Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Constructing Memory through Rewritten Scripture at Qumran

Tue, December 18, 8:30 to 10:00am, Seaport Hotel & World Trade Center, Cityview 2 Ballroom

Abstract

Although it is generally argued that there did not exist a “canon” of scripture at Qumran, it is often simultaneously argued that there did exist a core set of texts that the inhabitants of Qumran (and Second Temple Judaism more generally) accepted as “authoritative” in some sense. Thus, when approaching the texts collectively referred to as rewritten scripture (or rewritten scriptural texts) scholarly discussion has tended to treat them as “exegetical” and have focused on what they can tell us about how authors interpreted their respective scriptural VORLAGEN. But, unlike the later exegetical Midrash of classical rabbinic Judaism, and unlike even the peshers from Qumran, the rewritten scriptural texts maintain a posture toward their VORLAGEN that does not express an explicit self-awareness of their interpretive activity. Thus, the question may be raised, what were their authors trying to accomplish? Were they trying to replace their VORLAGEN? Or were they trying to build upon their VORLAGEN? Or were they trying to accomplish something else entirely? Thinking about these questions requires a different set of analytical tools than are typically used of the rewritten scriptural texts.

This paper will attempt to frame rewritten scripture from the perspective of social memory studies. While memory studies have experienced a significant “boom” throughout the humanities and social sciences since the 1970’s, comparatively little work has been done within biblical and Qumran studies generally, and rewritten scripture specifically, as George Brooke has recently noted (MEMORY, CULTURAL MEMORY AND REWRITING SCRIPTURE, 2014). While memory studies are by no means a panacea to the many difficulties present when trying to answer some of these fundamental questions, I am optimistic that approaching rewritten scripture from the perspective of social memory may be able to stimulate discussion beyond the “exegetical” qualities of rewritten scripture to address questions of identity formation and the role that scriptural texts play in preserving and modifying a group’s collective memory (such discussions have already been fruitful within the adjacent fields of Hebrew Bible [esp. the work of Ehud ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman] and New Testament [esp. Historical Jesus studies]).

Author