The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

Fogazzaro’s work, needless to say, was itself promptly placed on the Index. And the Church’s campaign against the movement it had fostered and nurtured proceeded to intensify. In July 1907, the Holy Office published a decree officially condemning Modernist attempts to question Church doctrine, papal authority and the historical veracity of biblical texts. Less than two months later, in September, Modernism was effectively declared to be a heresy and the entire movement was formally banned. The number of books on the Index suddenly and dramatically increased. A new, much more stringent censorship was instituted. Clerical commissars monitored teaching with a doctrinal rigidity unknown since the Middle Ages. At last, in 1910, a decree was issued requiring all Catholics involved in teaching or preaching to take an oath renouncing ‘all the errors of Modernism’. A number of Modernist writers were excommunicated. Students at seminaries and theological colleges were even forbidden to read newspapers.

In the 1880s, however, all of this still lay in the future. Among the young Modernist clerics of the 1880s, there was a naive credulity and optimism, a fervent conviction that methodical historical and archaeological research would confirm, rather than contradict, the literal truth of scripture. The Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Franchise de Jerusalem — which subsequently came to dominate Dead Sea Scroll scholarship — was rooted in the first generation of Modernism, before the Church realised how close it had come to subverting itself. It originated in 1882, when a French Dominican monk on pilgrimage in Jerusalem resolved to establish a Dominican house there, consisting of a church and a monastery. He chose a site on the Nablus Road, where excavations had revealed the remains of an earlier church. According to tradition, it was precisely here that St Stephen, supposedly the first Christian martyr, had been stoned to death.

Rome not only approved the idea, but embellished and expanded it. Pope Leo XIII suggested that a biblical school also be established. This school was founded in 1890 by Father Albert Lagrange and opened in 1892, with living quarters for fifteen resident students. The installation was one of a number of institutions created at the time, to equip Catholic scholars with the academic expertise necessary to defend their faith against the threat posed by developments in historical and archaeological research.

Father Lagrange had been born in 1855. After studying law, he had gained his doctorate in 1878, then entered the seminary of St Sulpice, the centre of Modernist studies at the time. In 1879, he had become a Dominican. On 6 October 1880, however, under the Third French Republic, all religious orders were banished from France. The 25-year-old Lagrange had accordingly gone to Salamanca, in Spain, where he studied Hebrew and taught Church history and philosophy. It was at Salamanca that he was ordained a priest, on St Dagobert’s Day (23 December), 1883. In 1888, he was sent to the University of Vienna to study Oriental languages. Two years later, on 10 March 1890, at the age of thirty-five, he arrived at the fledgling Dominican house of St Stephen in Jerusalem, and there, on 15 November, established a biblical school. The school was called initially the ‘Ecole Practique d’Etudes Bibliques’. Lagrange created for it its own journal, Revue biblique, which began publication in 1892 and continues today. Through this organ, as well, of course, as through the programme of studies, he sought to imbue the new institution with an attitude towards historical and archaeological research which can best be summed up in his own words. According to Father Lagrange, ‘the various stages in the religious history of mankind form a recit, a history that is directly and supernaturally guided by God to lead to the ultimate and definitive stage — the messianic age inaugurated by Jesus Christ’.¹³ The Old Testament was ‘a group of books indicating a register of the various stages of an oral tradition that God used and guided… in the preparation for the definitive New Testament era’.¹⁴ The orientation was clear enough. To the extent that Lagrange employed modern methodology at all, he would employ it to ‘prove’ what he had already, a priori, decided to be true — that is, the literal veracity of scripture. And the ‘definitive’ nature of the New Testament and the events it chronicled rendered it effectively off limits to scholarly scrutiny.

In 1890, when Lagrange established the Ecole Biblique, Modernism had not yet come under a cloud. By 1902, however, it had fallen into serious official disrepute. In that year, as we have noted, Pope Leo XIII created the Pontifical Biblical Commission, to supervise and monitor the work of Catholic scriptural scholarship. In the same year, Lagrange returned to France to lecture at Toulouse — where he was accused of being a Modernist, and met with furious opposition. By that time, the mere suggestion of historical and archaeological research was sufficient to get one stigmatised.

The Pope himself, however, recognised that Lagrange’s faith was still intact, and that his heart, so far as the Church was concerned, was in the right place. And indeed, much of Lagrange’s work comprised a systematic rebuttal of Alfred Loisy and other Modernists. Lagrange was accordingly made a member, or ‘consultant’, of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and his journal, Revue biblique, became the Commission’s official organ. This arrangement obtained until 1908, when the Commission launched a journal of its own, the Ada apostolicae sedis.

From lower down in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, accusations of Modernism continued. So demoralising were these accusations that Lagrange, in 1907, temporarily renounced his work in Old Testament studies. In 1912, he resolved to abandon biblical studies altogether and leave Jerusalem. He was duly recalled to France. But the Pope again rallied to his support, dispatched him back to his post in Jerusalem and ordered him to continue his work. The Ecole Biblique, originally created as a forum for Modernism, had now become a bulwark against it.

Among the original team of international scholars assembled by Father de Vaux in 1953 was the late Monsignor Patrick Skehan. Father Skehan was head of the Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures at the Catholic University in Washington. He was also, later, a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. And in 1955, he was director of the Albright Institute in Jerusalem. In this capacity, he was instrumental in the political manoeuvrings which established the Ecole Biblique’s dominance of Dead Sea Scroll research. In 1956, he played a key role in organising the letter to The Times that was intended to isolate and discredit John Allegro. ¹⁵

Father Skehan was among the few scholars to be entrusted with access to the scrolls themselves. His attitudes offer some indication of the orientation of the Catholic scholars associated with the Ecole Biblique. Writing in 1966, Father Skehan declared that the Old Testament was not ‘a thumbnail sketch of the history and prehistory of the human race… In the fullness of time, Our Lord came; and a proper part of the duty of every Old Testament scholar is to trace in sacred history the development of the readiness to be aware of Christ when he would come…’¹⁶ In other words, the primary responsibility of every biblical scholar is to ferret out from the Old Testament supposed anticipations of

accepted Christian doctrine. Viewed any other way, the Old Testament presumably has scant value and relevance. This is a curious definition of ‘dispassionate scholarship’. But Father Skehan was even more explicit:

it would seem that in our day it is incumbent upon biblical scholars… to indicate… as best they can the general lines of the progress by which God steadily led, as he surely did, stone age, Chalcolithic, and ancient pagan man to the capability of measuring up, in some degree, to the social fact which is the Christian Church.¹⁷

Father Skehan, of course, made no real pretence to ‘dispassionate scholarship’. In fact, he regarded it as positively dangerous — considering that ‘studies carried out from a perspective that puts literary and historico- critical considerations in the foreground can, usually in the hands of popularizers, result in oversimplification, exaggeration, or neglect of more profound matters’.¹⁸ Ultimately, the biblical scholar’s work should be guided and determined by Church doctrine and ‘be subject always to the sovereign right of Holy Mother Church to witness definitively what is in fact concordant with the teaching she has received from Christ’.¹⁹

The implications of all this are staggering. All enquiry and investigation, regardless of what it might turn up or reveal, must be subordinated and accommodated to the existing corpus of official Catholic teaching. In other words, it must be edited or adjusted or distorted until it conforms to the requisite criteria. And what if something comes to light which can’t be made thus to conform? From Father Skehan’s statements, the answer to that question would seem clear. Anything that can’t be subordinated or accommodated to existing doctrine must, of necessity, be suppressed.

Father Skehan’s position, of course, was not unique. It was effectively echoed by Pope Pius XII himself, who maintained ‘that the biblical exegete has a function and a responsibility to perform in matters of importance to the