How old is the oldest Dead Sea Scroll and how do we know?

[neilgodfrey]

I did a search on the topics listed here and failed to find a thread that addresses the question of the most current evidence for the earliest dating of any of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you know I have missed something then do please let me know.

I'm not interested in posts about "expected findings" but in pointers to discussions of work that has actually been done and tested.


(self-hating Jews, anti-intellectuals, autodidacts who refuse to read scholarly works, and porn-addicts -- do note, Stephan Huller, that I am not mentioning any names -- need not reply)

[mlinssen]

I did a search on the topics listed here and failed to find a thread that addresses the question of the most current evidence for the earliest dating of any of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you know I have missed something then do please let me know.

I'm not interested in posts about "expected findings" but in pointers to discussions of work that has actually been done and tested.


(self-hating Jews, anti-intellectuals, autodidacts who refuse to read scholarly works, and porn-addicts -- do note, Stephan Huller, that I am not mentioning any names -- need not reply)

Love your signature!

[Russell Gmirkin]

I did a search on the topics listed here and failed to find a thread that addresses the question of the most current evidence for the earliest dating of any of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you know I have missed something then do please let me know.

I'm not interested in posts about "expected findings" but in pointers to discussions of work that has actually been done and tested.

Mladen Popović and Maruf Dhali of the University of Groningen have a well-funded project that combines radiocarbon dating and AI-assisted paleography to refine current dates for the Dead Sea Scrolls and their associated scripts. I forget the name of their project offhand. They haven't published their results but have discussed some of their research in conferences, including some lectures available online. At present a handful of the earliest biblical texts are dated to ca. 250-200 BCE.

A lot of current dates are based on Frank Moore Cross's flawed paleography of Second Temple Scripts in which at least two of three of his chronological pegs were incorrect (mostly affecting the later classification of scripts). Popović's early results seem to be correcting this, but his research has not yet been peer reviewed and published. I would say the only firm dates currently are based on radiocarbon, and these of course are presented as 1 and 2-sigma date ranges.

[StephenGoranson]

The project name is "The Hands that Wrote the Bible."
Their sometimes earlier date ranges, compared to those of FM Cross, are not, iiuc, limited to later mss.
Michael Langlois dates, by palaeography, some Qumran mss copies earlier than, say, the 270s date for Torah-writing that RE Gmirkin has asserted by conjecture.

[ABuddhist]

Michael Langlois dates, by palaeography, some Qumran mss copies earlier than, say, the 270s date for Torah-writing that RE Gmirkin has asserted by conjecture.

Sources? And how reputable is Michael Langlois in this conclusion?

[StephenGoranson]

The list search function will lead to a source.
Langlois was one of the first to observe that some post-2002-sold Scroll fragments were fake.

[ABuddhist]

The list search function will lead to a source.
Langlois was one of the first to observe that some post-2002-sold Scroll fragments were fake.

1. Search function may lead to a source which you do not trust. So why not provide the source outright.

2. The ability to detect forgeries is not the same as credibility as a scholar. David Irving was one of the first scholars to note that Hitler's Diaries were forgeries, but he is only regarded as a credible historian by holocaust deniers.

[Russell Gmirkin]

Michael Langlois dates, by palaeography, some Qumran mss copies earlier than, say, the 270s date for Torah-writing that RE Gmirkin has asserted by conjecture.

Sources? And how reputable is Michael Langlois in this conclusion?

Stephen, as is his habit, misrepresents matters.

Michael Langlois is a highly respected scholar (whom I have corresponded with and had occasion to cite on the Canaanite origin of angelic names in 1 Enoch). Contrary to what Stephen stated above, Michael Langois's discussion of 4Q46 allows a date as late as the third century BCE, as is the current conventional view. This was all thoroughly discussed and laid to rest in another thread.

viewtopic.php?p=148739#p148739

"Yes, Michael Langlois prefers a 5th or 4th century BCE date, but does not exclude a 3rd century BCE date. His article indicates that the palaeography of Palaeo-Hebrew script from the 5th to 3rd centuries is very similar according to all available evidence, as notably indicated by his frequent references to "slow" palaeographic developments in this period and his inclusion of a third century BCE for even the earliest texts under consideration such as 4Q46. He doesn't point to any palaeographic feature that positively indicates a 5th or 4th century as opposed to third century BCE date."

P.S. The Cambridge Academic Content dictionary defines conjecture as "an opinion or judgment that is not based on proof; a guess." Stephen's description of my carefully reasoned conclusion, based on hundreds of pages of research with thousands of ancient and modern citations across three books (of which he only read the first) as "conjecture" shows his inability to recognize or follow an argument.

[ABuddhist]

Michael Langlois dates, by palaeography, some Qumran mss copies earlier than, say, the 270s date for Torah-writing that RE Gmirkin has asserted by conjecture.

Sources? And how reputable is Michael Langlois in this conclusion?

Stephen, as is his habit, misrepresents matters.

Michael Langlois is a highly respected scholar (whom I have corresponded with and had occasion to site on the Canaanite origin of angelic names in 1 Enoch). Contrary to what Stephen stated above, Michael Langois's discussion of 4Q46 allows a date as late as the third century BCE, as is the current conventional view. This was all thoroughly discussed and laid to rest in another thread.

viewtopic.php?p=148739#p148739

"Yes, Michael Langlois prefers a 5th or 4th century BCE date, but does not exclude a 3rd century BCE date. His article indicates that the palaeography of Palaeo-Hebrew script from the 5th to 3rd centuries is very similar according to all available evidence, as notably indicated by his frequent references to "slow" palaeographic developments in this period and his inclusion of a third century BCE for even the earliest texts under consideration such as 4Q46. He doesn't point to any palaeographic feature that positively indicates a 5th or 4th century as opposed to third century BCE date."

P.S. The Cambridge Academic Content dictionary defines conjecture as "an opinion or judgment that is not based on proof; a guess." Stephen's description of my carefully reasoned conclusion, based on hundreds of pages of research with thousands of ancient and modern citations across three books (of which he only read the first) as "conjecture" shows his inability to recognize or follow an argument.

Many thanks for your well-cited answers.

[neilgodfrey]

Michael Langlois dates, by palaeography, some Qumran mss copies earlier than, say, the 270s date for Torah-writing that RE Gmirkin has asserted by conjecture.

Stephen G, presumably you are referring to the chapter by Langlois that you linked to here:

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

-- the chapter that without qualification you declared to point to a fifth or fourth century period for a Deuteronomy text:

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.

But --- and this happens every time I have followed up a citation of yours -- the original article does not flatly declare a fifth or fourth century date. Here is the relevant section copied and pasted from page 270 of the article you linked to, Langlois' own words:

4Q46 (4QpaleoDeut^s)

The ductus of 4Q46 (4QpaleoDeut^s) 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.

If I may move away from palaeography for a minute, I am pleased to note that this scroll happens to witness one of the oldest text-types of Deuteronomy according to Ziemer. My analysis was based on palaeographical features only, without prior knowledge of the textual character of this scroll, but the fact that its early date fits Ziemer’s stemma is telling.

We thus find that Langlois is honest enough to admit other possibilities and scholarly conclusions alongside his own. You could learn to do something similar, SG.

He is also clear when he is expressing his opinion as distinct from established fact. Example: that a date in "the third century is possible but unnecessary" is clearly a reference to both fact (what is possible) and opinion (unnecessary).

Langlois also expected his discussion to be read in the context of a list of qualifiers and conditions that he set out at its beginning. -- that he is basing his conclusion on very limited evidence that unfortunately does not include all the letters he wants and thus makes a 100% complete comparison impossible. We can further note in his discussion of the 4Q46 he emphasizes:

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.

That fact reinforces the likelihood that McLean (who dates it to the second half of the third century) would reply that he in turn thinks Langlois preference for the earlier date is "unnecessary". However, McLean will presumably have to admit that precision to a particular 50 year range cannot be guaranteed with any confidence.

I think if we add comparative textual analysis into the equation, though, then the likelihood of a date in the Hellenistic era makes is less speculative than Langlois suggests -- though it is as he admits quite possible.

In other words, the fact not in question is that the date range scholars assign to this fragment are anywhere between the fifth and late third century BCE. Langlois clearly prefers the earlier date -- as we especially note from the last sentence of his that I quoted -- but he also acknowledges that later dates are possible.

When you simply declare only one part of Langlois argument and suppress the rest by omission you are not coming across as completely intellectually honest. Nor is it intellectually honest to claim that an argument based on detailed comparative literary analysis is mere "conjecture".