The Dating of the Scrolls Deposits

       Seeing the natural caves as repositories of buried manuscripts enables more flexibility in terms of when scrolls were placed in these localities. Various theories have been presented in recent years about the dating of the scrolls deposits. Greg Doudna has argued strongly against the hiding scenario of 68 C.E. on the basis of the archaeological repertoire of the scrolls caves and site, with jars mostly corresponding to Period Ib at Qumran.[85] Rachel Bar-Nathan locates these jars to the post-31 B.C.E. phase of Period Ib and the first century.[86] Both Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra and Jodi Magness have also pointed out that the cylindrical jar forms of the caves, both ovoid jars which appeared before 31 B.C.E. and cylindrical jars and wheel-made lamps which date to the first century B.C.E. or C.E., would mean that the jars were deposited over the entire course of the sectarian phase of Qumran’s history.[87]

       Stökl Ben Ezra has also noted, on the basis of palaeographical assessment, that Caves 1Q and 4Q contain proportionately more archaic and Hasmonean style manuscripts than 2Q-3Q, 5Q, 6Q and 11Q. This works against 4Q only being a genizah (slowly accumulating manuscripts) he thinks, because the age distribution is not congruent with supposedly later caves, also assessed palaeographically (2Q-3Q, 5Q, 6Q and 11Q).[88] However, the palaeographic dates can only be an approximation that needs to be balanced with archaeological data.[89] In fact, the radiocarbon dating of date pits probably from Cave 9Q in the marl terrace caves yielded a result of 1-130 C.E., with high 95% probability, which would fit either Period II or III at Qumran.[90] Whatever, there cannot be a neat chronological range for manuscripts either in a genizah or in a cemetery, because some popular manuscripts might have been recent but still well-used and worn. A collection of very old manuscripts in a particular genizah does not mean that the collection time necessarily pre-dated burials of some newer manuscripts, if the newer manuscripts had been damaged by accidents or else barely used but deemed heterodox.

The Scrolls Corpus

       The proposal that we are dealing with a collection having homogeneity needs to be affirmed. The identification of the same scribe writing a number of different scrolls in 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q, 6Q and 11Q indicates the connectedness of the caves, both artificial and natural. This scribe’s handwriting is dated by Yardeni to the end of the first century BCE or possibly the beginning of the first century C.E.[91] If this proposition of scrolls preservation-burial is correct, then these scrolls would have been placed in the natural caves 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 6Q and 11Q after some time, after they had aged, though Greg Doudna’s critique of palaeographical datings is important,[92] since precision is far from sure.

       More interesting perhaps is the fact that within the scrolls corpus historical references are clustered in the Hasmonean era,[93] but the scrolls preservation-burials appear to continue through to the destruction of the site of Qumran by the Romans in 68 C.E. There is a remarkable absence of pesharim relevant to the Herodian and Roman contexts, which we might expect from people with an active and vibrant interpretative tradition. If the scrolls are generally (not necessarily) old, then this historical association of the pesharim - which may not have been relevant to the primary concerns of the groups in question in the first century C.E. - makes sense. This raises the issue of the time-span of the burial of scrolls. If we do not have a rapid hiding scenario, then for how long were scrolls being placed in jars in caves? The solution can only come from precision of pottery dating. On current evidence, this would suggest a date in the reign of Herod at the earliest, continuing to the destruction of 68 C.E. There may have been certain key points at which large numbers of scrolls were collected together and assigned for burial.