The Connection between Jars and Scrolls

Joan E. Taylor

       The most popular hypothesis to account for the presence of over 800 scrolls in caves surrounding the site of Qumran beside the Dead Sea is the “quick hiding scenario”, whereby a library at the site was hidden away ahead of the Roman invasion (in 68 C.E.). This theory was first suggested by one Ibrahim Sowny, the brother of Father Butros Sowny of St. Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem, to John Trever, when the Isaiah scroll was taken to the American Schools of Oriental Research in 1948,[1] and has been commonly held ever since.

       However, the first scholar to consider the matter, Eleazer Sukenik, who had engaged with scroll dealers soon after the discoveries in Cave 1, had a different idea about why the scrolls were in caves. He wrote in his diary on November 25th, 1947: “A Hebrew book has been discovered in a jar. He [antiquities dealer Kando] showed me a fragment written on parchment. Genizah!”[2]

The Genizah Theory

       A genizah is, strictly speaking, a temporary store for certain old, damaged or otherwise unusable (sometimes heterodox) Jewish manuscripts, the most famous “genizah” discovery being the collection partly discovered in a hidden upper room in the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Fustat, Cairo. However, this name, applied to what has been found in Cairo, is slightly misleading, because a large part of the Cairo genizah has actually come from the cemetery.[3] The final resting place for manuscripts in a genizah is indeed the cemetery, at which point they are not actually part of a genizah but rather buried. At any rate, the Cairo genizah - most of which was taken by Solomon Schechter to Cambridge - had yielded sensational manuscript finds, including parts of the Hebrew book of Ben Sira - a work previously only known in Greek - as well as two versions of the mysterious Zadokite work that we now know as the Damascus Document. Sukenik was clearly thinking of this.

       As more manuscripts came to light Sukenik held strongly to his initial belief that what was found in the caves by the Dead Sea was a vast genizah, “instituted by the sect of the Essenes” which were associated with the western Dead Sea region in ancient sources such as Pliny, Hist. Nat. 5: 15.[4] Unfortunately, Sukenik published only preliminary work on the scrolls. He died in 1953 and his voice was lost from subsequent debate. The genizah theory has had some supporters over the decades, for example Henri del Medico,[5] though del Medico argued for no connection between the scrolls in the caves and the site of Qumran, and G. R. Driver, who came to believe that the scrolls were hidden after the First Revolt, when heterodox literature was put away.[6] This linking of the genizah proposition with those who disassociate Qumran and the Essenes from the scrolls has not helped Sukenik’s identification, and he himself died before the archaeological investigations of the site had progressed very far.

       Furthermore, Roland de Vaux - the excavator of Qumran and the caves - was doubtful that this was a genizah. He wrote already in 1949, of Cave 1Q: “on a supposé que c’était une « geniza », un endroit où les livres hors d’usage étaient relégués au cours des temps; mais ces rouleaux d’âge différent soigneusement rangés dans des jarres d’une même époque ne sont pas pièces mises au rebut, ce sont des archives ou une bibliothèque, cachées dans un moment critique.” [7] 

       However, de Vaux’s main issue was with the argument of Henri del Medico, who disassociated the scrolls from the site of Qumran: this theory is summed up by de Vaux as “the manuscript caves were genizot, places where manuscripts of unknown provenance, and without any connection with the occupation of Khirbet Qumran, were discarded,”[8] a view that for de Vaux could be “definitely excluded.” Then de Vaux considers other arguments. He presents the hypothesis that “these caves may have been used as genizot for the community of Qumran itself,” but dismisses this also: “If this hypothesis were true, the documents in the caves would be texts rejected by the community, and could not be used to determine its ways of thinking and living.” This makes it “an unlikely hypothesis” to de Vaux. The problem here is that here de Vaux assumes that a genizah only contains rejected, heterodox literature rather than also containing old, important and sacred literature.

       De Vaux then states that we may accept “that the community had a genizah ... but what we cannot admit is that it had eleven genizot.” He notes that the state of the manuscripts is the same throughout, having the same kind of material (parchment), and observes that the same works occur in different caves, so that none of the caves is a genizah and all the works derive from the community and were accepted by it. Again we return to de Vaux’s notion of what a genizah is: rejected, heterodox works, or a store-room of scraps, collected over time. He shows no knowledge of understanding that in Judaism manuscripts beyond use are ultimately to be buried, and that the Cairo genizah (so-called) partly came from the cemetery.

       Interestingly, the genizah theory was dismissed by Norman Golb. Golb writes that in mentions of scrolls discovered in previous centuries, no one comments that these scrolls were damaged, an argumentum ex silentio which is supposed to prove that they were in perfectly good condition, which makes the genizah theory “implausible.”[9] Golb prefers the quick hiding scenario, but suggests it was the Jerusalem Temple library that was hidden, picking up the suggestion first made by K. H. Rengstorf.[10] Nevertheless, the genizah theory remains one that scholars note in passing as a possibility. For example, George Brooke has suggested that Cave 1Q might have been a genizah.[11] David Stacey has stated: “[M]ost of the pottery found in caves together with scrolls dates to the time of Herod or later yet some of the scrolls are dated to the second or early first centuries B.C.E. Thus it seems very likely that some were ‘geniza’ deposits.”[12] Stephen Pfann has also suggested that Cave 4Qa and 4Qb and 5Q comprise Essene genizot,[13] but here, like de Vaux, there is the issue of how exactly a genizah is defined. For Pfann, a genizah is represented - on the basis of the manuscripts of Masada and the Cairo genizah - as “typically composite, often mixing manuscripts from various sources, including both libraries and archives.”[14] Apart from the scrolls of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel found under the synagogue floor, the Masada manuscript finds are not from a Jewish genizah but from cupboards in the casemate walls where Romans threw not only Jewish texts but their own materials.[15]

       In this discussion, I will review evidence relating to the scrolls and caves, and also clarify terminology. As will be seen, this review leads me to concur that the corpus we know as the Dead Sea Scrolls includes within it a genizah (temporary store) of manuscripts yet to be buried, but overall my investigations have led to a different conclusion, namely that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the surviving, extant fraction of a huge manuscript cemetery that cannot have been quickly hidden away at one critical moment in time.

Qumran and the Caves

       With de Vaux, we can reject del Medico inter alia and affirm the close connection between the scroll caves and the site of Qumran. In the first place, there are in the natural caves close to Qumran (1Q-3Q, 6Q, 11Q), the cylindrical jars and their distinctive jar covers (Figure 1), a subject that has been very well explored by Jodi Magness.[16] Similar forms of these hole-mouthed jars (KhQ group 2 and 3) have appeared occasionally in other places near the Dead Sea: in Jericho (Jr. group 2), En Gedi, and at Masada (M. group 2) in contexts dating to the reign of Herod the Great and the first century C.E., [17] though there are no parallels exactly identical to the classic cylindrical jar form found in the caves; only Qumran has these.[18] These jars were manufactured at Qumran, since “wasters” were found in the Qumran dumps.[19] Dennis Mizzi’s recent comprehensive examination of parallels explores the lack of precision in referring to Qumran jar types, which can be ovoid or cylindrical, and notes that the Jericho and Masada forms are “close relatives” rather than exact parallels.[20] The concentration of exactly the same matching types of cylindrical jars in the buildings of Qumran and the caves nearby is very striking, indicating a firm connection between the caves and this site.[21]

       In addition, the artificial caves that cut into the marl cliffs at the southern edge of the Qumran plateau (4Q-5Q, 7Q-10Q, see Figure 2) are within the site. They are not to be considered as something separate from the archaeology of Qumran but rather an intrinsic part of that archaeology, if “Qumran” is defined not only as buildings but as all the occupation areas, which include: (1) industrial and processing areas of the buildings and plateau inside a walled-off zone; (2) a cultivation region - probably comprised by palm trees - north of the site, a region edged by retaining walls indicating irrigation and fertilisation,[22] and (3) artificially-created habitation caves to the north, also cut into the soft marl.[23] The marl caves are part of the occupation area of Qumran, separated and distinguished from the cemetery by a long wall (see Figures 3 and 4). This “landscape archaeology” approach expands the total definition of the settlement of Qumran and means that the scrolls of 4Q-5Q, 7Q-10Q cannot be detached from it.

       We therefore have a strong linkage of the natural Caves 1Q-3Q, 6Q and 11Q with the site of Qumran by the exact correlation of the hole-mouthed jars in which scrolls were deposited in these caves with those found at the site. We also have a strong linkage of the artificial marl Caves 4Q-5Q, 7Q-10Q since they lie within the occupation area of the Qumran settlement.

The Connection between Jars and Scrolls

       While it is impossible to assert that all jars were necessarily used for scrolls within caves, on the basis of present evidence, the connection between jars and manuscripts in the natural cave group 1Q-3Q, 6Q and 11Q is important to stress. Scrolls were found by Bedouin in an intact jar - or jars - in both Cave 1Q and in 11Q. In Cave 1Q one decomposed scroll was still inside its linen wrapper, stuck to the broken neck of a jar (see the photograph in DJD I, Pl. I: 8-10); this is physical evidence found by archaeologists, showing that scrolls, wrapped in linen, were placed in jars. One should not see the jars, linen and scrolls as independent items that happened to be placed side by side. Their separation was the result of disturbance and decay. Many caves in the area were ransacked and contents removed, from antiquity to modern times, or were damaged by collapse; the jars had been smashed and their contents subjected to decomposition and attack.[24]

       When de Vaux excavated Cave 1Q and the rubbish thrown outside the cave by the original treasure-hunters, there were originally some 50 jars. Cave 1Q had in fact been collapsing for centuries; there was around 50 cm of fill and rocky debris. Copious animal droppings - in parts 15 cm. thick - indicated that the cave had been used by wild animals for a long time, particularly by rats, well-known for omnivorous habits. Linen was found underneath this layer of droppings, indicating the antiquity of the jar breakage and exposure of contents. Small remains of surviving scrolls - from 72 rolls - and linen were nevertheless found in the fill - largely that which was thrown outside the cave by the looters.[25] These fragments showed damage by white ants, who - like rats – had fed on leather.[26] The ancient disturbance led to fusions of scrolls compacted together, so that there were bundles of diverse fragments melded into one.[27]

       In Cave 2Q (= survey Cave 19), along with 33 manuscript fragments, were two whole cylindrical jars and one jar cover, with pieces of six further jars smashed anciently. In Cave 3Q (= survey Cave 8), which had partly collapsed in antiquity, there was a large quantity of broken cylindrical jars and jar covers. De Vaux identified 35 different jars in all and over 20 lids. There were fragments of 14 manuscripts, but, like Cave 1Q, rats had been the principal occupants of this cave; de Vaux noted in Cave 3Q “nids de rats contenant des morceaux de tissus, quelques bouts de cuir et un fragment inscrit.”[28] This long cave also contained, under fill, numerous pieces of linen and strips of leather used to bind up the scrolls, which indicates that many scrolls had once been there. In Cave 6Q (= survey Cave 26), where 31 manuscript fragments were found, there was one jar, but there may have been more that had been taken away, for all we know, since it too was disturbed. The Bedouin apparently took cylindrical jars from Cave 1Q and used these as water containers: anyone entering any of the caves may have taken jars as well. In Cave 11Q, discovered and partially emptied by the Bedouin in 1956, there was a large cylindrical jar in which the Temple Scroll and other manuscripts were found, subsequently placed in Kando’s shop in Jerusalem, and also two jar covers, as well as linen scroll wrappers and other items.[29]  It should be noted that in the front part of the cave there were some other items included a small mattock, a chisel or file, a knife, a little pottery including a small jug (contemporaneous to periods of Qumran occupation, 1st cent. BCE to 1st cent. CE), bits of linen and basketry, pieces of rope, and “un cigare durci et noirci,” a hardened and blackened scroll that had clearly been very tightly wound in order for de Vaux to see it as a “cigar.” Here de Vaux does not mention bitumen or leather strips. This small collection of artefacts led de Vaux to identify that Cave 11Q was “habitée”, meaning occupied or lived in, though he did not explicitly specify how brief that was: the nature of the deposit clearly indicates an exceedingly brief habitation, appropriate to a camp-site; there is no hearth, cooking pot, floor levelling or anything indicative of use beyond a few days.[30] Those depositing the scrolls in jars in the cave presumably used the front part for temporary shelter, since it would have taken a long time to reach this cave from Qumran.

       When caves were surveyed in 1952 (see plan, Figure 5), the same kinds of jars were found in 22 of them and in 11 there were also lids. In disturbed caves, linen alone, preserved by fill and associated with jars, invariably indicates missing scrolls, since linen was used for the wrapping of scrolls and for no other purpose. For example, William Reed noted that in the rubble of Cave-Shelter 12 there was a jar still containing the linen scroll-wrappers, and there was a palm-fibre mat which once perhaps covered the jars, which were placed in an artificial stone recess.[31] In the survey Cave 29, which had no scroll fragments, there were elements of a dozen broken cylindrical jars, and 17 jar covers, seven of which were piled up neatly. Given an attested correlation of scrolls, linen, leather strips and jars, one does not need every component in a disturbed or partly collapsed cave with broken jars to recognise the synthesis, even when much material has been eaten, taken or decayed, since we have a very simple equation to remember: scrolls/linen + rats = animal droppings. Organic material is only occasionally preserved, thanks to it being under fill.

       Cave 29 seems quite clearly to be the cave referred to by Patriarch Timotheus of Seleucia (Baghdad), c.726-819 C.E., who states in a letter (c.800) to Sergius, Metropolitan of Elam, that Hebrew manuscripts - including 200 copies of Psalms - were found in a cave somewhere in the region of Jericho, when a hunter, following his dog, slipped into a hole, and found a little chamber in the interior of the rock with many books inside.[32] The hunter reported the find to Jews in Jerusalem, who came in to the area, and took away books of the Old Testament and others composed in Hebrew.[33] The description precisely matches the fact that Cave 29 is indeed a high, inner chamber, 3 m. in diameter, accessed by a tunnel 2 m. long.[34] In other words, this too was a scroll cave.

       Such archaeological evidence is supplemented by further important literary attestation: jars and scrolls go together very strikingly in an account of a discovery in the third century C.E. According to Eusebius, the famous scholar Origen, who wrote his Hexapla between the years 228 and 254, noted that he had the use of a (Greek) version of Psalms that was found, “in a pithos (ἐν πίθῳ) near Jericho at the time of Antoninus the son of Severus” (Caracalla, 211-27; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 6: 16: 3), a pithos being a storage jar. The finding of the manuscripts in πίθοι (plural) is reported by Pseudo-Athanasius in his Synopsis and also by Epiphanius, who writes of the discovery being “in the seventh year of Antoninus, son of Severus” (217 C.E.). Both Pseudo-Athanasius and Epiphanius specify that the pithoi contained “manuscripts of the Septuagint, as well as other Hebrew and Greek writings” (Epiphanius, De Mens. et Pond. 17-18; PG 43, cols. 265-68; Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis PG 28: col. 432).

       No scrolls in jars were found in the artificial marl caves. But de Vaux did not differentiate the form of these from the natural caves, even though these are located in a compact area connected to the site of Qumran, they are clearly visible, and they were never sealed: their entrances were blocked by the collapse of the friable marl, not deliberately. There were ovoid storage jar fragments and lids in Caves 7Q and 8Q, along with pottery such as cooking pots, bowls, goblets and lamps, indicating human occupation.[35] De Vaux noted that in Cave 5Q there were a number of manuscript fragments but only one single jar piece, which may be intrusive. In Cave 4Q there were very few ceramic items of any kind, but hundreds of small manuscript fragments. Given this, de Vaux concluded that a simple correlation between jars and manuscripts in caves as a whole was not then assured. He proposed that some cave jars might additionally have been for provisions,[36] an idea explored by Jodi Magness, who suggests that cave goods could have been especially pure.[37]

       However, it is important to differentiate the typology of the natural caves from the artificial caves.[38] The open character of the artificial caves is very different from the natural fissures that are Caves 1Q-3Q, 6Q and 11Q. The cluster 4Q-5Q and 10Q on one side (Figures 4 and 6) and 7Q-9Q on the other are located in a compact area, in marl recesses which are not accessible to animals, only accessible to humans via slim pathways, steps and - probably - rope ladders. They were not sealed, and they show signs of human occupation. They were created for a particular purpose and can be distinguished from the natural caves further from the site. A typological approach may then help us to clarify the functions inherent in these forms.

The Natural Caves

       If we take the natural caves as a typological category in themselves, what can be said about the nature of the scroll deposits within jars? One striking thing to note is that Lankester Harding and de Vaux were able to find among the many pieces of linen used to wrap up scrolls and seal the jars in Cave 1Q that some of this linen had been impregnated with bitumen. The Bedouin who first discovered the cave also indicated that bitumen had been used as a preservative for the scrolls. According to the story given by Edmund Wilson, when the shepherd Muhammad ed-Dhib and his companion Ahmed Mohammed (see Figure 7) opened the lids of the jars they found in Cave 1Q, a bad smell came out, and they saw inside big black oblong lumps. They took these out of the cave, and saw that there was something wrapped up inside linen that had then been coated with black pitch. They later described the scrolls as being “wrapped up like mummies.”[39] The manuscripts are described as “some very dirty rolls, several wrapped in dirty cloth with a black substance on them.”[40] De Vaux noted that the linen was often impregnated with wax, pitch or asphalt: “Ils sont souvent imprégnés de cire, de poix ou d’asphalte.”[41] Slightly confusingly, however, the leather of the scrolls decomposed to a black substance, which was originally thought by Lankester Harding also to be pitch directly stuck on to a manuscript.[42]

       There are numerous examples of linen clear of bitumen, and the wrappers immediately around the scrolls do not appear to be this bitumen-impregnated type. Only bitumen-free examples of linen were sent for analysis to Grace Crowfoot. However, clumps of asphalt within the linen are clearly visible on Mirielle Bélis’ photographs of uncleaned textiles in boxes in the Rockefeller stores in Jerusalem, two of which are reproduced here (Figures 8 and 9).[43] This material has never been analysed in order to ascertain its precise composition.

       Bélis did not focus on these examples, but does note that, “[l]es indices recueillis montraient donc bien que les responsables du dépôt avaient mis en application une méthode destinée à protéger les manuscrits des agressions du temps et des parasites.”[44] She defines the following process: (1) the texts were wound up into a tight cylinder; (2) they were fixed by a strip of leather (dozens having been found in the caves); (3) the scrolls were wrapped in different types of prepared linen; (4) they were placed in jars with this linen.[45] This tight rolling, wrapping, binding and jar-placement together was designed for preservation.

       In her examination of the cylindrical jar forms, Jodi Magness has pointed out how the round bowl-shaped lids that capped the tops of these jars are significant. The lids “completely covered the mouths of the jars, fitting snugly over the neck and on the shoulder. Any moisture (rain, dew, bird and bat droppings, etc.) that happened to fall on the cylindrical jars covered with these lids would have rolled off, down the sides of the jars and on to the ground. In other words, the bowl-shaped lids were designed to prevent moisture from entering the jars.”[46] The jar lids, however - unlike clay, lime or stone stoppers - are not a seal, and are easy to remove.[47]    

       The question remains whether the bitumen-impregnated linen was sometimes part of the stopping of the jars rather than only around the scrolls, or both. A parallel for bitumen-impregnated linen as a casing around a scroll has in fact been found in Egypt and exists in the papyrological collection of the University of Pennsylvania.[48] Nevertheless, the protective jar lids and the bitumen-impregnated linen together give us the impression that those who placed scrolls in jars in caves were very much concerned with long-term preservation.

       Bitumen was known in antiquity for its preservative function. As Diodorus Siculus notes, from the fourth century B.C.E. onwards the Nabataeans collected bitumen from the surface of the Dead Sea and sold it to the Egyptians for embalming; bitumen was applied to the linen mummy wrappings.[49] There was therefore a trade route leading from the sea to Egypt across the Judaean wilderness to the western part of Palestine.[50] Because of this bitumen industry for embalming, the sea was known as Lake Asphaltites (Josephus, War 4: 476-85, Pliny, Nat. Hist. 5: 15 [72]). [51] The deposit of the scrolls right next to the “Bitumen Lake” is perhaps not entirely coincidental, in that this allowed the people of Qumran to have ready access to material they needed for the careful processes involved in sealing scrolls within jars.[52]

       In addition, to bury manuscripts in cloth impregnated with bitumen could not have happened quickly, since bitumen requires a long time to be processed in order to be usable. Popularly it was thought that bitumen was initially softened by urine (see Strabo, Geogr. 16: 2: 43) and menstrual blood (see Josephus, War. 4: 478), though Tacitus (Hist. 5: 6) said that the tale that bitumen would shrink from blood, particularly menstrual blood, was one of several old stories not confirmed by those who knew the country, and that bitumen was cut like wood with any implement sharp enough. But then it had to be melted and applied to the linen. Unlike the asphalt used on today’s roads, the “glance pitch” type of bitumen found today around the Dead Sea has a relatively high melting point, of 135 degrees Celsius. Attested Bedouin practice was to boil lumps in olive oil over a fire, though in antiquity animal fat could have also been used.[53] Only scientific analysis of the bitumen-impregnated linen would provide some clue as to how this was processed. Clearly, it would have been wrapped around the scroll or placed in the jar opening while the bitumen was still warm, and then the bitumen would have hardened as it cooled. If we think about the time and care required for the preparation of the impregnated linen wrapping, and the nature of the scrolls being “buried” in jars in remote and hard-to-access caves, this does not fit well with a quick hiding scenario for the temporary storage of a nearby library with the expectation that manuscripts might soon be retrieved.[54]

       The bitumen-impregnated linen wrapping - where used - is consistent with a mentality that sought to preserve scrolls in a kind of special burial. It seems clear that the burial of scrollswas organised by those who lived at the site of Qumran. They used jars made at the site. They wrapped up the scrolls tightly in linen, rolled further linen around them, tied them up with leather strips, (sometimes?) sealed them with linen impregnated with bitumen, packed them into jars with scraps of linen, and closed the top of the jars with bowls and bitumen-impregnated linen to protect them. They then carefully placed the jars in awkward, natural caves, generally sealing the entries to these caves when they had finished.

       Even without bitumen, the notion of preservation of documents as a motivation for placing them in jars is biblically attested. In Jer. 32: 14: “And I charge Baruch before them saying, thus says the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel, take these documents, this deed of purchase and put them in a clay vessel that they may last for many days.” Jeremiah, of course, is not concerned to tell us what might have been involved in the preparation of a document placed in a jar. In the Testament of Moses 1: 16-18 there is an instruction to “preserve the books I will deliver to you: you will place these in order and anoint them with cedar oil, and put them away in earthen vessels.” Whether cedar oil was used on the Dead Sea scroll manuscripts may be impossible to determine chemically.[55] With the additional procedures involved in placing the scrolls in jars in caves, we get the strong impression that this was a time-consuming process designed to ensure that the manuscripts lasted a very long time indeed.          

Genizah and Cemetery

       As noted above, it is important to distinguish a genizah and a scroll cemetery, even though popularly the designation of the “Cairo genizah” blends the two together, and it seems this composite collection was in Sukenik’s mind. The word genizah is related tothe verb נזגּ, “off, set aside, reserve, hide,”[56] and, strictly speaking, can refer to a store for coins or treasure, or can be a temporary store designed for old or damaged sacred documents, heterodox or rejected works, and other documents containing the name of God.

       From the Torah’s exhortation to destroy idolatry, there was a ramification: one should not destroy the name of God (see Deut 12: 3-4): “You shall completely destroy all the places where the nations you dispossess serve their gods ... and you shall obliterate their name from that place. You shall not act like this toward YHWH your God.” If you do not act like this toward YHWH, then, conversely, the name of God could not be destroyed. Religious texts containing the name of God can become pesul, unusable, due to old age or illegibility. In this case they are called shemot on account of having the name (shem) of God; like an old American flag, however, they cannot just be thrown away, though in the case of Jewish manuscripts they are buried. In m.Shab. 9: 6 there is a reference to prohibiting, on the Sabbath, the taking out of “worn-out sacred books or their worn-out covers that have been stored away in order to reserve them (לגנזן).” Books that should not be read, like the pseudonymous heterodox text The Book of Remedies, ascribed to Solomon, might be “reserved” as well (b.Pes. 56a, 62, cf. b.Shab. 13b, 30b, 115a). The languages of these writings could be Hebrew, Greek and others (b.Shab. 115a). But the temporariness of a genizah is important to remember. The final destination for shemot was the grave. In the Babylonian Talmud, we find a comment that a sefer, “book, scroll,” that is worn-out is buried beside a scholar (b.Meg. 26b, cf. Moed Katan 25a, Baba Kamma 17a). It is no longer then in a genizah. It is buried.

        Curiously, worn-out scroll wrappers may be used for making shrouds for corpses that do not have people to bury them (b.Meg. 26b). This was noted by Grace Crowfoot in her important study of the linen from Cave 1Q. She observed also that many of the linen cloths from this cave showed signs of wear and tear, and several had repairs; she found only two instances of linen cloths whose fringe ends were not frayed by use, i.e. it was clear to her that these were old, worn-out scroll wrappers. Crowfoot in fact was the one to suggest explicitly that scrolls and wrappers were buried and “it is important to remember that burial in caves was the custom of the country, and so this concealment may only be the equivalent of the correct cemetery burial of the contents of a Genizah.”[57] In other words, Grace Crowfoot was the first to propose the hypothesis that I reiterate here, basing herself on the evidence of the linen.

       As for the Dead Sea manuscripts themselves, they tend to be worn. The Genesis Apocryphon - neatly rolled up in one scroll - had been purposely cut.[58] 1Q34 (1QFestival Prayers), 1Q71 (Dan. 1: 10-17) and 1Q72 (Dan. 3: 22-8) were bundled together.[59] No one could argue that the scrolls exist overall in a pristine state, even in the case of relatively complete scrolls. It may be possible that the Temple Scroll was buried in good condition, and its current poor state is due to the vicissitudes of time.[60] But here it is to be remembered that books that were perceived as either heterodox or obsolete could also find their way into a genizah and into a burial. Scrolls from Cave 11Q and 3Q can be later palaeographically, with pottery also coming from the mid to late first century. The linen from the wrapping in 11Q was unusual: bleached white with distinctive indigo stripes.[61] However, if these caves include certain scrolls deemed no longer appropriate for use on account of somewhat variant ideas - considered within the context of the yahad ideology - then we would have a straightforward reason for the burial of a manuscript - the Temple Scroll - in good condition (if this could be proven), prior to 68 C.E.[62]

       In the case of the Cairo “genizah” collection, it clearly contained a vast array of different texts, including entirely secular pieces - by no means only sacred scriptures. It is difficult to assume a criterion of selection. Likewise, we cannot know what led scrolls to be buried in the case of Qumran, but a simplistic criterion of “only old scrolls” would be too narrow. If a text had been superseded by a new edition, would they keep the older one? If a text led to interpretative innovations that were problematic, did they assign it to burial? What were their policies in sustaining active library holdings? In terms of a Biblical or other sacred manuscript, how damaged did it have to be before it was deemed too worn? If one column was no longer readable, did that mean it should be replaced, or did it need to be quite tattered around the edges? Could there have been an accident or destruction in the first century which resulted in damage to a number of recently-made scrolls? We simply do not know. One cannot even say that any given manuscript was in too good condition for burial - or the opposite - without knowing anything about the criteria of assessment, or the original state of the entire manuscript.

       The practice of burying old manuscripts in Jewish cemeteries continues today, and is accompanied by ritual, but the idea that burial of manuscripts is in some way intended to make these last is not found in current practices. Nevertheless, it would fit with a mentality of a certain particularly fastidious group that, in order not to seem negligent so that the name of God might perish by one’s carelessness, steps would be taken to preserve it.

       In regard to the burial of manuscripts in caves, there is a remarkable parallel not within the realms of Judaism, but within Islam. In the region of Quetta, Pakistan, the Chilton Mountains host a number of passageways designed to hold old Quranic texts, which are shrouded in cloth sacks as is customary for the dead. This area is called popularly “The Mountain of the Quranic Light” and is a place of pilgrimage and prayer.[63]

       A close chronological parallel to the practice of placing scrolls in jars comes from Egypt, and is found for example in Deir el-Medineh,[64] and from Egypt too is the parallel for burying manuscripts in jars in mountain caves or rocky overhangs. The Nag Hammadi codices, found in 1945, comprising thirteen Gnostic codices, were buried under a rock overhang (associated with tombs) by Coptic monks. These were placed in a jar, which was closed with a bowl-shaped lid, and sealed with bitumen.[65] In 1952, a later library of Biblical, apocryphal and other manuscripts of the Pachomian Order was found close to the Nile in this region. The Dishna papers or Bodmer Papyri, found 12 km from Nag Hammadi, were in a jar. In none of these instances do we appear to have burial of manuscripts coinciding with a rapid hiding scenario. In fact, two of the texts from Nag Hammadi specifically refer to books being stored for preservation until the end of time in a mountain: The Gospel of the Egyptians 68: 10-69: 5 and Allogenes 68: 6-20.[66]

       Early Christian manuscripts have also been found buried with corpses in tombs in Egypt. The Gospel of Peter was found in a monk’s tomb in the necropolis of Akhmim, in 1886-7, and the Gospel of Judas - found with letters of Paul and other manuscripts - was found in a tomb in al-Minya, within a limestone box, in 1978. In these cases, as well, the manuscripts seem to be buried in anticipation of their surviving for the future eschatological age, in accordance with Christian belief (not for use in the afterlife, as in previous Egyptian practice).