Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls: a Question of Access

Home , Biblical archaeology, Emanuel Tov, Hershel Shanks, John Strugnell, Martin Abegg, Norman Golb

690 American Archivist / Vol. 56 / Fall 1993 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021

Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Question of Access

SARA S. HODSON

Abstract: The announcement by the Huntington Library in September 1991 of its decision to open for unrestricted research its photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls touched off a battle of wills between the library and the official team of scrolls editors, as well as a blitz of media publicity. The action was based on a commitment to the principle of intellectual freedom, but it must also be considered in light of the ethics of donor agreements and of access restrictions. The author relates the story of the events leading to the Huntington's move and its aftermath, and she analyzes the issues involved.

About the author: Sara S. Hodson is curator of literary manuscripts at the Huntington Library. Her articles have appeared in Rare Books & Manuscripts Librarianship, Dictionary of Literary Biography Yearbook, and the Huntington Library Quarterly. This article is revised from a paper delivered before the Manuscripts Repositories Section meeting of the 1992 Society of American Archivists conference in Montreal. The author wishes to thank William A. Moffett for his encour- agement and his thoughtful and invaluable review of this article in its several revisions. Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls 691

ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1991, THE HUNTINGTON scrolls for historical scholarship lies in their LIBRARY set off a media bomb of cata- status as sources contemporary with the time clysmic proportions when it announced that they illuminate. Very little direct evidence it would make available for unrestricted had previously been available about the pe- scholarly research its complete set of pho- riod before 70 A.D., the year the Romans Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 tographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The re- destroyed Jerusalem and its temple. Prior sulting shock waves brought forth unholy to the discovery of the scrolls, the earliest wars of words from Biblical scholars and post-70 document of rabbinic Judaism dated inspired flights of journalistic hyperbole from to about 200 A.D. The paucity of pre-70 editorial writers the world over. Onto the texts means that the Dead Sea Scrolls, writ- public stage burst the saga not only of the ten between about 250 B.C. and 68 A.D., scrolls themselves but also of the more ar- potentially present to modern scholars a cane world encompassing the practices of unique and crucial opportunity to shed some scholarly editing. Why did this seemingly light on the emergence of rabbinic Judaism simple act by the Huntington arouse such from the complex varieties of pre-70 Ju- a tumultuous storm of controversy? And daism. what lessons can the Dead Sea squabble Far less familiar than the tale of the hold for all of us in the library, archives, scrolls' discovery, at least until the autumn and scholarly communities concerning the of 1991, is the history of the scrolls in the issues of access and intellectual freedom years since their discovery. During the 1950s and the ethics of restrictions? the Jordanian government granted a group of scholars exclusive publishing rights to the scrolls. In the ensuing forty years only The History of the Scrolls a portion of the scrolls have been published. The exact number depends on who The story of the initial discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls strikes a reasonably familiar chord for most people, in general terms if not in detail. In 1947 a Bedouin of the scrolls, as well as analyses and descriptions of shepherd discovered the first seven scrolls, several key documents and of the scrolls' relationship to the Bible, Christianity, and Judaism. Another ex- along with fragments of other scrolls, in a cellent source is Shanks's "Publisher's Foreword" cave near Qumran on the northwest shore (pp. xii-xxii) to Robert H. Eisenman and James M. of the Dead Sea. These texts, together with Robinson's A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, scrolls found in ten other caves between 1991); in it Shanks recounts the events surrounding 1952 and 1956, numbered more than eight the opening of the scrolls and prints facsimiles of some hundred manuscripts containing Biblical and twenty-two letters and articles central to those events. Other books and articles include those by Geza other texts that deal with the period more Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: than two thousand years ago from which Penguin, 1987), an excellent historical account and emerged both Christianity and modern (or translation of the scrolls intended for the nonscholar, 1 revised from the 1962 edition; "New Life for the rabbinic) Judaism. The importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls," Times Literary Supplement, 20 December 1991, 5-6; and "Brother James's Heirs?" Times Literary Supplement, 4 December 1992, 6-7. And see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Dead Sea 'Hershel Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study (At- Scrolls (New York: Random House, 1992), xv-xvi. lanta: Scholars Press, 1990), a bibliography of most Shanks's volume is one of the best sources on the benefit to scholars; it includes editions and transla- scrolls for the nonscholar. It contains articles written tions of the scrolls and works on specific scrolls, as by leading scrolls authorities, drawn from the Biblical well as on such special topics as the paleography and Archaeology Review and Bible Review. He provides archaeology of the scrolls. See also the additional works a very helpful overview, followed by sections con- mentioned elsewhere in the text and notes of this ar- taining essays on the discovery, origins, and freeing ticle. 692 American Archivist / Fall 1993

is doing the telling, but it appears that 20 set of photographs of the original scrolls. percent or more of the texts had not yet Of the two sets of negatives he created, been published by fall 1991. In the 1967 one—containing unrestricted, previously war, Israel captured the scrolls along with published material—was earmarked for the the territory where they were housed, and Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Center at the Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 research on the scrolls was overseen there- Claremont School of Theology, where Be- after by the Israeli Antiquities Authority. chtel served as president of the board. A Although the Antiquities Authority even- second and complete set of negatives was tually expanded the editorial team to in- to be placed in secure storage. However, clude as many as forty scholars, their study during this time period, a disagreement be- of the texts continued to be on a basis of tween Bechtel and the Ancient Biblical exclusivity; other scholars' requests to see Manuscripts Center forced her from the the scrolls were denied. And the team of board, and she ultimately negotiated an editors was unwilling to allow publication agreement to place the master set of neg- of the original texts until their own "au- atives in the Huntington Library in a spe- thoritative" treatment appeared. cially built vault. In accordance with the agreement, the master negatives became the property of the Huntington, where they re- The Huntington Copies mained ensconced in peaceful, unused an- onymity until the autumn of 1991. How the Huntington Library, interna- tionally known for its rare collections of English and American history and litera- The 1991 Controversy ture, came to hold a complete set of neg- Both the disposition of scroll photo- atives of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a story in graphs and the existence of the group of itself. Elizabeth Hay Bechtel, a California editors holding exclusive publication rights philanthropist, had long held a keen inter- had been little known outside the circles of est in the scrolls and their significance as Biblical scholarship or, indeed, by staff not only one of the most important arche- members of the Huntington. But several ological finds of this century but also the events that unfolded in the spring and sum- central documents underlying the Judeo- mer of 1991 brought the situation to public Christian traditions. Following the 1967 war light and set the stage for the Huntington's between Jordan and Israel, Bechtel became action. concerned with the safety of these precious The first was the spring publication of documents, which remained housed in the The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Mi- volatile Middle East. She embarked on a chael Baigent and Richard Leigh. Among program to obtain permission from the Is- other charges, they accused the official ed- raeli authorities for the scrolls to be pho- itors of delaying publication in order to cover tographed and the images to be stored in a up a conspiracy that the authors claimed secure environment. Her efforts continued was masterminded by the Vatican.2 The until permission was granted in the early appearance of conspiracy was, of course, 1980s. Bechtel hired, on a freelance basis, inevitable given the potential import of the Robert Schlosser, the Huntington's princi- pal photographer, who had been recom- mended as the best document photographer 2Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, The Dead Sea in the Los Angeles area. Under Bechtel's Scrolls Deception (London: Jonathan Cape, 1991). For a lively review of this volume, see John Ray, sponsorship and direction, Schlosser made "Re-covering the Texts," Times Literary Supplement three trips to Jerusalem and shot a complete 4599, 24 May 1991, 27. Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls 693

scrolls' contents, the restrictive behavior of the UK, with its notable record of the official editors, and their very slow openness in scholarship and debate, publication pace. this deleterious policy in the realm of The second occurrence was a July an- knowledge and opinion should be as- nouncement in the London Times of the an- sented to in the manner described in Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 ticipated opening of the Oxford Centre for your articles.4 Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, intended to be a center for international research on the Simultaneously with the emerging dis- scrolls. The center billed its photographic pute, the third event leading to the Hun- archives as perhaps the only place in the tington's decision quietly took place behind world to hold copies of all the scrolls, but the scenes. In July 1991, Eugene Ulrich, a its director, Geza Vermes, emphasized that Notre Dame University theologian and an "academic protocol" would be followed official chief editor of part of the scrolls and access to the material would be only project, wrote to the Huntington Library "by permission of its designated editor."3 requesting that the entire collection of neg- The announcement of the new center atives be turned over to the Ancient Bibl- prompted the next event in the sequence ical Manuscripts Center in Claremont and leading up to the Huntington's action. Nor- demanding that "the library retain no fur- 5 man Golb, professor of Jewish history at ther copies." the University of Chicago, responded to the With the backdrop of public discussion opening of the Oxford Centre in a letter to that played out over the summer, and with the London Times in which he argued el- the receipt of Ulrich's letter, the need for oquently for the principle of intellectual a decision confronted William A. Moffett, freedom: who, after becoming the Huntington's director barely a year before, had been as- This marks a surprising departure tonished to learn of the presence of the scroll from standard academic practice in negatives at the library. Moffett was fully Britain, where scholars have tradi- aware of the London Times stories and let- tionally enjoyed free and liberal ac- ters and the muddy history of the owner- cess to ancient manuscripts for ship of the original scrolls, and he recognized research purposes. Such access alone the central question to be the principle of guarantees the open interplay of ideas intellectual freedom. As the Dead Sea Scrolls and prevents a monopoly on them by situation grew increasingly urgent through- any one group of researchers. . . . out the summer, Moffett knew what the Well over three decades have gone Huntington's action would have to be. He by since the original hand-picked ed- broached the matter to Robert A. Skoth- itors first agreed to take on their task; eim, the Huntington's president, and to those who did not make good on the Robert Erburu, the president of the board agreement are now assigning texts to of trustees. With their full support, and in their own selected students; and keeping with the Huntington's policy of open meanwhile in many countries highly access, which rejects the notion of exclu- competent scholars both young and sive rights for any scholars, on 22 Septem- old cannot as much as see them. It is ber 1991 Moffett announced his decision particularly unfortunate that here in

4Norman Golb, letter to the editor, London Times, 10 July 1991. 'George Hill, "Unwrapping the Scrolls," London 'Letter from Eugene Ulrich to the Huntington Li- Times, 24 June 1991. brary, 23 Jury 1991. 694 American Archivist / Fall 1993

in newspaper editions nationwide. The these documents were not given title scrolls would be opened for research. Be- to them, although they act as if they neath banner headlines appeared stories like own them. In fact, several of them the one on the front page of the New York have died and bequeathed their Times, which began, "In a move expected "publication rights" to faithful col- Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 to shatter the wall of secrecy surrounding leagues. ... I believe that under in- much research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, a ternational law these editors are major library in California has disclosed that trustees, fiduciaries. The real bene- it has a virtually complete set of photo- ficiaries of this trust are all people graphs of the rare documents from Biblical whose heritage is illuminated by these time and has decided to make them avail- precious texts—not an elite group of able immediately and without restriction to scholars or even a single country, 6 all researchers." culture or religion.7 The timing of the autumn announcement was determined by one final factor in the The Biblical Archaeology Society's move summer's scrolls flurry. On 5 September, set the stage for the Huntington's media two scholars, Ben-Zion Wacholder and bomb. Martin Abegg, both at Hebrew Union Col- lege in Cincinnati, released a volume entitled A Preliminary Edition of the Debate About the Huntington's Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls. Published Decision by the Biblical Archaeology Society, this bootleg edition was prepared by a computer In discussing the Huntington's action with collation of a secret concordance that had journalists over the next days and weeks, been made decades before for the official Moffett confirmed that the scrolls cartel's team of scrolls editors in Israel and given obstructing access for more than four dec- to Wacholder only for his scholarly use. ades, coupled with its demand that the Not unexpectedly, this publication was de- Huntington's negatives be surrendered, had nounced by a former chief editor of the led to the decision to open and publicize scrolls team, John Strugnell of Harvard Di- the photographs. It was clear that a snarl vinity School, who called it stealing and of obsolete agreements was harming even asserted that about 20 percent of the edition the scholars who were members of the car- is wrong. In response to such criticism, tel. As Moffett wrote in a letter to Eugene however, Hershel Shanks, president of the Ulrich, one of the official scrolls editors, Biblical Archaeology Society, roundly de- "We could not help being aware of the bad fended the edition, declaring that "we are press you and other scholars have been get- taking only what is rightfully ours." In a ting as a result of agreements made many piece for the op-ed pages of the New York years ago. Because I know you have been Times, Shanks echoed Norman Golb's let- among those calling for greater openness ter to the London Times with its call for in Scrolls research, I am predisposed to free access to the scrolls: thinking of you and your colleagues at the Center as 'victims' of those agreements as well as beneficiaries."8 His chief argu- The men who were entrusted with

'Hershel Shanks, "Scholars, Scrolls, Secrets and 6John Noble Wilford, "Monopoly Over Dead Sea 'Crimes,' " New York Times, 7 September 1991, p. Scrolls Is Ended," New York Times, 22 September 123. 1991, p. Al. "Letter from William A. Moffett, 16 September 1991. Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls 695

ment, as he told the Washington Post, was authority [the Huntington] came by the the principle of freedom of access to infor- copies they have."14 Amir Drori, director mation,9 and, as he told a New York Times of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, said the reporter, "when you free the scrolls, you Huntington's decision was "both a breach free the scholars."10 of contract and of ethics" and hinted at Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Moffett placed pressure directly on the possible legal action.15 (Jordan also briefly scrolls cartel, saying "We are calling on jumped into the controversy by claiming the Israeli Department of Antiquities to join ownership of the scrolls, and the deputy with us in the spirit of intellectual freedom director of the Jordanian antiquities de- and not to impose further barriers to schol- partment said, "No museum in the world arship."11 Predictably, the scrolls cartel, has the right to put them on show without individually and collectively, cried foul. our authorization."16) John Strugnell, the former chief editor, de- Although Moffett felt himself to be on clared, "I don't know if it's a case of pir- firm legal and ethical ground in opening acy, unscholarly behavior, theft, or what, the scrolls for research, library officials knew but it's certainly contrary to the agree- that a war of wills was at hand and that it ment" in which Israel allowed the scrolls would be won over the airwaves and in to be photographed.12 The current chief ed- editorials and front-page headlines. Moffett itor, Emanuel Tov, said that "for all intents revealed the strategy in an interview sev- and purposes, the Huntington Library has eral months later, saying that he knew the illegal copies. . . . It's all quite shocking. action might have been stopped by a legal ... We don't need prodding like this to injunction, and that the Huntington there- speed up our work. We are ourselves en- fore had elected to take its case to the court couraging our scholars to speed up their of public opinion, where Moffett knew he work and we are reassigning work that has could win. He joked that it was the "Jeri- been with certain scholars too long."13 cho plan." We would drop such a large A major factor in the cartel's objections media bomb "that the [proprietary] wall centered around the question of whether the surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls would be Huntington had the legal right to open the knocked down permanently."17 And a bomb scrolls or even the right to hold a set of it was—one whose detonation in turn set negatives. James A. Sanders of Clare- off round after round of mortar and small mont's Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Cen- arms fire from regiments of journalists and ter, which had signed a contract with the media mavens. Indeed, the media response cartel of editors not to make their set of was overwhelming, as scores of film crews scrolls photos available, was quoted as as- flocked to the Huntington for "exclusive" serting that "it's not at all clear by what interviews. The resulting media circus not only served to support the library's action but also pro- 'Michael Specter, "Library to Release Dead Sea Scrolls," Washington Post, 22 September 1991, p. Al. '""Library Opens Collection," New York Times, "Chandler, "Library Lifts the Veil," p. A31. 23 September 1991, p. A8. 15Ashley Dunn, "Israel Warns Library, Hints at "Russell Chandler, "Copies of Scrolls Will Be Made Suit Over Scrolls," Los Angeles Times, 23 September Available to Libraries," Los Angeles Times, 24 Sep- 1991, p. Al. tember 1991, p. A3. 16"Jordan Claims Scrolls," London Times, 2 Oc- I2"Calif. Library Will Release Dead Sea Scroll tober 1991, p. 10. Photos," Boston Globe, 22 September 1991, p. 9. 17Quoted in "The Huntington Library's Bold Act- "Russell Chandler, "Library Lifts the Veil from Opening the Dead Sea Scrolls," in California Institute Dead Sea Scrolls," Los Angeles Times, 22 September of Technology, On Campus 8 (June 1992): 3; sub- 1991: p. A30. sequently corrected by Moffett. 696 American Archivist / Fall 1993

vided its share of amusing moments. One Scrolls." The promised secrets were rather local news anchor arrived, plainly confused predictable—AIDS and its cure, the end of about why she was at the Huntington Li- the world, proof of reincarnation—save for brary; when she had leaped into the news this stunning revelation: "One of the frag- van, she confessed, she thought she was ments found in the caves spells out the name Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 going to Huntington Beach to report on dead Elvis. ... It says he will be a beloved sea snails! For the library staff, the general prophet who will retire to the Holy Land public's feelings of kinship for the scrolls when his mission in other countries is fin- was a revelation. People jammed the phone ished, and his prophesies will be fabled in lines with requests to read the scrolls, even song and story. It's common knowledge that though they could not read Hebrew. Many Elvis had a deep-seated religious belief and people tried to leap that hurdle by asking a love of gospel music."19 for a copy, preferably in the King James Apart from such journalistic sideshows, version. And inevitably, there were the however, the scrolls controversy received people who came forward with papers they full and serious coverage in numerous nar- had found in their attics, wondering if they, rative accounts and editorials. As the Hun- too, might have Dead Sea Scrolls. tington had hoped, the cause of intellectual The breadth of media coverage proved freedom was ringingly endorsed by such astonishing, ranging from the nation's most luminaries as Edwin M. Yoder, who as- prestigious publications to local papers that serted that the scrolls are part of the com- either picked up the story from the wire mon property of mankind and who supported services or produced their own stories, each openness as a central ethic of all scholar- with a unique spin. The San Diego Union, ship,20 and William Safire, who wrote of for example, opted for the latter approach, "the winds of freedom that must one day producing a rather imaginative journalistic rock the cradle of civilization."21 The effort that begins "You'd have thought the widespread media support was generating Second Coming was under way. The staid, increased public and scholarly approbation scholarly environs of the Huntington Li- of the Huntington's action and disapproval brary . . . had taken on the surreal ambi- of the Israeli Antiquities Authority's threat ance of a Fellini flick. A disheveled of legal action and of its efforts to sway evangelist prowled the quiet hallways, scholars around the world to its cause. muttering lines from Genesis and waving a Additional pressure was brought to bear tattered Bible. Throngs of tourists stood on the Antiquities Authority by Robert Ei- outside in a courtyard in anticipation. A senman, head of religious studies at Cali- parade of camera crews and newsmen fornia State University, Long Beach, and tramped in and out, effectively extinguish- the first scholar to use the scrolls photos at ing the museum's rarefied air of quaint the Huntington. Eisenman joined with Nor- gentility."18 However, the staff knew the man Golb and other scholars in writing to Huntington had made it to the big time when the Israeli minister of education urging Is- the scrolls appeared on the front pages of rael to open the scrolls to all scholars. A the tabloids. The Sun's headlines trum- response from the minister of science agreed peted, "Revealed: World's Most Amazing that every scholar should be granted free Predictions. Secrets of the Dead Sea

"The Sun, 5 November 1991, pp. 6-7. ^Edwin M. Yoder, "Dead Sea Scrolls Rebellion 18Frank Green, "Dead Set: The Scrolls Spark Rush Inevitable," Tulsa Worid, 26 September 1991, p. A15. to Library," San Diego Union, 1 October 1991, pp. "William Safire, "Breaking the Cartel," New York Dl, 3. Times, 26 September 1991, p. A27. Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls 697

access to examine the scrolls and asserted Antiquities Authority would take the proper that he would do his best to urge the An- steps.24 A subsequent hearing by a Knesset tiquities Authority not to interfere.22 subcommittee led to official criticism of the The open and vocal support, from both Antiquities Authority's position.25 the scholarly and the public communities, By late November 1991, a further an- Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 of the Huntington's release of the scrolls nouncement served to exert additional pres- placed so much pressure on the Antiquities sure on the Antiquities Authority: Robert Authority that it quickly retreated from its Eisenman and James M. Robinson, of the former position on restricted access. By 26 Claremont Graduate School, revealed plans September 1991, just four days after the of the Biblical Archaeology Society to pub- Huntington's initial announcement, the lish two volumes containing 1,750 photo- Antiquities Authority seemed to reverse its graphic plates of the scrolls. Within a few stance altogether, announcing that it agreed days, the Israeli Antiquities Authority an- "in principle" to an open-access policy. In nounced that it had dropped its last restric- October, the Ancient Biblical Manuscripts tion: It lifted the ban on publishing full scroll Center in Claremont announced that it too texts. Thus, with the help of the public me- would open access to its scrolls photo- dia, the combined efforts of the Huntington graphs. However, the case was not con- and scholars who had been denied access cluded yet, for in late October, the to the scrolls for forty years had prevailed Antiquities Authority clarified its previous over the restrictions of the official scrolls announcement, stipulating that the liberal- editors. ized access rules did not include permission to use the photos to publish a complete text. In other words, scholars outside the cartel Lessons Implied and Learned of official editors would be allowed only brief quotations but not full publication of The Huntington Library carried its po- the scroll texts. The Huntington responded sition forward under the banner of intellec- with the declaration that scholars "will not tual freedom, but other issues also impinged tolerate" anything less than "the unequi- on this case. The Huntington's action must vocal, fundamental principle of intellectual also be considered in light of the frequently freedom," adding "I expect the [antiqui- linked issues of access, restrictions, and the ties] team will have to make further conces- ethics of the donor relationship. The first sions."23 News reports also revealed that question a collecting institution asks is whether a donor holds clear title to the ma- Library Director Moffett had written to Is- 26 raeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to urge terial being transferred. As is evident in the government to press the Antiquities Au- the foregoing account, the question of own- thority to open access. He had received a ership of the scrolls was clouded by polit- ical turbulence in the Middle East and by personal letter from Shamir saying that Is- rael did not want to block intellectual freedom and that they would ensure that the 24Annette Kondo, "Moffett Says Israeli Move Didn't Come as Surprise," Pasadena Star News, 28 October 1991, p. A2. "Abraham Rabinovich, "MKs Consider Making ^Russell Chandler, "Professor First in Line for Scroll Scrolls Available to All Researchers," Jerusalem Post Copies," Los Angeles Times, 26 September 1991, p. International Edition, 26 October 1991, p. 6. A36. 2STrudy Huskamp Peterson, "The Gift and the ^William A. Moffett, quoted in Daniel Williams Deed," in A Modern Archives Reader, edited by and Russell Chandler, "Israelis Grant Wider Access Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch (Washing- to Dead Sea Scrolls," Los Angeles Times, 28 October ton, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1991, p. A13. 1984), 139. 698 American Archivist / Fall 1993

the existence both of the original scrolls the Huntington consider? The library could and of more than one set of photographs in not simply avoid the conflict by surrender- more than one pair of hands. Current own- ing its set of photographs to the editors, for ership of the originals resides in the state it was required by its agreement with Be- of Israel, which acquired them from Jordan chtel to keep the photographs. The library Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 in 1967 by an act of war, but it must be could have tucked the photos away and recalled that it was Jordan, not Israel, that agreed either to restrict them to all re- originally set up the team of editors and searchers or to make them available ac- granted them exclusive access. What own- cording to the cartel's restrictive policies. ership rights should be applied in the case However, on ethical principle, Moffett re- of 2,000-year-old documents whose own- jected both of these possibilites as being ership has changed several times and whose contrary to the Huntington's own policies. current owner obtained them as spoils of The only course and, in the view of the war? Huntington, the proper course was to fol- Jordan appointed the first chief editor low a higher ethic than the cloudy owner (Father Roland de Vaux in 1953-54), but and donor rights that applied in this case- it was an Israeli agency that confirmed the it would open the scroll photographs for second and subsequent editors (Father Pierre free, unrestricted access. Benoit in 1971, John Strugnell in 1987, However one answers the difficult ques- and Emanuel Tov in 1990) and now gov- tions outlined above, it must also be rec- erns those editors. It was the Israeli Anti- ognized that, at the time of acquisition, the quities Authority that granted Elizabeth Hay Huntington had no intention of doing any- Bechtel permission to have all the scrolls thing more than providing a safe home for photographed. It should also be pointed out a set of negatives, given the perilous and that, under the Israeli Antiquities Author- turbulent environment in which the origi- ity, efforts had been initiated to liberalize nals are housed. Only when the access re- access. On his appointment as chief editor strictions were made known to the in 1990, Emanuel Tov attempted to im- Huntington and when great pressure was prove the access policies but was unable to brought to bear on the library to surrender achieve the fundamental changes neces- the negatives, was the Huntington con- sary. As Geza Vermes has said of his ef- fronted with its ethical dilemma. Only then, forts, "This was too little too late."27 perceiving this case to be extremely unu- The question of donor rights is equally sual and probably unique in the life of a murky because it is unclear whether Be- research library, did the library elect to fol- chtel had signed a binding agreement when low the path of free access. she obtained the photographs. She exacted It is plain that in such complex situations no such agreement from the Huntington; so it is not always clear which of the some- in the narrowest sense, the library was not times-conflicting ethical principles an ar- obligated to accede to restrictions imposed chivist should follow. The Society of on the originals by the team of editors. American Archivists' Code of Ethics, Faced with the murky status of scrolls adopted in 1992, articulates the responsi- ownership, and given the pressures being bilities of an archivist with regard to mak- exerted on the institution, what actions could ing research material available while at the same time honoring demands from often- competing principles and ethics. "Archi- vists . . . encourage use of [their holdings] 27Geza Vermes, "Seeing Is Believing," Times Higher Education Supplement, 8 November 1991, p. to the greatest extent compatible with in- 19. stitutional policies, preservation of hold- Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls 699

ings, legal considerations, individual rights, ble set of restrictions applied: Freud's donor agreements, and judicious use of ar- daughter and heir Anna allowed access to chival resources. They explain pertinent re- papers in her possession only to individuals strictions to potential users, and apply them she trusted, and Kurt Eissler, a psychoan- equitably."28 This last phrase, exhorting alyst and Freud collector, similarly re- Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 archivists to apply restrictions equitably, stricted access to the papers he acquired bears the most direct influence on the Hun- and deposited at the Library of Congress. tington Library's decision to lift the restric- Eissler's protege Jeffrey Masson, who was tions on the scrolls. In the absence of clear allowed access to restricted papers, was title and rights for the original scrolls, with dismissed when he published findings that the knowledge that access was being con- Eissler considered negative to Freud's trolled not by actual owners of the scrolls memory. Meanwhile, Anna Freud denied but by a small group of self-selecting copies of correspondence to researcher Pe- scholar-editors, and with no donor-im- ter Swales, who simply asked a more re- posed restrictions on the library's copies of spected scholar to request them on his behalf. the photographs, the Huntington felt ethi- His ploy was successful, and he obtained cally bound to refuse to perpetuate ineq- his copies. The story ends in 1986, when uitable restrictions and instead to open the Harold Blum, Eissler's successor as head photographs to free access. As Moffett of the Freud Archives, announced that all summed up the situation, "Basically what Freud papers already published or in the we have is a conflict between the sanctity process of being published would be open of [dubious] agreements made by these to all scholars and that restricted materials would be opened as soon as legally and scholars years ago among themselves, and ethically possible. the higher principle of freedom of access to information in the public domain. . . . The success with which Peter Swales ob- Exclusivity of access [to information] has tained copies of correspondence in an un- no place in modern scholarship."29 authorized manner points up one of the The principle of open, nonexclusive ac- biggest problems with the imposition of se- cess has been tested by a number of cases. lective restrictions on access. When a do- Two examples may serve to elucidate and nor or other holder of the keys to the doors place in context the issues in the Dead Sea of access allows photocopies of material to Scrolls case. Those examples involve the be made for only approved, authorized re- archives of Sigmund Freud and of Carl and searchers, those copies may fall into un- Anne Braden. authorized hands. Once the person First, the case of the Sigmund Freud ar- overseeing access loses control over the chives exemplifies the problems that inev- photocopies, the continued imposition of itably arise when access is controlled in order selective restrictions becomes pointless. As to protect the memory and legacy of a fa- in the case of the Freud correspondence, mous individual.30 In this instance, a dou- the Dead Sea Scrolls photographs began to be more widely dispersed, both overseas and in the United States, resulting in their 28Society of American Archivists, Code of Ethics for Archivists (Chicago: Society of American Archi- vists, 1992). 29William A. Moffett, quoted in Russell Chandler originally published as "Annals of Scholarship: Trou- and Patt Morrison, "Controversy Shatters a Librari- ble in the Archives," New Yorker 59 (5 December an's Quiet," Los Angeles Times, 24 September 1991, 1983): 59-152, and 59 (12 December 1983): 60-119; p. A3; subsequently corrected by Moffett. and Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, The Assault on Truth: 30For accounts of the Freud case, see Janet Mal- Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory (New colm, In the Freud Archives (New York: Knopf, 1984), York: Farrar, 1984). 700 American Archivist / Fall 1993

eventual escape from the control of the exclusionary access restrictions to her pa- scrolls editors who had so zealously guarded pers. Nevertheless, he records her response the access restrictions. without critical comment: "Allowing se- The second case concerns the papers of lected scholarly researchers access to the Carl and Anne Braden housed in the State collection represented the proper balance Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Historical Society of Wisconsin.31 The pa- between the right to privacy and the equally pers had been donated with a restriction important principle of the free flow of in- allowing access only with the Bradens's formation and academic inquiry."32 permission. The Bradens were long-time Two thoughts may occur to the thought- civil rights activists and had been members ful reader. First, what is to prevent donors of the National Committee Against Re- such as Braden from selectively denying pressive Legislation (NCARL). NCARL access, not to protect privacy but to ensure sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation that only individuals sympathetic to their (FBI) in 1980, alleging that the FBI had beliefs can gain access to their papers? And undertaken an illegal investigation in order second, surely Braden's case against the to harass the group's members and deny FBI would have been strengthened had she them free speech. The FBI obtained a sub- completely restricted only those papers that poena to see papers, including restricted were private and allowed all researchers free materials, in the Braden collection. After and open access to the rest of the collection. much legal maneuvering, the two parties By allowing access only to approved re- reached a settlement in 1987 without the searchers, Braden fostered a climate that could FBI's achieving access to restricted mate- have implied exclusion of parties (like the rials, but a judge had ruled in 1986 that the FBI) of whom she did not approve. For the collection would have to be opened to the Braden case, as for the Freud case, the in- FBI. escapable conclusion is that the application The cautionary message here, one that of selective restrictions to access inevitably has been much discussed in the archives leads to inequity and misunderstanding. profession since the conclusion of the Bra- Standing in opposition to the restrictive den case, is that restrictions established by conditions imposed on the Freud and Bra- a donor in agreement with an institution den archives and employed by the cartel of may not hold up in the face of subpoenas Dead Sea Scrolls editors is the ethical prin- and judicial orders. Another issue, how- ciple of free access embraced by the library ever, can be identified in the Braden case, and archival professions. In a joint state- namely the application of selective restric- ment on access, the American Library As- tion on access to the collection. Harold L. sociation and the Society of American Miller, in writing his account of the case, Archivists state, "It is the responsibility of notes the inconsistency in Anne Braden's a library, archives, or manuscript reposi- professing a belief in the free flow of in- tory to make available original research formation while at the same time setting up materials in its possession on equal terms of access A repository should not deny access to any person or persons, nor grant 31 For accounts of the case, see Harold L. Miller, privileged or exclusive use of materials to "Will Access Restrictions Hold Up in Court? The FBI's Attempt to Use the Braden Papers at the State any person or persons, nor conceal the ex- Historical Society of Wisconsin," American Archivist 52 (Spring 1989): 180-90; and John A. Neuensch- wander, "Federal Judge Grants FBI Access to Sealed Papers," Oral History Association Newsletter 21 32Miller, "Will Access Restrictions Hold Up in (Spring 1987): 1, 6-7. Court?" 184. Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls 701

istence of any body of material from any or no justification for exclusive or selective researcher, unless required to do so by law, access. Indeed, the library has only two donor, or purchase stipulations."33 manuscript collections burdened by selec- The final quoted phrase, allowing certain tive restrictions, and both were acquired exemptions from the prohibition on privi- before 1950. One collection was originally leged or exclusive access, gives institutions restricted to all but authorized researchers Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 the option of accepting material with the for reasons of privacy and copyright en- kinds of strings that were attached to the forcement, but with the library's encour- Freud and Braden collections. Yet these agement the estate has significantly relaxed exemptions must be weighed in the bal- its administration over the years. The re- ance, not only against the practical prob- striction on the second collection arose in lems that arose with the Freud, Braden, and a dispute over ownership. The Huntington scrolls cases but also against the funda- housed, and believed itself to own, the pa- mental inequity inherent in any situation in pers beginning in the 1940s, but, lacking a which certain individuals are denied access written deed of gift, the library was pow- to research materials that are open to other erless when the donor claimed ownership individuals. Indeed, in her study of the fun- and later invoked the right of control over damental ethics and issues surrounding gifts, access. Today, as has been the case for Trudy Peterson places a stricter construc- many years, the Huntington would be ex- tion on the exemption allowed by the Joint tremely reluctant to accept a collection car- Statement on Access. "Some donors want rying any strings of donor-controlled, to be able to authorize select researchers to selective access. use restricted materials if the researchers The SAA-ALA joint statement's injunc- obtain the permission of the donor or the tion against granting privileged or exclu- donor's designee. Because this results in sive access speaks directly, albeit in different unequal access, archivists are usually re- ways, to the Freud, Braden, and Dead Sea luctant to accept such conditions unless there 34 Scrolls situations. Whereas the Freud and is no other way to obtain the materials." Braden materials were restricted to protect The addition of the phrase "unless there is privacy, access to the scrolls was con- no other way to obtain the materials" clearly trolled to ensure that only top-qualified places an additional stricture on the archi- scholars would publish the texts. Until about vist and conveys the message that, while thirty years ago, research libraries, includ- archivists may feel they have to accept se- ing the Huntington, often granted exclusive lective restrictions, they should do so very permission to one scholar to edit or publish reluctantly. In other words, it is essentially original materials; the intent was to avoid undesirable to accept conditions that grant unnecessary duplication of effort and to en- privileged or selective access. sure that only qualified people undertook At the Huntington, the manuscripts cu- editorial projects. Such a set of regulations rators feel strongly that there can be little was articulated in 1938 by the president and fellows of Harvard College and for a long time was the model for other repositories' policies. By the 1960s, however, 33"ALA-SAA Joint Statement on Access to Origi- American research libraries, including the nal Research Materials in Libraries, Archives, and Manuscript Repositories," in Archives & Manu- Huntington, began to adopt far more open scripts: Law, edited by Gary M. Peterson and Trudy access policies. The trustees of the Folger Huskamp Peterson (Chicago: Society of American Shakespeare Library, for example, passed Archivists, 1985), 98. a resolution declaring all its holdings to be •"Peterson and Peterson, Law, 143. 702 American Archivist / Fall 1993

in the public domain and freely available was spurred by the publication by the Bibl- to any scholar. Louis B. Wright, then di- ical Archaeology Society in 1991 of an ex- rector of the Folger, wrote the following in tensive set of previously unpublished 1967, in a letter to Herbert C. Schulz, then photographs.37 It appears that the Brill edi- curator of manuscripts at the Huntington: tion has not yet been published, and the Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 "We make no effort to protect anybody's scrolls editors have promised to issue the [exclusive] right to edit a document. In my remaining unpublished texts by the end of opinion that is the way it ought to be. I the decade. Meanwhile, the Huntington has have never believed that a research library made microfilm of its scroll negatives freely should undertake to police its documents. available to interested libraries through in- Any such effort leads inevitably to trouble. terlibrary loans for a renewable period of ... I advise complete freedom of ac- six months. (Along with the microfilm, re- cess."35 searchers also need the index, which is in The principle of open, nonexclusive ac- the form of twelve fascicles, available for cess is reiterated by Elena Danielson in her $10 each from the Ancient Biblical Man- thoughtful and eloquent analysis of the eth- uscripts Center.) Thus far, more than one ical issues surrounding access. She cau- hundred sets of microfilm have been sent tions that "once a value judgment [about out from the library. the merits of various scholars] is made, such The freeing of the scrolls unleashed a as mentally labelling a researcher as a hack flood of scholarly activity, with scores of and thus less deserving of potentially in- articles and books appearing, among them valuable assistance, the system is open to a 1992 volume by Robert H. Eisenman and flagrant abuse."36 Michael Wise entitled The Dead Sea Scrolls William A. Moffett's position in open- Uncovered: The First Complete Transla- ing the Dead Sea Scrolls to nonexclusive tion and Interpretation of Fifty Key Docu- research reflected Danielson's caution about ments Withheld for Over Thirty-five Years. judging the merits of scholars, and in doing The newly published editions, the com- so he upheld the principle that free and open mentaries and analyses in such publications access outweighed other considerations that as the Biblical Archaeology Review, and might apply. What has been the aftermath even the letters to the editor in the Times of the Huntington's action and the scrolls Literary Supplement, are stimulating schol- editors' capitulation? As soon as the last arly dialogue, which had been stifled for obstacle was lifted, the scrolls editors decades. That dialogue is now flourishing themselves finally began to move toward and proliferating. publication of the scrolls. The Israeli An- The Huntington's action, widely hailed tiquities Authority announced that the Dutch as a bold stroke on behalf of intellectual scholarly publisher EJ. Brill would issue freedom and in opposition to inequitable a microfiche facsimile edition of the com- restrictions, was not the simple and clearly plete scrolls in the summer or autumn of defined step portrayed in the general me- 1992, in order to satisfy "the demand from dia. Instead, it resulted from serious con- scholars for quick accessibility" of the texts. sideration of the sometimes-conflicting It should be noted that this announcement issues at play, as well as from analysis of the facts surrounding the case of the scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls affair constituted a "Quoted in William A. Moffett, "Widening Ac- cess to the Dead Sea Scrolls," College & Research Libraries News 52 (November 1991): 632. 36Elena S. Danielson, "The Ethics of Access," "Eisenman and Robinson, A Facsimile Edition of American Archivist 52 (Winter 1989): 61. the Dead Sea Scrolls. Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls 703

most unusual and probably unique series of on the photographs placed at the library, events in the life of a research library. In the Huntington followed what it believed view of the original scrolls' murky own- to be its proper course—upholding the ership history, the dubious status of the principle of free and open access by top- scrolls editors as guardians of the texts, and pling the wall of restrictions shielding the the absence of donor-imposed restrictions Dead Sea Scrolls. Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021