New dating for Dead Sea Scrolls

[John T]

Trying to date the Dead Sea Scrolls has been a bone of contention among scholars. Previous C14 testing has suggested that some of the scrolls may have been written around 350 BCE. Good news! Another round of C14 dating was conducted by Hans van der Plicht using both old AMS machines and new AMS machines. Hopefully the results should be out soon, if not already.

I hear that the results using modern AMS testing will show some of the scrolls are older than originally first thought.

Again, I'm not aware if the results have been published yet, but in this video (thanks for the link Neil ) Hans van der Plicht has given a preview of some of the results regarding two Dead Sea Scrolls. 4Q201 The Book of Enoch and 4Q504 The Words of the Heavenly Lights.

https://youtu.be/Z0osmcXwggY

4Q201- estimated between 162 BCE and 2 BCE.

4Q504- estimated between 352 BCE- 287 BCE with a 45% probability. I point that out because the original editor of the document M. Baillet was ridiculed when he suggested an exaggeratedly early date, the mid-second century BCE... The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, pg 364.

If the new dates are correct that means the Tanakh is older than what some modern scholars estimated. There is even some juicy stuff in 4Q504 for my mythicist friends. 4Q504 not only talks about: 'For Thou hast named Israel 'My son, my first-born'..and that Jerusalem is the resting place for the Lord that he himself had chosen...but also for the Trinity, 'For Thou hast shed Thy Holy Spirit upon us'.

[ABuddhist]

Again, I'm not aware if the results have been published yet, but in this video (thanks for the link Neil ) Hans van der Plicht has given a preview of some of the results regarding two Dead Sea Scrolls. 4Q201 The Book of Enoch and 4Q504 The Words of the Heavenly Lights.

If they have not been published, then why should they be trusted? The publication process also weeds out false claims of various sorts.

4Q201- estimated between 162 BCE and 2 BCE.

4Q504- estimated between 352 BCE- 287 BCE with a 45% probability.

Those are wide dating ranges, the latter with poor confidence.

[John T]

The University of Groningen team includes paleographers and when combined with the C14 results they believe they can date the scrolls to within 50 years.

https://aleteia.org/2021/04/28/new-radi ... a-scrolls/

Hans van der Plicht put out a teaser at the paleography symposium of April 2021 that he has a top secret date for one of the 30 scrolls. I suspect this will create a paradigm shift in how we view when the Torah was written and how the Tanakh was compiled. Meaning, the documentary hypothesis is finally going to get that final nail in the coffin.

Theory #1 - The Documentary Hypothesis:

J- Jahwist - Solomon
E- Elohist - Northern Kingdom of Israel (lost ten tribes)
D- Deuteronomist - Reign of Josiah after fall of the 10 tribes.
P- Priestly - After the return from Babylon.

https://youtu.be/NY-l0X7yGY0

[andrewcriddle]

The University of Groningen team includes paleographers and when combined with the C14 results they believe they can date the scrolls to within 50 years.

https://aleteia.org/2021/04/28/new-radi ... a-scrolls/

Hans van der Plicht put out a teaser at the paleography symposium of April 2021 that he has a top secret date for one of the 30 scrolls. I suspect this will create a paradigm shift in how we view when the Torah was written and how the Tanakh was compiled. Meaning, the documentary hypothesis is finally going to get that final nail in the coffin.

Theory #1 - The Documentary Hypothesis:

J- Jahwist - Solomon
E- Elohist - Northern Kingdom of Israel (lost ten tribes)
D- Deuteronomist - Reign of Josiah after fall of the 10 tribes.
P- Priestly - After the return from Babylon.

https://youtu.be/NY-l0X7yGY0

It would be a problem for the documentary hypothesis if we discovered texts of the Pentateuch dating from well before 400 BCE. Dates between 300 and 400 BCE, although very exciting, would not cause problems for the standard form of the documentary hypothesis.

Andrew Criddle

[StephenGoranson]

C14 date ranges can, in some cases, disprove a hypothesis. For example, if a Qumran Torah text were dated, with high confidence, to 400-300 BCE, then a hypothesis of Torah written first in c. 273-272 would be excluded.

I posted about the forthcoming dates before at:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7341&p=114714&hilit ... ar#p114714
which I mention, partly because the link there needs to be updated to:
https://as.nyu.edu/hebrewjudaic/events/ ... dings.html

[John T]

Over the years, I have watched enough of Schiffman's videos on the Dead Sea Scrolls to know he knows not what he is talking about regarding who and why the scrolls were written other than to buy his books/viedos on his crackpot idea that the Essene's where Rabbinic Jews.

[John T]

C14 date ranges can, in some cases, disprove a hypothesis. For example, if a Qumran Torah text were dated, with high confidence, to 400-300 BCE, then a hypothesis of Torah written first in c. 273-272 would be excluded.

https://as.nyu.edu/hebrewjudaic/events/ ... dings.html

Stephen,
Thank you for the link. THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN RECENT SCHOLARSHIP: May 17-20, 2020. A wealth of information and speculation. For example: James C Vanderkamp feels Jubilees is older (2nd century BCE) than Amram 4Q543-47 but both come from a much older source. I will stick with the theory that Amram (Aramaic) is several hundred years older than Jubilees (Hebrew).

I still think C14 dates will create a paradigm shift except for those who only believe what they want to believe, i.e. Lawrence Shiffman et al. No scientific evidence will convince them otherwise.

Time will tell.

[lsayre]

1 Sigma = 68% probability range
2 Sigma = 95% probability range
3 Sigma = 99.7% probability range

[StephenGoranson]

In addition to dating various states, copies, and versions of the books of the Torah, there may be an additional, related matter of dates of other, non-Torah, books of TaNaK (Hebrew Bible)--if, for example, one posited that the Torah books were the earliest in the TaNaK. Copies and translations of books in the Prophets (N) and Writings (K) portions, in that hypothetical scenario, would be seen as later than a posited Torah-writing date.
So, for example, it may be of interest to consider dates of, say, 4Q52, a copy of Samuel, or 4Q70, a copy of Jeremiah.

And how quickly would a now-still-extant copy make its way to Qumran?

I already consider two silver amulets to give early dates, reported, as was correctly cited, in BASOR. (I used to be an assistant at ASOR.)

I am not predicting any particular C14 date range, of course. But caution of taking the Letter of Aristeas, even in part (convenient intro and ET by RJH Shutt in Charleswoth ed. OT Pseudepigrapha vol. 2) too seriously.

Maybe of interest, an abstract for the Nov SBL annual meeting:

The Palaeographic Dating of the Oldest Qumran Manuscripts in Light of Fourth and Third Century BCE Aramaic Documents, by Mladen Popovic.

Frank Moore Cross's analysis of the script of the dated papyri from Samaria found at Wadi Daliyeh prompted Cross in 1974 to slightly change his dating of some of the oldest manuscripts from Qumran, and to prefer a date of ca. 250 BCE for 4Q52 (4QSamuelb). At present, more dated and undated Aramaic material from the fourth and third centuries BCE is available for comparative analysis, notably so the Bactrian documents and Idumaean ostraca. This enables us to assess the opportunities and limitations of typological dating of Aramaic script, and to revisit the dating of the oldest manuscripts from Qumran (generally taken to be 4Q17, 4Q52, and 4Q70).

[John T]

Just a note for the future reveal.

Do not make the mistake of saying that I claimed that all of the Dead Sea Scrolls are hundreds of years older than the paleography scholars claim. Instead, what I'm saying and have always said is; some of the scrolls are significantly older than originally estimated. Although C14 testing can help narrow the date of composition (if done correctly) they cannot confirm if it was an original document or a copy of a copy of a copy. All they can do is help isolate when that specific copy was written.

I predict the biggest opponents of the C-14 results will be the Rabbinic Jews e.g. Lawrence Shiffman et al. that insist that they have always been the keepers of the faith and not interlopers trying to squash the Christian movement after the Jewish revolt.