spin

Just a note on c14 dating.

A small number of scrolls have been carbon-dated. With a few exceptions the dates fundamentally point to a copying of the majority of the texts in the first century BCE. Four date after that period, all but one being questionable (1QH) on various grounds, either through indications of contamination or conflict with palaeography and one was dated so late that they retested another piece which came in with a more acceptable date, but who knows what another piece of the same text would indicate?

Scrolls were copied continually because they didn't have such a long usage life. Given that c14 datings come with a range, eg 90 - 4 BCE, what one should expect from a c14 dating of all the scrolls is the ranges of the bulk of the texts should contain the date of the texts' deposit. One doesn't expect dribs and drabs towards the late end, but the bulk. So, dribs and drabs become suspect datings, while a trailing back into the past is quite acceptable because some texts were used more than others, thus less used texts last longer.

As the main locus of the texts comes in in the first century BCE Eisenman, Thiering and all those other weirder theories attached to nascent xianity are dead in the water.

----

The above analysis is based on the notion that the scrolls were deposited on one occasion. Others have suggested that Qumran was used as a genizah -- a place where worn-out sacred texts were deposited (as in the place where the Damascus Document was found) -- but there is no evidence that such an institution existed so early and there is nothing to suggest that any of the scrolls were worn out when deposited. Others have suggested that the scrolls were in some other way deposited over time, but the state of cave 4 suggests that all those scrolls were deposited at once and, as it constitutes the majority of the collection, most c14 datings coming from it, they should be a good indication of the whole collection. Besides one needs to outline a coherent case for a scroll deposit over time rather than at once, indicating why most dates fit an early deposit date.


spin

(Cheers, Peter)

Peter Kirby

Three cheers for spin! It's good to see you posting.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

What are your sources for this information? Especially the source of the dramatic claim that Eisenmann asked for some [results of] C-14 tests, was given some, then "he asked for more". It would be very helpful.

The site I earlier linked to indicated that "The testers admitted that chemical contamination fouled up the test on the Testament of Kohath, which Eisenmann wanted retested" (he refers to Herschel Shanks, "Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates", in BAR, (Nov/Dec 1991), p. 72

There are three ways of dating the texts: using internal references, the paleography and Carbon 14. Eisenmann used internal references (whether that is arbitrary or not is for Rick to decide). AFAIK, Carbon 14 tests were carried out by University of Arizona in 1995 and placed the scrolls between third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E.. This of course is different from spin's 'example' of '90 - 4 BCE'.

The UA team provided the radiocarbon dates as follows:

• Isaiah scroll - Radiocarbon Dating 335 BCE and 122 BCE - Palaeographic dating 150 - 125 BCE
• Commentary on Psalms - Radiocarbon Dating 22 CE and 78 CE - Palaeographic dating 100 BCE to 80 BCE
• Exodus Scroll - Radiocarbon Dating 159 BCE and 16 CE - Palaeographic dating 100 BCE and 25 BCE
• Inscribed patch attached to leather scroll 98 BCE to 13 CE - Palaeographic dating 50 BCE and 50 CE
• Phases of the moon (an astrology text) Radiocarbon Dating 164 BCE and 93 BCE.
• Midrash Sepher Moshe Radiocarbon Dating 191 BCE and 90 BCE.

New Radiocarbon Age Dates for Dead Sea Scrolls Agree With Paleographic Dates

We also have a number of caves. I have some difficulty understanding how, given such a wide range of dates, spin concludes that the theories of Eisenmann and like-minded theorists are "dead in the water".

Perhaps spin could elaborate on how results of radiocarbon dating support the idea that the 'bulk' of the scrolls date back into the past - contrary to the - uh - 'dribs and drabs'?

Its important to note that the scrolls were not easily accessible or available to scholars for quite a long time and this frustrated many scholars. Geza Vermes is known to have written regarding the sneaky manner in which the "keepers" controlled access to the scrolls: "Unless drastic measures are taken at once, the greatest and most valuable of all Hebrew and Aramaic manuscript discoveries is likely to become the academic scandal par excellence of the twentieth century" The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (Fortress, 1981), p. 24.

Amaleq13

spin (cheers x 3 ),


I'm glad to read you again.

In your opinion, is there a good source on the DSS that is up-to-date with regard to the most recent findings/translations/dating or is there somebody to watch for in producing such a text?

Rick Sumner

Eisenman himself. James, p.81.

Contamination is unavoidable. That's why they tested more than one scroll. 1QpHab on its own is the death of Eisenman et al..

They were carbon dated twice (again, for the easiest handy reference, Eisenman's James, p.81). Paleography, archaeology and radiocarbon dating all agree. You do not date a text "internally" in the face of all that evidence anymore than you date the earth in accord with Young Earth Creationism in the face of scientific evidence. Again, the dating of the scrolls is, for all intents and purposes, a scientific fact.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Depends on what you're looking for. I'll presume you're looking for a "popular" translation, rather than an academic commentary (which will cost you a small fortune, per scroll), and suggest Wise et al _The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation_.

For the best popular introduction to the scrolls (and Spin will doubtlessly and emphatically disagree, Essene hypthesis hater that he is ), see Shanks _Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls_

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

I don't have "all that evidence". What I have seen however has not persuaded me that Eisenmann's theory and the dating that underpins it, is "dead in the water". I would appreciate it if you (or spin) could be more helpful in the way of sharing the evidence. Not "all that evidence", just some - that can give people like me a picture of how the evidence stands right now.

spin mentioned 'bulk'. You talk of 'all that evidence'. Be nice .

Amaleq13

You presume correctly. Does this have commentary or is it "just" a translation?

What he has written on the subject in various threads here has given me doubts but I'll keep it on my list.

Thanks

Rick Sumner

I already told you what it is. 1) Radiocarbon. 2) Archaeological evidence--the remains are predominantly pre-Christian. That points to a pre-Christian inhabitation. 3) Paleography. The scripts are predominantly pre-Christian.

You don't date texts internally unless you have to. It's a last resort, and by the least accurate method. Look at hard it is to date the gospels, for example.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

It has a short commentary before each scroll as well.

I don't endorse the Essene Hypothesis nearly as strongly as I once did. I'd tend toward the Groningen Hypothesis these days (have for a year or so, actually, it's something of a modified EH), which essentially states that the Qumranites were Essene in something of the way Baptists are Protestant. You can define the former by the latter (and even that only loosely), you can't define the latter by the former. The danger of the Groningen Hypothesis is the easy ad hoc it provides you--"Oh, those were other Essenes,"--a trap I've caught myself falling into more than once. It runs the risk of becoming unfalsifiable.

The Shanks book is still a solid introduction for the unitiated. See Evan's review in the RBL

Regards,
Rick Sumner