Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition

The search for the original text of the Hebrew Bible has gone out of fashion in light of the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems timely, therefore, to refrain from insisting on establishing the final, authoritative Endtext of the Rule. Why does it surprise us that the Rule texts witness a considerable degree of plurality, while we have come to acknowledge a remarkable degree of flexibility and plurality with reference to the emerging scriptures?
Given that the notion of a Bible is anachronistic for this period, it may well be that Jewish attitudes to texts were rather relaxed and laid back in the late Second Temple period – surprising and unexpected as this may seem to us. This clearly also applies to cherished and authoritative texts. No text could have been more revered and cherished than the emerging Bible in a movement such as the one behind the Qumran library whose members were steeped in the scriptures. The scriptures gave them the terms of reference for their literary outputs and inspired their identity and self-understanding. The lack of a canon of scriptures and a Rule canon is equally surprising and comparable. The ancient manuscripts found in the vicinity of Qumran testify to an unexpected degree of literary and textual complexity and plurality, and it seems to me that the issues faced by scholars of the Rule texts can be fruitfully and constructively related to the challenges faced by experts on the canon and the text of the Hebrew Bible. The fluidity of these ancient texts appears to cross the boundaries created by customary categories such as biblical and non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls.