo (CD) and Cave 4 manuscripts (4Q266-273) of the Damascus Document and the composite character of the literary work, see, for example, Hempel 2000.24 For methodological difficulties in using the CD for any attempts to reconstruct a history of the Qumran movement, see, e.g.,Grossman, 2002; Fraade 2018, 412-428. …”