[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Deposit of the Scrolls (long)
When and why did the Scrolls go into the
caves? Some thoughts:
(1) There are two material assemblages in
the caves. De Vaux confused them and thought
they were identical but the two assemblages
are distinct, though both involve caves, some
of which are the same caves. One assemblage
gives evidence of swollen numbers of refugees
and high population at Qumran in the c. 66-68 CE
range. People camped out, people living in caves,
people no doubt from places like Jericho and
Jerusalem trying to hide and live. These are the
inhabited caves, the tent remains, the cooking vessels.
The dating to the 60's CE is indirectly supported
by lamps datable to mid-1st CE plus historical/
literary texts giving a Revolt context for the
swollen Qumran population at this time.
The second material assemblage is the Scrolls
with the large number of cylindrical jars and
in some cases linen and leather thongs in
association. The date of this assemblage is
not linked to the date of the refugees assemblage
above, even though some caves figure in both
assemblages. The Scrolls/jars assemblage (I say)
is earlier, and was already there when some of
the caves were entered by later refugees setting
up camp in some of the same caves as well as
in different caves. The dating of the Scrolls
assemblage is the key issue. How does one date
it? What methods does one use?
The Scrolls assemblage consists of the texts and
cylindrical jars in Caves 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11.
Caves 7, 8, 9, and 10 however are to be severed from
relevance to the Scrolls assemblage. Texts in these
caves were personal texts belonging to people of
the refugee material assemblage.
(2) The Scrolls assemblage represents a hiding and a
one-time deposit.
The argument in favor of this assertion (as opposed
to a number of deposits over time for whatever
reason) is that e.g. the pesharim are scattered
across caves at random, when there are scribal and
number-of-copy (one only, in all cases) reasons
to consider these copies as a single collection
that was split up in the process of a single
hiding. There is no difference in type or kind
of texts between the various caves (after the
caveat noted above) of the Scroll assemblage
which could date one cave's deposit later than
another's, and likewise there is no systematic
difference in the random mix and match of the
Scrolls jar types. The evidence for preservation
of the texts and the scattering in a number of
caves is consistent with a hiding.
The last argument that the Scrolls assemblage is a
one-time hiding is that one of the Scrolls, the Copper
Scroll, may reflect or describe the very hiding which
put all of the Scrolls in the caves. Two points about
this text, 3Q15, ought to be noted. (a) it is not
dumped as trash because if it was trash it would
have been salvaged for its metal content and would
never have made it to the cave. Therefore it was still
in use when it went into Cave 3 (its use being
continued preservation of a list which was still
worth preserving). (b) it cannot be considered a
religious text preserved (even though no longer in
use) for sacred reasons--it is an economic text with
nothing sacred about it. Its only reason for
preservation in the cave was functional--to
preserve the list itself. Arguments which sever 3Q15
from the rest of the Scrolls assemblage seem
methodologically suspicious to me, as if for the purpose
of ad hoc harmonization with preexisting constructions.
Instead, 3Q15 should be seen as part of the assemblage
and when this is done it in turn reveals indirectly
the function of the whole assemblage, which is a
one-time hiding.
(3) The hiding operation in its intention I reconstruct
hypothetically as follows: All of the scrolls were
intended to be deposited in jars in the outlying caves.
But the task was either _interrupted_ or the workers
_ran out of jars_. The large number of
texts in Cave 4 (and Cave 5?), *obviously from the same
assemblage of texts* because of the many crosslinks and
overlaps of texts, never made it to the intended
destinations in caves farther afield.
(4) There are two major, big-ticket arguments I see
for the date of the Scrolls assemblage deposit being
significantly earlier than 68 CE.
(a) Over 150 cylindrical "scrolls jars" of varying
types in perhaps two dozen caves away from the site
of Qumran reflect the original extent of the Scrolls
assemblage. Some identical jars were found at the
site of Qumran. De Vaux's notes, while difficult
to interpret in many cases, reveal these jars
already buried and in use _by early 1st CE_, and no
evidence of production or manufacture of this kind of
jar at any time later than this. The 68 CE
theory seems to unnaturally materialize a second
batch of over 150 such jars out of thin air over
a half-century after identical jars were already sunk
into floors at Qumran, with no evidence for manufacture
of this type of jar at the site of Qumran
at this date. The known jars at Qumran
of this type argue for a date nearer the beginning of
the 1st CE, and if the relatively few jars at Qumran,
usually buried in floors in corners of rooms, are
in fact _secondary uses_ of Scroll assemblage jars,
then the time these jars were sunk into the floors
is itself later than the Scrolls assemblage
deposit. (But this last point is unclear, since the
temporal and primary/secondary relationship between
the jars in the caves and at the site is unclear--
apart from clearly being related in some manner.)
(b) The dateable referents in the texts cease after
around mid-1st BCE. By the 68 CE theory, where are
the 1st CE calendar texts, cryptic allusions,
names of procurators, emperors or Herods? If it
was only ten texts, could be accident. But 800
texts and _nothing at all_ demonstrably 1st CE?
This has the appearance of information...
(5) Nature of the hiding, and two possible scenarios.
The 4QMish(c) text has the mid-1st BCE names of
Shelamzion, Aemilius (Scaurus), and Hyrcanus. The
"Aemilius kills" reference reveals an anti-Roman
_tendenz_ to this text. This is informative and
suggests either (a) an opposition at the
same time Romans are in power, or (b) some period
subsequent to 62 BCE when the Romans were not in
power. (The text itself will have been composed
later than 62 BCE but not a lot later--for if in
the 1st CE where are more recent 1st CE names
among the scatter of names in this text?)
The hiding is of very specific kinds of things: religious
texts and (per 3Q15) temple wealth. Two dates or scenarios
to consider:
1. The reign of Antigonus 40-37 BCE,
anticipating Herod's arrival and conquest.
2. The revolt in 4 BCE, which seems to have
involved fortress commanders and factions
if not the rulers of the temple, which was
suppressed by Varus.
Question: is there evidence or convincing reason why
the 68 CE date should be preferred to one of the earlier
dates above? De Vaux said "68 AD" (and it seemed to
make sense at the time) and everyone said, "And so it
is". But was it?
Greg Doudna
gd@teol.ku.dk