4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by StephenGoranson »

For a detailed presentation of this and other Bible mss see:

Langlois, Michael. “Dead Sea Scrolls Palaeography and the Samaritan Pentateuch.” Pages
255–85 in The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Michael
Langlois. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 94. Leuven: Peeters, 2019

https://michaellanglois.org/medias/lang ... ateuch.pdf
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: 4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by StephenGoranson »

One of the most frequent previous criticisms of Dead Sea Scrolls palaeographic study date ranges has been that they gave too small, too short year-date ranges.
This academically argued and published detailed proposal, linked above, for a Deuteronomy text copy, using further additional, now-available comparative data--including other Qumran and non-Qumran texts--is for a period of two-hundred years.
Fifth or fourth century bce.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3122
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by DCHindley »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:51 pm One of the most frequent previous criticisms of Dead Sea Scrolls palaeographic study date ranges has been that they gave too small, too short year-date ranges.
This academically argued and published detailed proposal, linked above, for a Deuteronomy text copy, using further additional, now-available comparative data--including other Qumran and non-Qumran texts--is for a period of two-hundred years.
Fifth or fourth century bce.
If I understand Langlois here, by pointing out several characteristic of the orthography, he repeatedly says that the scribe behind such a document "would be at home" in the fifth or 4th century, etc.

While this obviously alludes to other research (his own or of others) that connect the orthographic details to certain datable sources, I am not a specialist in such things so the specific books/papers being alluded to don't really stand out to me.

From the footnotes and such it seems that these datable letter forms, rare as they are, are from a mixture of inscriptions & writing.

Not sure how specific that can be, but ...

DCH
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: 4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by StephenGoranson »

Hi David,
Perhaps I should have mentioned that, according to the comparisons there, a Qumran ms copy fragment of Genesis is almost as old.
One very minor quibble, "orthography" could indeed reasonably refer to writing systems such as letter form, ductus, and the like, but it usually refers to spelling.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3122
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by DCHindley »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 6:20 am Hi David,
Perhaps I should have mentioned that, according to the comparisons there, a Qumran ms copy fragment of Genesis is almost as old.
One very minor quibble, "orthography" could indeed reasonably refer to writing systems such as letter form, ductus, and the like, but it usually refers to spelling.
You are correct. For some reason, I am conflating the way letters are written with the spelling of specific words.

Thanks for the correction.

DCH
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: 4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by StephenGoranson »

If the reasoning by M. Langlois for his date ranges for 4QGenesis (4Q46) and/or 4QDeuteronomy (4Q12) is valid, then the c. 273-272 bce Torah-composition proposal--not mentioned in that article--would be falsified.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2121
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: 4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

The conditional IF. Have samples of either of these been to the C14 lab? Any plans for this?
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: 4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by StephenGoranson »

Reportedly, 30 additional c14 tests were performed. I do not know if these were included.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: 4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:04 am If the reasoning by M. Langlois for his date ranges for 4QGenesis (4Q46) and/or 4QDeuteronomy (4Q12) is valid, then the c. 273-272 bce Torah-composition proposal--not mentioned in that article--would be falsified.
Inaccurate as always. You are not a reliable witness to sources in plain English, even when it’s your source.

The ductus of 4Q46 (4QpaleoDeutˢ) has slowly evolved from Iron Age scripts and shares some (though not all) of the features attested on Hebrew seals from the later half of the Achaemenid period. 4Q46 would thus be at home in the fifth or fourth centuries BCE; an earlier date is not impossible but lacks clear parallels, whereas a date in the third century is possible but unnecessary. Several letters of the alphabet are not attested, however; this absence prevents a more specific dating. I should emphasize that typological development is not linear and indeed appears to be very slow in the Palaeo-Hebrew script of the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. McLean dates this scroll to the “second half of the third century” BCE; although this date is possible, no comparative material allows for such a precision, and the manuscript may well have been copied earlier. (Langlois 2019: 270.)

Note that 4Q46 is dated by the DJD editors to the third century BCE.

4Q12 (4QpaleoGenᵐ) shows little development from 4Q46… and would also be at home in the fifth or fourth centuries BCE, perhaps in the third century should the development of the script be slow. McLean dates 4Q12 to the “middle of the second century” BCE; such a late date is unnecessary. (Langlois 2019: 271.)

Even though Langlois would prefer to date the palaeography of these two texts to the 5th or 4th centuries BCE—on the basis of evidence he admits is tenuous, given the lack of inscriptional data—he thus acknowledges that the 3rd century is also possible. 4Q12, maybe even 2nd century. So, a big nothing burger.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: 4Q46(4QpaleoDeuteronomy-s ), a 5th or 4th century BCE copy?

Post by StephenGoranson »

Smithsonian Magazine HISTORY | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2023:

How an Unorthodox Scholar Uses Technology to Expose Biblical Forgeries
Deciphering ancient texts with modern tools, Michael Langlois challenges what we know about the Dead Sea Scrolls
by Chanan Tigay

"....Experts date the [Dead Sea] scrolls between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D. (though Langlois believes several may be two centuries older)...."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180981290/
Post Reply