Gleanings from the Cave of Wonders? Patterns of Correspondence in the Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments

GLEANINGS FROM THE CAVE OF WONDERS? PATTERNS OF CORRESPONDENCE IN THE POST-2002 DEAD SEA SCROLLS FRAGMENTS by Kipp Davis Introduction The Cave of Wonders is a name conceived for a treasure cave in the 1992 Disney animated musical film Aladdin. The film was a very loose adaptation of components of the folk tale Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, and the Cave of Wonders was the secret horde of treasure belonging to a bloodthirsty band of thieves that was unwittingly uncovered by a poor woodcutter named Ali Baba. The story of Ali Baba and his wealthy brother Cassim is in part a moral tale about greed, and this theme is also reflected in the film adaptation Aladdin: At one point of the movie the protagonist is provided entry along with his boon companion—a monkey named Abu—into the cave, but is then restricted from even touching any of the limitless treasure within. Unable to quell his own greed Abu breaks this prohibition and he and Aladin are consequently swallowed by the magic cave. Eibert Tigchelaar has recently published a short paper on Academia.edu in which he raises serious questions about the omission of a handful of scroll fragments from the publication of Judaean Desert artefacts in The Schøyen Collection,1 and in turn also draws attention to patterns within the published fragments that leads him to doubt their authenticity: In spite of the tentative 4Q name, there is nothing, apart from the involvement of the Kando family, that links these fragments to Qumran Cave 4. Rather, one should assume a different provenance ... This could be one (or multiple?) different find-place(s) where multiple small fragments of biblical books and an occasional pseudepigraphic work, many written in those hesitant and inconsistent hands, were preserved. Or, one can hypothesize the involvement of modern forgers, trying to produce on small fragments Hebrew text in an ancient hand. This hypothesis, in my opinion, gives an (sic.) better explanation for the hesitant and inconsistent writing.2 Tigchelaar is partly troubled by the discovery narrative of the Schøyen Dead Sea 1 The Schøyen collection of Dead Sea Scrolls were published this year in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from The Schøyen Collection (ed. Torleif Egvin with Kipp Davis and Michael Langlois; LSTS 71; London / New York: T&T Clark, 2016). Cf. Eibert Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really? On the likelihood of Dead Sea Scrolls forgeries in The Schøyen Collection” (unpublished paper; online: https://www.academia.edu/27765763/Gleanings_from_the_Caves_Really_On_the_likelihood_of_Dead_ Sea_Scrolls_forgeries_in_The_Schøyen_Collection; accessed 16 August, 2016). 2 Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really?,” 6. DAVIS 2 Scrolls fragments (DSS) that was passed along by Martin Schøyen himself. But Tigchelaar also makes a salient point about the perplexing nature of the composition of Schøyen’s collection. Similarly, Emanuel Tov has made the following observation in his introductory chapter of the new publication of DSS fragments in the Museum of the Bible collection: Although several factors make precise statements impossible, one can get an impression of the Scripture component of the recently surfaced collections of manuscripts. The Museum of the Bible collection of thirteen fragments contains twelve Scripture texts (92%), which is exceptionally high, much higher than the percentage of Scripture texts at Qumran (23%). The percentage of Scripture texts in The Schøyen Collection is equally high as in the Museum of the Bible collection (27 fragments out of 33 texts or 82%), as are the Azusa Pacific University collection of four Scripture fragments and the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary collection (8 of the 9 fragments contain Scripture, or 90%, while the ninth one is unreadable). It is remarkable that in all instances where there is legible text, virtually every fragment in private collections has been identified with a previously known composition.3 The surprising disparity seen in The Schøyen Collection that is at odds with the statistical distribution of texts in the Qumran scrolls has prompted Tigchelaar to muse about the existence of a common place of discovery for these fragments, but Tov’s discussion punctuates the peculiarity by his introduction of numbers from several collections. Moreover, as Tov reminds us: One should ... not expect any features common to these texts. Each of the corpora of texts found in the various Judaean Desert sites could be considered as reflecting a certain unity possibly reflecting the nature or logic of the people of Qumran, Masada, or Murabbaʿat who collected these texts. However, these collections are also coincidental as they reflect the written documents adduced to these sites from various places.4 What are we to make of the textual consistency illustrated throughout all of the private collections, and how deep does this consistency run? In this paper I shall explore patterns of consistency for three of the four private collections of Judaean Desert scroll fragments that all surfaced in public discourse after 2002,5 but beyond the question posed by Tov and Tigchelaar of textual composition to explore in greater depth their physical and scribal features. I began working with the international team that published the Judaean Desert fragments and artefacts in The Schøyen Collection (hereon also abbreviated to “Schøyen”) in 2012, and was invited to provide consultation and editorial assistance to the Museum of 3 Emanuel Tov, “Introduction, Text Editions, the Collection of the Museum of the Bible, Textual and Orthographic Character, Relation to Other Fragments from the Judaean Desert,” in Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection (ed. Emanuel Tov, Kipp Davis and Robert Duke; PMB I: Semitic Texts; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 10–11. It bears mention here that there is one, solitary exception to Tov’s conclusion within The Schøyen Collection which houses a single fragment with one readable word on three lines. It may very well be that this fragment—designated 11Q(?)Eschatological Fragment ar (MS 4612/3)—also preserves part of a text known from the Hebrew Bible, but the state of its preservation is the primary obstacle to its identification. Cf. Esther Eshel, “MS 4612/3. 11Q(?)Eschatological Fragment ar,” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 295–98. 4 Tov, “Introduction,” 9. 5 For a useful, up-to-date inventory of these fragments cf. Årstein Justnes, “A List of 73 Unprovenanced, Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments that Have Surfaced After 2002,” (from the Introduction of the Lying Pen of Scribes Conference, 13-15 April, 2016, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway; online: https://www.academia.edu/s/d3a75829cd/a-list-of-73-unprovenanced-dead-seascrolls-like-fragments-that-have-surfaced-after-2002) DAVIS 3 the Bible (MOTB) publication in 2014. For my discussion I will draw on the nonprovenanced fragments6 already published from Schøyen and those belonging to MOTB, and supplemented by some discussion of the digital images published online at the Azusa Pacific University Library Digital Collections (APU).7 I will begin with a brief overview of the acquisitions, then proceed to investigate patterns of correspondence in their physical and scribal features, and then in a few textual phenomena. This is part of a larger story of secrets and mystery, and much like the tale of Ali Baba, also potentially resonates with portraits of deceit and greed. As we may come to discover, patterns and similarities between a number of fragments from several private collections could lead us to adduce their origins from an analogous—perhaps modern—“Cave of Wonders” all their own. 1. Acquisitions of Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in The Schøyen Collection, the Museum of the Bible, and Azusa Pacific University Between 1947–1953 fragments from Bedouin finds in the Judaean Desert were brokered for sales to archaeologists at the École Biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem by local antiquities dealer Khalil Iskander Shahin, otherwise known as “Kando.” According to Weston Fields, virtually every manuscript from the Qumran Caves passed through Kando’s hands,8 but early on in the discovery it seems that there may have been a handful of other parties involved,9 and a select few of the DSS were held back by Kando and 6 For the purpose of this discussion I make a distinction between “provenanced” and “non-provenanced” fragments in The Schøyen Collection on the basis of their identification with one of the Judaean Desert find places. There are four fragments in the collection that were known from Qumran scrolls—1QIsaa, 1QapGen, 1QSb, and 1QDana,b, and another fragment which has been positively identified as belonging to 4QRPb (4Q364). I designate these as “provenanced” manuscripts on the basis of a possibly reliable chain of custody, but with full recognition that a number of fragments purported to have been discovered in Caves 1Q and 4Q are technically “non-provenanced” by virtue of their unsupervised removal from these locations by their Bedouin discoverers in 1947 and 1952. However, the stark difference between the fragments now housed in private collections and those discoveries between 1947–53 is the fact that those fragments which were removed by archaeologists from Cave 1 are clearly distinguished from those that were not. Also there are so-called “excavations photographs” of fragments from Cave 4 compiled by Frank M. Cross, which identify fragments of more than one hundred of the Cave 4 manuscripts. My thanks to Prof. Tigchelaar for alerting me to this information and the need to more clearly nuance the original Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries. 7 Four fragments containing text from Exod 18:6–8, Lev 10:4–7, Deut 8:2–5, and Dan 5:13–16 are available for viewing in high resolution digital visible light colour (VLC) images at http://cdm16657.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/ p16657coll7. The fragments are scheduled for publication in Biblical Manuscripts at Azusa Pacific University and The Institute for Judaism and Christian Origins (ed. James H. Charlesworth and William Yarchin; PTSDSSP, Suppl. Vol.; Tübingen and Louisville, Ky.: Mohr Siebeck and Westminster John Knox Press, forthcoming). Cf. Robert Duke with Daniel Holt and Skyler Russell, “Daniel 10:18– 20 (Inv. MOTB.scr.003170),” in Tov, Davis, and Duke (eds), Dead Sea Scrolls in the Museum Collection, 207 n.13. 8 Weston W. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A Full History: Volume 1, 1947–1960 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), esp. 96–99. Fields reports that fears about prosecution by the Israel Antiquities Authority for “smuggling” materials illegally out of the first caves prompted an agreement between Kando and the archaeological team that so long as the École were given the right of first refusal to purchase all discoveries made by the Bedouin, they would not pursue prosecution. This deal was purportedly proposed by Kando in 1949 and formed the basis for the agreement that governed the acquisition process over the course of the next four years. 9 Fields, Dead Sea Scrolls, A Full History, 150–51 transcribes from an interview with Dominique Barthélemy that there were occasional instances in which scroll fragments were purchased by the École directly from the Bedouin, and not via Kando. In Roland de Vaux’s published journal entries he also recounts several instances in which enterprising Bedouin attempted to sell him what were clearly forgeries in 1951–52. Cf. Roland de Vaux, “Historique des découvertes,” in Les Grottes de Murabba‘at: Texte (ed. P. DAVIS 4 eventually found their way into private collections between 1956–1972.10 Martin Schøyen has provided a rare look into the private antiquities markets, which is published in the editio princeps of Judaen Desert manuscripts and artefacts in The Schøyen Collection. He recounts his own experiences in the acquisition of the largest private collection of DSS fragments, numbering 33 items.11 Schøyen tells of purchasing a small fragment of the Rule of the Congregation (1QSb) from the William Brownlee family in 1994, and of his purchase of uninscribed fragments of 1QIsaa, the Community Rule (1QS) and the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) from the family of John C. Trever in 1995. He had managed to develop a close client relationship with William Kando—eldest son of the antiquities dealing patriarch Kando Sr.—since his acquisition of Syrian tetradrachms in 1978, which led to future opportunities to make purchases of small DSS fragments that Kando had once sold to European private collectors. Schøyen writes: During a later visit in 1993 I had a long conversation with William and Edmond Kando, two of Kando’s sons. Kando had brokered transactions between the Bedouin discoverers and archaeologists for most of the fragments found in caves 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11, as well as Murabbaʿat and Naḥal Ḥever. Since Kando had sold fragments to several tourists and collectors from Europe and the USA who visited his shop in the 1950s and later, I suggested that they should check their father’s files and contact some of the customers mentioned there, or those they still remembered. Since these customers now would be old, they or their descendants might perhaps not be interested in keeping their fragments any longer.12 Four fragments—MS 2713, MS 2861, MS 4611, and MS 4612/113—are mentioned in connection with this passage as having been acquired by Schøyen as a result of this inquiry. According to Schøyen, the dramatic increase in availability of new material that occurred after Kando’s death in 1993 was prompted by his own zealous pursuit of artefacts that were known to exist in other collections. Schøyen’s persistence in what he calls with no shortage of self congratulation a “Mission: Impossible!” effectively created a market that rapidly attracted a host of new buyers and sellers,14 but then also dramatically increased prices that ultimately shut him out of it.15 In the first volume of the Publications of the Museum of the Bible series (PMB I), Tov includes a few details in his introduction to the thirteen MOTB DSS fragments about their purchase by the owners of the Green Collection, but this only amounts to a report of individual manuscripts and their acquisition dates: four fragments in November 2009 (MOTB.Scr.000120; MOTB.Scr.000121; MOTB. Scr.000122; MOTB.Scr. 000123); one Benoit, J. T. Milik., and R. de Vaux; DJD 2:1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 3–8. 10 Martin Schøyen, “Acquisition and Ownership History: A Personal Reflection,” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 29–30. 11 Schøyen, “Acquisition and Ownership History: A Personal Reflection,” 27–32. 12 Schøyen, “Acquisition and Ownership History: A Personal Reflection,” 29. 13 For the purposes of this paper I have intentionally avoided the use of text designations that have been assigned to the fragments in private collections as part of the editing process, and have chosen rather to speak of individual items according to their inventory numbers. 14 Schøyen, “Acquisition and Ownership History: A Personal Reflection,” 27. 15 Schøyen, “Acquisition and Ownership History: A Personal Reflection,” 30. DAVIS 5 fragment in February 2010 (MOTB.Scr.000124); Seven fragments in May 2010 (MOTB.Scr.003170; MOTB.Scr.003171; MOTB.Scr.003172; MOTB.Scr.003173; MOTB.Scr. 003174; MOTB.Scr.003175; MOTB.Scr. 003183); One in October 2014 (NCF.Scr.004742). While Schøyen has provided background information into the process of his acquisitions there are no details regarding the purchase dates for any of the items he added to his collection after the 1995 purchase of the Trever fragments. Nevertheless, we do know from personal communications between him and chief editor of the Schøyen volume, Torleif Elgvin, that The Schøyen Collection inventory numbers assigned to the artefacts (MS 1909–MS 5480) correspond to lots of purchase, and are arranged chronologically. Schøyen’s 1995 purchase from the Trever family included fragments from 1QIsaa, 1QS and 1QapGen mentioned above; these fragments carry with them designations MS1926/1–3, and are among five fragments in The Schøyen Collection with inventory numbers in the 1,000s. Another two fragments carry inventory numbers in the 2,000s, but the remainder are numbered in the 4,000s and 5,000s. The two fragments MS 2713 and MS 2861 were included in connection with Schøyen’s mention of his conversation with William and Edmond Kando that took place in 1993, and the reader is left with the impression that these fragments along with MS 4611 and MS4612/1 were acquired near to this date. Elgvin has furnished me with a timeline of acquisitions for all of Schøyen’s fragments that corresponds to this basic picture: The four fragments mentioned in connection to Schøyen’s conversation with the Kandos in 1993 were purchased in 1995, and the remainder of the fragments arrived at The Schøyen Collection in 2001, and then between 2008–2009.16 It seems prudent in the absence of any differentiation made between dates for most of his purchases and their arrival in Norway to make a simpler distinction here on the basis of these inventory numbers: generally speaking, “early” acquisitions— numbering in the 1,000s and 2,000s are those fragments purchased prior to 1996— including also the aforementioned MS 4611 and MS4612/1; “late” acquisitions—numbering in the 4,000s and 5,000s appear to be post-1995 purchases.17 Four fragments purported to have been discovered in the Judaean Desert were acquired by Azusa Pacific University. The university issued a press release on 9 September, 2009 to announce their purchase from Lee Biondi of Biondi Rare Books and Manuscripts in Venice, California.18 Unlike the fragments belonging to Schøyen and at 16 My thanks to Prof. Elgvin for providing me with this information for the purposes of this paper. It is important to note that while Elgvin affirms that the inventory numbers chronologically reflect dates of purchase, these do not necessarily also correspond to the arrival of specific manuscript fragments at The Schøyen Collection in Norway. 17 According to the information provided by Prof. Elgvin, Schøyen’s acquisition of fragments from anonymous private collectors via the Kando family began after his 1995 purchases, and following another meeting with the Kando’s which took place in 1996. 18 “Azusa Pacific University Acquires Five Dead Sea Scroll Fragments and Rare Biblical Artifacts” (http://www.apu.edu/media/news/ release/14307/, accessed 10 June, 2014); “Azusa Pacific acquires fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls,” LA Times, September 9, 2009 (http:/ /latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/09/azusa-pacific-acquires-fragments-of-dead-sea-scrolls.html, accessed 11 June, 2014). It is important also to note that one of the Schøyen fragments, MS 5426, was purchased also from Lee Biondi, and another three in the same lot, MS 4612/2, were brokered by Biondi for sale from the Kando family. Three fragments from MOTB, DAVIS 6 MOTB for which precise figures of purchase have never been made public, there is documentation available to suggest that APU paid over USD$2.4 m for their fragments.19 In addition, in an interview with a local Pasadena Calif. newspaper, the head of the Dead Sea Scrolls project at APU, Robert Duke also affirmed that Biondi provided him with carbon dating information for the fragments;20 a claim that may seem fairly incredible in the light of their relatively small size.21 2. Physical and Scribal Patterns across the Collections 2.1. Physical characteristics Tov and Tigchelaar both point to a surprisingly high ratio of manuscript fragments in The Schøyen Collection and MOTB that correspond to known texts from the Hebrew Bible, and Tigchelaar openly wonders about a common point of origin as a means to explain this. With this correspondence in mind, in what ways more specifically do the fragments in the collections compare on a material level and in terms of their scribal features? First and foremost, all the fragments in the private collections are generally very small. Three of the largest fragments in The Schøyen Collection were mentioned together by Schøyen in connection to his earlier acquisitions.22 MS 2713, MS4611 and MS4612/1 are also grouped with the smallest of these items, MS 2861, in a scribally specialised subset that I have elsewhere designated as fragments from “late / post-Herodian” scrolls which were constructed into high and narrow columns.23 The three large fragments from this group measure 115.17 cm2, 109.67 cm2, and 39.36 cm2 respectively. And while MS 2861 comprises an area of only 16.47 cm2 it has been identified with an additional six fragments dispersed in other collections as belonging to the same manuscript designated XJudg.24 Virtually all of MOTB.Scr.000120, MOTB.Scr.000121, MOTB.Scr.000123, appear in two exhibition catalogues written by Lee Biondi, The Dead Sea Scrolls to the Bible in America: How God Preserved His Word (Phoenix, Ariz.: Legacy Ministries Int’l, 2005); idem, From the Dead Sea Scrolls to he Bible in America: A Brief History of the Bible from Antiquity to Modern America Told through Ancient Manuscripts and Early European and American Printed Bibles (Phoenix, Ariz.: Legacy Ministries Int’l, 2009). 19 Cf. Daniel Estrin, “Dead Sea Scroll fragments to hit the auction block: Palestinian family that sold scholars the biblical finds are now marketing leftover fragments that were kept in a vault,” Times of Israel, 25 May 2013, http://www.timesofisrael.com/dead-seascroll-fragments-to-hit-the-auction-block/. 20 Joy Juedes, “Scholar's road to Dead Sea Scrolls runs through Glendora, Yucaipa,” The Pasadena Star News, Wednesday, October 7, 2009 (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20091008/scholars-road-to-dead-sea-scrolls-runs-through-glendora-yucaipa&template=printart, accessed 10 June, 2014). 21 The largest of the four fragments, APU3 (DSS F.153 = Deut 8:2–5), measures 7.5 x 2.5 cm. 22 Schøyen, “Acquisition and Ownership History: A Personal Reflection,” 28. 23 Kipp Davis, “High Quality Scrolls from the Post-Herodian Period,” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 129–30. 24 Esther Eshel, Hanah Eshel, and Årstein Justnes, “XJudg with MS 2861 (Judg 4.5–6),” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 195–97; MS 2861 was originally published in Eileen Schuller et al., in consultation with James C. VanderKam and Monica Brady, Qumran Cave 4.XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2 (DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 231–33, plate LXIII. The remaining six fragments appear in Hanan Eshel, “The Dates Used During the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered (ed. P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 93–105; Esther Eshel, Hanan Eshel and Magen Broshi, “A New Fragment of XJudges,” DSD 14:354–58; Emile Puech, “Notes sur le manuscrit des Juges 4Q50a,” RevQ 21:315–19; idem, “Un autre manuscrit du Lévitique,” RevQ 21:311–13; idem, “Les Manuscrits 4QJugesc (=4Q50a) et 1QJuges (=1Q6),” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and DAVIS 7 the other, late-acquisition non-provenanced fragments in The Schøyen Collection are substantially smaller. Two fragments, MS 4612/9 and MS 5441 are 16.79 cm2 and 14.24 cm2 in scope respectively, but every one of the remaining fragments in the collection each comprises an area of between 1.88 cm2–8.01 cm2. The average size of the late-acquisition non-provenanced fragments in The Schøyen Collection is 16.22 cm2, but minus the two large fragments that are mentioned in connection with the early acquisitions it is 7.25 cm2. The situation in the MOTB fragments is essentially the same: there are two large fragments in the collection—MOTB.Scr.000124 is 24.75 cm2,25 and MOTB.Scr.003183 comprises an area of 13.58 cm2. I summarised the situation in PMB I as follows: There is a range in dimensions among them, but generally speaking it is fair to say that the fragments are quite small, measuring on average between 3–4cm in height and width.... On average, the fragments contain 7.24cm2 of visible surface area, but this number is greatly inflated by the much larger-than-average F.Gen2 [MOTB.Scr.000124].... Most of the fragments appear to be between 4–8 cm2 in surface area, with a handful of very small fragments [MOTB.Scr.000121, MOTB.Scr.000122, and NCF.Scr.004742] and two that are a fair bit larger [MOTB.Scr.003183 and MOTB.Scr.000124].26 Årstein Justnes has published online a list of dimensions for all of the post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like fragments,27 and commented in an Academia.edu session of the list that “over 80% of the fragments that I have seen consist of only 1-5 lines.”28 In another comment from the following day, Justnes reported after having surveyed figures of 26 manuscripts from Cave 4Q published in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 12 that only 15% of the fragments in this volume comprise less than six lines of text.29 While we should note that this is but a very small sampling from just one of eleven Qumran caves, the disparity this figure provides in comparison to what we observe in the private collections suggests that these manuscripts by and large exhibit very limited amounts of text. A second common feature that is shared between a number of the fragments in the collections is their colour and condition. While not all of the physical descriptions of the MOTB fragments contain information about the grain and condition of the surface, a few of the editors did take special note of the situation for those fragments where the substrate is very coarse. Karl Kutz describes the surface of MOTB.Scr.000120 as “worn and the Septuagint: Essays presented to Eugene Ulrich on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam; VTSup 101; Leiden: Brill), 184–202. 25 It bears noting that MOTB.Scr.000124 is comprised of three small fragments that have been joined together. Their measurements from largest to smallest are 5.1 x 7.4 cm, 1.95 x 2.1 cm, and 1.95 x 1.75 cm; cf. Davis, “Paleographical and Physical Features of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Museum of the Bible Collection: A Synopsis,” in Tov, Davis and Duke (eds), Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments, 33. 26 Davis, “Paleographical and Physical Features,” 34. 27 Årstein Justnes, “Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments: Number of Lines and Measurements [preliminary list]” (unpublished paper; online: https://lyingpen.com/2016/08/12/post-2002-dead-sea-scrolls-like-fragments-lines-and-measurements-preliminarylist/; Accessed 9 September, 2016). 28 Cited from a discussion session of another of Justnes’s papers, “A List of 73 Unprovenanced, Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments,” 13 August, 2016; online: https://www.academia.edu/s/d3a75829cd/a-list-of-73-unprovenanced-dead-sea-scrolls-like-fragments-thathave-surfaced-after-2002#comment_249803. 29 E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, et al., Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994; reprinted 1999). Comment from 14 August, 2016. DAVIS 8 Fig. 1.1. Infrared images of twelve fragments from The Schøyen Collection and Museum of the Bible uneven”;30 of MOTB.Scr.003172 he says the fragment is “warped and uneven”;31 MOTB.Scr.000121 is said by Lisa M. Wolfe to have a surface that is “quite deteriorated, 30 Karl Kutz with Rebekah Josberger, Ruben Alvarado, Thomas Belcastro, Haley Kirkpatrick, Scott Lindsley, Rebecca McMartin, Jonathan Noble, Daniel Somboonsiri, Lynsey Stepan and David Tucker, “Exodus 17:4–7 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.000120),” in Tov, Davis and Duke (eds), Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments, 91. 31 Idem with Rebekah Josberger, Thomas Belcastro, Haley Kirkpatrick, Rebecca McMartin, Quincy Robinson and Daniel Somboonsiri, “Jeremiah 23:6–9 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003172),” in Tov, Davis and Duke (eds.), Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments, 141. DAVIS 9 Fig. 1.2. Visible light colour images of twelve fragments from The Schøyen Collection and Museum of the Bible lumpy, and uneven”;32 Robert Duke calls the substrate of MOTB.Scr.003170 “rough”;33 Catherine McDowell and Thomas Hill describe MOTB. Scr.003171 as having a “rough surface”;34 Peter W. Flint and David R. Hebrison observe that MOTB.Scr.003183 exhibits an 32 Lisa M. Wolfe with Allison Bevers, Kathryn Hirsch, Leigh Smith and Daniel Ethan Watt, “Psalm 11:1–4 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.000121),” in Tov, Davis and Duke (eds), Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments, 190. 33 Duke et al, “Daniel 10:18–20 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003170),” 200. 34 Catherine McDowell and Thomas Hill, “Jonah 4:2–5 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003171),” in Tov, Davis and Duke (eds), Dead Sea Scrolls DAVIS 10 “uneven surface” that was moreover the condition of the substrate at the time the manuscript was written.35 While several of the MOTB fragments lack such precise descriptions, from my own close inspections of their substrata I would choose to describe between six and eight of them as exceptionally coarse.36 For the Schøyen fragments palaeographer Michael Langlois has identified eleven specimens as having rough surfaces,37 although for several of these fragments the editors have either disputed this description or provided slightly more detailed clarifications that could appear at odds with his observations.38 This discrepancy is highlighted by Tigchelaar in his unpublished paper in his discussion of MS 5480,39 and I suspect the disconnect here has to do with the relative nature of comparative datasets that were used by each editor: it could be that Elgvin was making comparisons within The Schøyen Collection, while Langlois was speaking more generally about these items compared to counterparts from throughout early Jewish manuscript culture. This would align with my own observations in which I see a distinction in the surface condition of many of the Schøyen fragments, which do appear unusually coarse in texture relative to other Judaean Desert scroll fragments. In addition to the coarse condition of a significant number of fragments in the collections, fragments from both collections can in a relatively high number of instances be described as very dark in colour. In my introduction to the MOTB DSS fragments I noted that these items are “predominantly dark brown in color”: “dark brown” appears as a description of six of thirteen fragments,40 and another two fragments are described as “nearly black.”41 For the Schøyen fragments seven are described as “dark brown,”42 with Fragments, 168. 35 Peter W. Flint and David R. Hebrison, “Micah 1:4–6 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003183),” in Tov, Davis and Duke (eds), Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments, 177. 36 My own list is compiled from examinations of the RTI images provided by West Semitic Research, and applies to MOTB.Scr. 003171, MOTB.Scr.003172, MOTB.Scr.003173, MOTB.Scr.003174, MOTB.Scr.003175, MOTB.Scr.003183, possibly MOTB.-Scr.000122, and MOTB.Scr.000123. The condition of the surfaces of MOTB.Scr.000120 and MOTB.Scr.000124 is difficult to discern because these fragments have both experienced a significant amount of peel-off. 37 MS 4612/11, MS 5480, MS 4612/9, MS5233/2, MS4612/5, MS 4612/4, MS5233/1, MS 5440, MS5214/1, MS 5441, MS 5214/2; cf. Langlois, “Palaeographical Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls in The Schøyen Collection,” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 79–128. 38 Elgvin describes MS 5480 as “smooth,” MS 5214/1 as “relatively smooth,” and MS 5441 as “quite smooth”; cf. Elgvin, “MS 5480. 4Q(?)Sam (1 Sam 5.10–11),” “MS 5214/1. 4Q(?)Deut1 (Deut 6.1–2),” and “MS 5441. 4Q(?)Ruth (Ruth 2.1–2),” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 173, 203, 243. Davis and Elgvin have qualified of MS 5440 that “the surface of the verso is rough and that of the recto smoother”; Davis and Elgvin, “MS 5440. 4Q(?)Kgs (1 Kgs 16.23–26),” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 211. 39 Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really?,” 4. 40 Applied to MOTB.Scr.000123, MOTB.Scr.003170, MOTB.Scr.003171, MOTB.Scr.003174, MOTB.003175 and MOTB.Scr.3183. Cf. Davis, “Paleographical and Physical Features,” 32–33. 41 Applied to MOTB.Scr.000121 and MOTB.Scr.003172. 42 Applied to MS 5214/1, MS 2713, MS 5480, MS 4612/9, MS 4612/1, MS 5233/2 and MS 4612/11, cf. Elgvin, “MS 5214/1. 4Q(?)Deut1 (Deut 6.1–2),” idem, “MS 2713. Mur/Ḥ evJosh (Josh 1.9–12; 2.3–5),” idem, “MS 5480. 4Q(?)Sam (1 Sam 5.10–11),” Elgvin and Davis, “MS 4612/9. 4Q(?)Jer (Jer 3.15–19),” Elgvin, “MS 4612/1. Ḥ ev(?)Joel (Joel 4.1–5),” idem, “MS 5233/2. 4Q(?)Ps (Ps 9.10, 12–13),” idem, “MS 4612/11. DAVIS 11 another two designated “very dark brown.”43 One of the particularly novel features of the Schøyen volume is the contribution by Ira Rabin in which she summarises the data she procured through complex, multispectral analyses of the surface materials on the fragments. She forms from her analysis a rather bold hypothesis that divides all Judaean Desert manuscripts into those constructed of leather, and those of two “parchment making traditions” into which she assigns all the darker, tanned parchments to an “Eastern tradition,” “closely resembling Aramaic documents from the fifth century BC.”44 Leather and parchments are both made from animal skins to which tannins are applied in varying degrees. Rabin notes that only two manuscripts in The Schøyen Collection can confidently be identified as leather (MS 2713 and MS 4612/1), and it seems that the primary distinguishing feature between tanned leather and tanned parchments is their thickness.45 These two pieces of leather also both belong to the group of those manuscript fragments described as “dark brown.” They are also both part of the group of four, large fragments that Schøyen identified in conjunction with his early acquisitions, and which I identified as part of the “late / post-Herodian” scrolls which were constructed into high and narrow columns. For those parchments in The Schøyen Collection that are described as either dark or very dark in colour all of them are also identified by Michael Langlois as having rough surfaces. For those fragments from the MOTB the situation is virtually the same, where all but possibly one of the fragments described as either dark brown or black in colour are also among those that exhibit very coarse substrata. From this survey we can conclude in general terms that a majority of post-2002 fragments from The Schøyen Collection and MOTB are distinctly small in size, coarse in texture, and dark in colour. 2.2. Scribal Patterns A series of patterns in the appearance of text on the fragments can be extrapolated as stemming from common practices among scribes who wrote the manuscripts that survive in fragments in the collections. I have identified five characteristics in common between numerous fragments in both collections. 2.2.1. Rudimentary scribal skill: An unusually large number of fragments in both the collections are characterised as having been penned by inexperienced scribes. In his palaeographical description of the Schøyen fragments, Langlois makes frequent mention 4Q(?)Prov (Prov 4.23–5.1),” idem, “MS 5441. 4Q(?)Ruth (Ruth 2.1–2),” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 173, 185, 203, 215, 223, 235, 239, 243. 43 Applied to MS 4612/4 and MS 5440, cf. Egvin and Davis, “MS 4612/4. 4Q(?)GenMiniature (Gen 36.7–16),” and Davis and Elgvin, “MS 5440. 4Q(?)Kgs (1 Kgs 16.23–26),” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 141, 211. 44 Ira Rabin, “Material Analysis of the Fragments,” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois, Gleanings from the Caves, 63. 45 Cf. Elgvin, “MS 2713. Mur/Ḥ evJosh (Josh 1.9–12; 2.3–5),” and idem, “MS 4612/1. Ḥ ev(?)Joel (Joel 4.1–5),” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves, 185, 223. While no measurement is published for the thickness of the former, the thickness of the latter is recorded as 1.2±0.5 mm. DAVIS 12 of “hesitant hands,” and attaches this label to six of the twenty fragments in his analysis.46 The one thing that all six of these fragments share in common is their very poorly preserved surface. While Elgvin’s occasional identification of these as “crude” scripts implies a low level of scribal training, it is more likely that the poor appearance of the handwriting is directly connected to the condition of the surface at the time the manuscript was penned. Moreover, this is precisely the explanation suggested by Tigchelaar in his critique of Langlois’ palaeographical analysis of MS 5480.47 It would serve to account for why it is only those fragments in both collections where the preserved surface is rough and uneven that are likewise also those where the handwriting appears consistently poor. Among the MOTB fragments, fully half of them have been classified as written either by scribal novices, or by scribes with little training: all of these fragments exhibit qualities of scripts of a demonstrably lower proficiency than what is characteristic of other Judaean Desert manuscripts which preserve literary texts.48 These fragments have all been described by palaeographer Ada Yardeni as having been penned using a stylus with a “worn” or “slightly worn” nib.49 But again, the fragments which bear this distinction are also those identified above, with surfaces that are unusually scabrous and unforgiving. There is a marked inconsistency in the fragments from both the collections in the manifest skill of scribes, type of script, and classification of literature. By and large among the discoveries at Qumran, Masada, and Murabbaʿat texts that we would designate as “scripture” are produced by highly proficient scribes, and moreover were penned in formal—as opposed to cursive scripts. Cursive scripts tend to belong to smaller scrolls, written by less-trained scribal hands in the case of documentary texts. Among the Qumran manuscripts non-documentary texts written in cursive or especially semi-cursive scripts50 show clear evidence of high levels of scribal skill. What is in extremely short supply in the scrolls from other Judaean manuscripts are just the sort of texts that appear with an unusual frequency among those in the MOTB and Schøyen fragments: texts of “scripture” written in stylised, formal scripts, but belonging to what appear to be especially noviciate 46 This is applied to MS 4612/5, MS4612/9, MS 5214/1, MS 5233/2, MS 5441 and 5480. Langlois, “Palaeographical Analysis.” Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really?,” 5. 48 Applied to MOTB.Scr.000120, MOTB.Scr.003170, MOTB.Scr.003171, MOTB.Scr.003174, MOTB.Scr.003175 and MOTB.Scr.003183 Davis, “Paleographical and Physical Features,” 23–26. My discussion of script quality is drawn from a thorough discussion of matching script quality to scribal skill, and positing from this practical estimates of literacy in Michael O. Wise, Language and Literacy in Roman Judea: a Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents (AYBRL; New Haven, Conn.; Yale University Press, 2015), 279–317. 49 Davis, “Paleographical and Physical Features,” 23–26; cf. also Yardeni’s comments pertaining to the fragment of Amos 7:17–8:1 owned by Lanier Theological Library, appearing in Emanuel Tov, “A New Fragment of Amos,” DSS 21 (2014): 3–13.: “The writing utensil was worn because of which the shapes of the letters are not flawless (unlike most scrolls written with carefully designed utensils).” 50 According to Ada Yardeni, The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Paleography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design (London: The British Library, 2002), 172, the Jewish cursive script had not reached its full development until the first century C.E., and prior to then there was among a number of MSS an admixture of formal and cursive letter forms in a “distinct script style.” Cf. also Frank Moore Cross, “The Development of Jewish Scripts,” in Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (Reprinted from pages 133–202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East; Edited by G.E. Wright; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003, 13, Fig. 1.3. 47 DAVIS 13 scribal hands. Tigchelaar alluded to this anomaly in his unpublished paper by observing that “one would rather expect unskilled hands in scribal exercises than in copies of biblical works.”51 2.2.2. Bleeding letters: This is predominantly a product of the very poor surfaces for many of the fragments, but in an unusual effect the ink from the pen strokes in several examples “bleeds” outside of the letter frame to unprecedented levels when compared to other Judaean Desert manuscripts. While one can detect small amounts of bleeding on some fragments among the very poorly preserved scrolls from the Qumran Caves, the extent of this phenomenon among fragments in the collections is fairly more pronounced. MS 5214/1 and MS 5233/2 are two such fragments from The Schøyen Collection, where the surface is so poor as to have induced this effect.52 This is especially evident in line 2 of the latter fragment, where a high proportion of the ink has bled outside the letter-frames of bêt and ʿayin in ‫בעמים‬. But there are considerably more examples from MOTB where this effect is pervasive: most notably in MOTB.Scr.003170, MOTB.Scr.003175, and MOTB.Scr. 003183. In several instances on all three of these fragments, traces of bleeding escape letterframes in various directions, creating an effect in some cases that looks like tentacles or a spider-web. Notice, for example, the appearance of the letters in the word ‫ עמיה‬in line 2 of MOTB.Scr.003170; the tendrils extending from wāw and ʾālep in ‫ ואשוב‬on line 3 of MOTB.Scr.003175; and the extensive amount of blotting and bleeding in all of the letters on the first half of line 2 of MOTB.Scr.003183. As mentioned with regards to this last fragment, this feature is so obvious that it prompted the editors Flint and Hebrison to assert it as evidence that the text had been enscribed on an especially rough and uneven surface.53 Fig. 2.1.. MS 5233/2 line 2 51 Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really?” 5. Another papyrus fragment from The Schøyen Collection that was withheld for publication in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings of the Caves shows an unprecedented level of bleeding in the script, and will appear in a forthcoming publication of seven fragments from the collection whose provenance and authenticity are highly disputed. 53 Flint and Hebrison, “Micah 1:4–6 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003183),” 177. 52 DAVIS 14 Fig. 2.2.. MOTB.Scr.003170 line 2 (top left), MOTB.Scr.003175 line 3 (top right), MOTB.Scr.003183 line 2 (bottom) 2.2.3. Misaligned text: This is not merely the sloppy wandering of text that is produced by an absence of guidelines on a manuscript. Rather, an unusual but consistent phenomenon among fragments in the collections is the instance of lines of text on the top or bottom edges of fragments that are aligned more closely to the contour of the fragment edge as opposed to the other visible lines. This strange feature is particularly clear in MS5480, where Elgvin notes that the two preserved lines on the fragment “converge slightly towards the left.”54 This convergence amounts to a difference of 1.4 mm, or 20% of the documented line spacing over a distance of 15.7 mm. But the phenomenon is also evident on MS 5233/2, in which the line on the bottom edge of the fragment appears situated slightly higher on the right side where the the fragment edge has deteriorated closer to the dryline. In the case of this fragment the difference is more subtle, but likewise departs from the 7 mm recorded linespacing by the same 1.4 mm ratio over a distance of 14.2 mm. Fig. 3.1. MS 5480 54 Elgvin, “MS 5480. 4Q(?)Sam (1 Sam 5.10–11),” 203. DAVIS 15 From among the MOTB fragments this pattern is clearly observed in MOTB.Scr. 003171 and less obvious in MOTB.Scr.003172. The former preserves parts of four lines of text; the second and third of which are neatly aligned to one another. However, in the first visible line on the fragment only the bottom portions of most of the letters survive, and most of these appear to correspond anomalously to the top edge of the fragment, and not in alignment with the text below. The illusion of alignment is in part promoted by the presence of a vacat on the second line, but the distance between the hypothetical baseline of the letters on line 1 and the dryline on line 3 below it more clearly demonstrates the problem of a 1.3 mm discrepancy in the space from one side to the other over a distance of 17 mm.55 Part of the bottom line on the right half of the fragment has likewise deteriorated, but for a small yôd, a very small šîn and trace of a third letter that appear 1 mm above the dryline. Fig. 3.2. MOTB.Scr.003171 In the final example the same phenomenon is not clearly visible to the naked eye, but only perceived from a precise measurement of the distances between the preserved lines. The editor of MOTB.Scr.003172, Karl Kutz, records line spacing of the fragment between 5.9 and 7.4 mm, and 6.8 mm on average, but the distance between lines 2–6 ranges between 6.75 mm–7.4 mm, with the line spacing between lines 1–2 measuring only 6.6 mm, and that between lines 6–7 at the bottom of the fragment only 5.75 mm.56 In other words, those lines at the top and bottom edges of the fragment are penned more closely to the 55 The illusion is exacerbated by the reconstruction of the fragment that appears in Fig. 13.2 DSS F.Jon1 ( Jon 4:2–5 dating to the latter half of the first century B.C.E. including a reconstruction of missing letters in McDowell and Hill, “Jonah 4:2–5 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003171),” 176. The reconstruction has undergone a process of “patching” by which distortions of the fragment surface are corrected to produce a more smoothly aligned text. Cf. Bruce Zuckerman, Asher Levy and Marilyn Lundberg, “A Methodology for the Digital Reconstruction of Dead Sea Scroll Fragmentary Remains,” in Tov, Davis and Duke (eds), Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments, 48–49. Also Bruce Zuckerman, “Every Dot and Tittle: A Consideration of the Limitations of Computer Imaging for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Z. Garber and B. Zuckerman, Double Takes: Thinking and Rethinking Issues of Modern Judaism in Ancient Contexts (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004), 189. 56 Kutz et al, “Jeremiah 23:6–9 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003172),” 141. The discrepancy in the low-end of Kutz’s measurement for the line spacing has resulted from measuring from the highest point of all the letters on line 6 and not from the point where most of the letters hang. DAVIS 16 lines below and above them. While it is not uncommon to see very small fluctuations in line spacing on Judaean Desert manuscripts, it is somewhat specious to see these instances with considerable frequency on just the top and bottom edges of a fragment. 2.2.4. Palaeographic anomalies: I will have more to say about dubiously anomalous letters in the following point, but what we see in common in some of the DSS fragments in the collections is an unusual combination of letters that seem to be out of place palaeographically compared to the rest of the text appearing on a single fragment. This is a point that Tigchelaar raises in his paper by providing several examples from catalogue images of one of the unpublished fragments from The Schøyen Collection, MS 5426,57 and from Langlois’ palaeographical analysis of MS 5480.58 In his short review Tigchelaar points to the appearance of a hê that is written on line 1 of MS 5480 with “a separate stroke that forms a loop, in a manner I do not recall to have seen in the Qumran scrolls.”59 The appearance of this letter is indeed odd, but now not unprecedented in the light of similar samples from at least one of the MOTB fragments—MOTB.Scr.003170, or perhaps also MOTB.Scr.003172 and MOTB.Scr.003175.60 Additional instances of oddly formed letters appear in a large number of fragments from both collections, and in many cases it is difficult to account for discrepancies they introduce into attendant palaeographic discussions. Fig. 4.1. The letter hê: from left-to-right, MS 5480 line 1, MOTB.Scr.003170 line 2, MOTB.Scr.003172 line 2 (2x), MOTB.Scr.003175 line 4 For example, Langlois records the following description of medial mêm on MS 4612/9 in The Schøyen Collection: Medial ‫ מ‬features a curved traverse, larger than that of ‫ כ‬but more rounded than that of ‫ב‬. It is drawn together with the vertical, the elbow and the base, without lifting the pen. The elbow is usually rounded but can be orthogonal (l. 5), which foreshadows later Herodian 57 Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really?” 3; MS 5426 was first announced by James C. Charlesworth when it still belonged to Lee Biondi as the first discovered Judaean Desert fragment of Nehemiah: “Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Nehemiah.” (http://web.archive.org/web/20130829163116/http://foundationjudaismchristianorigins.org/ftp/pages/dead-sea-scrolls/ unpub/nehemiah.html). The same fragment was featured on the cover of one of Biondi’s museum catalogue: Lee Biondi, From the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Bible in America (Phoenix: Legacy Ministries International, 2009). 58 Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really?” 4–5. 59 Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really?” 4. 60 For a complete inventory of letter forms in the MOTB fragments, cf. Fig. 2.1 Paleographical comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments in the Museum Collection in Davis, “Paleographical and Physcial Features,” 21–22. Also Fig. 16.1 DSS F.Dan1 (Dan 10:18–20) dating to the mid-first century B.C.E. in Duke et al., “Daniel 10:18–20 (Inv.MOTB.SCR.003170),” 208; Fig. 11.1 DSS F.Jer2 ( Jer 23:6–9) dating to the mid-first century B.C.E. in Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9 (Inv.MOTB.SCR.003172),” 156; Fig. 17.1 DSS F.Neh2 (Neh 2:13–16) dated to around the mid-first century B.C.E. in Martin G. Abegg Jr. with Ryan Blackwelder, Joshua M. Matson, Ryan D. Schroeder and Joseph Kyle Stewart, “Nehemiah 2:13–16 (Inv.MOTB.SCR.003175),” in Tov, Davis and Duke (eds), Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments, 220. DAVIS 17 formal hands. The left arm is drawn last, unlike later Herodian scripts.61 Missing from this is any comment about the highly unusual appearance of the first medial mêm on line 2, which is clearly much larger, and penned with a different angle on the keraia. The letter is obviously at odds with the three other specimens on the fragment, and it seems to have been affected by a hole in the parchment that obviated the traverse. There are rare instances in the Judaean Desert scrolls where the poor condition of the parchment forced scribes of antiquity to avoid ablations or surface imperfections when they wrote, but this does not seem at all to be the intention here, since it appears in the company of other wormholes on the same line that have not prompted the same response. Fig. 4.2. The letter mêm, MS 4612/9 Tigchelaar draws from another example on MS 5480 at the right edge on the first line: The text provides four samples of waw. Langlois presents images of all four, and describes: “‫ ו‬is tall, straight, with an open hook at its head.” However, apart from the the correspondence with 1 Sam 5:10, how can one read that first letter (Langlois’s most right sample) as a waw? The downstroke is not straight, but made in at least two strokes, in such a manner that the top inclines towards the right. There is an additional strange stroke at the right (which Elgvin declares to be a spill of ink, ignoring the other difficulties with the letter), and the hook at the head is neither a hook, nor placed at the head. Out of context one would not read this as a waw.62 Fig. 4.3. The letter wāw, MS 5480 The important point here is not one that is unique to MS 5480, that out of context this letter—like many letters that appear in manuscript fragments belonging to The Schøyen Collection and MOTB—would not be read in accordance with letters that the editors have identified. In MOTB.Scr.003172 line 3 Kutz marks the presence of an oblique stroke on the right-side of a nûn as an “odd appendage,” and opines that it is “perhaps an exaggerated example of the short initial stroke leading into the nun in the first century Herodian script.”63 This is again an instance in which this letter is an anomaly that is dramatically out of character with the 61 Langlois, “Palaeographical Analysis,” 89. Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really?” 4. Elgvin’s comments appear in Elgvin, “MS 5480. 4Q(?)Sam (1 Sam 5.10–11),” 204. 63 Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003172),” 145. 62 DAVIS 18 known datasets, and out of context it would not be read as such. Other examples abound from the same manuscript in exasperating variety in the forms of the letter hê,64 but also in manuscript MOTB.Scr.003175 which exhibits an absence of any scribal consistency in the three preserved forms of medial mêm.65 I have elsewhere outlined several additional examples of this phenomenon among the MOTB scroll fragments.66 Fig. 4.4. Line 1: The letter he, MOTB.Scr.003172. Line 2: the letter mêm, MOTB.Scr.003175 2.2.5. Scribal inconsistencies on fragment edges: Perhaps the most unusual of the scribal features shared in common between fragments belonging to the collections is the appearance of oddly shaped letters most predominantly along the fragment edges. This includes letters that are oversized, undersized, and generally out of character with how they are otherwise penned on the same fragment, but which also appear to have been affected by the contours of already extant fragment damage on the edges. This feature was actually pointed out by Elgvin in his edition of MS 5214/1, and he draws critical attention to the appearance and placement of letters on the left edge of the fragment: “The šin is much smaller and is shaped differently from the same letter earlier in this line. This letter and the ink trace to the right of it appear surprisingly high on the hypothetical dryline. The šin suspiciously follows the contours of the fragment, as if it has been ‘squeezed’ into the available space along the bottom edge.”67 Fig. 5.1. MS 5214/1 I have made similar observations about fragments from MOTB, MOTB.Scr.003171, 64 Cf. Davis, “Paleographical and Physical Features,” 22. Davis, “Paleographical and Physical Features,” 22. 66 Davis, “Paleographical and Physical Features,” 20–23. 67 Elgvin, “MS 5214/1. 4Q(?)Deut1 (Deut 6.1–2),” 174. 65 DAVIS 19 MOTB.Scr.003172 and MOTB.Scr.003173. The first fragment is one in which: ... one shin, the first visible letter of line 4, located at the right, bottom edge of the fragment, is demonstrably smaller than the other two examples and placed very high on the line. This last example is especially problematic since it seems to follow the contours of the fragment edge. A similar set of peculiarities appears in F.Jer2 where the letters in the last word at the left edge of the fragment on line 1 are very small and appear to follow the contour of the fragment edge. The shin and bet in ‫ נשבר‬on line 6 also prove problematic. On the shin the join formed by the center arm to the left downstroke is unusually high, straight, and at a much shallower angle than other examples of this letter. This letter also appears to conform to the damaged portion of the fragment. The bet has been partially obscured by a wormhole, but the ink on the crossbar appears as though written in two motions in an effort to avoid the hole. A related pattern of anomalies occurs in F.Num2, which contains a handful of oddly formed letters along its edges, most notably shins on lines 1 and 4, which appear much like the anomalous shin in F.Jer2 line 6, and the mem on line 3 that occurs at the left edge of the fragment. As an aside, it is interesting to note the numerous problems that attend the formation specifically of the letter šîn in the variety of fragments discussed here. Fig. 5.2. MOTB.Scr.003171 line 4 (top), MOTB.Sc.003172 lines 6–7 (middle), MOTB.Scr.003173 (bottom) DAVIS 20 3. Textual Anomalies and Questions of Authenticity 3.1. Variants In his introduction to the Schøyen editions Elgvin points to “the exceptional feature that even small fragments in The Schøyen Collection and the American collections preserve textual variants suggested by the editors of BHK and BHS, and some of them follow linefor-line and word-for-word the layout in previously published text editions.”68 An example of this phenomenon is possibly seen in APU3 (DSS F.153), a fragment housed at the Azusa Pacific University Library, which preserves a line-for-line correspondence of text with a Qumran fragment, 4QDeutc (4Q30) frg. 5.69 There are 181 letters, minus the spaces, either fully or partially preserved in 4QDeutc 5 2–7. From this group of letters 130 are either fully or partially preserved in APU3. Four out of five lines in common between the two fragments align precisely to one another on the right margin. The only discrepency appears in 4QDeutc 5 6 and APU3 5, where ‫ פי‬begins the line in the latter, and the following word ‫ יהוה‬in the former. What is most striking about the correspondence between these two fragments is the fact that there is only one fully preserved line on each, and this line happens to contain the same text from Deut 8:3 (4QDeutc 5 4; APU3 3). This text in 4QDeutc 5 4 was written using unusually large word spaces, and this seems in turn to be compensated for in APU3 by the omission of word spaces from several words in the preceding line, line 2, and by the relocation of ‫ פי‬from the end of the following line, line 4, to the beginning of line 5. In addition to this exceptional coincidence, APU3 5 also reproduces a transpositional variant from 4QDeutc 5 6, whereby ‫( שמלתך‬Deut 8:4) was replaced by a parallel text alternative, ‫שלמתך‬. But Elgvin also mentions the preservation of textual variants among fragments of the sort that appear unusually—often fortuitously—coincidental. One such instance from The Schøyen Collection is in the final preserved line of MS 4612/9, a fragment that contains text from Jer 3:15–19. The ! version of v. 19 begins with 1‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ִשׁ‬1‫אָמ ְר ִתּי ֵאי‬ ַ ‫וְ אָנ ִֹכי‬ ‫בּ ָבּנִ ים‬,ַ “I myself have said: ‘How shall I set you among (my) sons?’” The translation of this passage in " reads καὶ ἐγὼ εἶπα Γένοιτο, κύριε· ὅτι τάξω σε εἰς τέκνα, “I said, ‘So be it, Lord, as (you declared) “I will set you among (my) sons.”’” Elgvin and I called the usage of ‫ איך‬in ! “awkward,” and in our edition of MS 4612/9 we noted that “[t]he BHS apparatus suggests as a solution that the " Vorlage interpreted the word as an abbreviation for ‫אמן יהוה כי‬,”70 68 Elgvin, “Texts and Artefacts from the Jusaean Desert in The Schøyen Collection: An Overview,” in Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), 53. 69 VLC images of the recto and verso of this fragment are available for public viewing online at http://cdm16657.contentdm.oclc.org/ cdm/compoundobject/collection/p16657coll7/id/5/rec/1. The IR image of the recto which was at one time accessible has since been removed. Tigchelaar has also recently drawn attention to this fragment for precisely the same reasons in his recent online paper, “Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls Fishy Fragments — or Forgeries?On Provenance and Authenticity: Some Cases” (unpublished paper; online: https://www.academia.edu/27658971/Post-2002_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_Fishy_Fragments_or_Forgeries; accessed 13 September, 2016). 70 Elgvin and Davis, “MS 4612/9. 4Q(?)Jer (Jer 3.15–19),” 219. Cf. William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia 24A; Accordance electronic ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986), 121-122. Holladay DAVIS 21 Fig. 6. 4QDeutc (4Q50) frg. 5 (top), APU3 (bottom) which is identical to what appears on the final line of our fragment. By happy coincidence, MS 4612/9 preserves a rendering that parallels the translation in ", affirms precisely the suggestion made by the BHS editors, and in so doing provides the first manuscript evidence for the hypothesised abbreviation that also insinuates a " priority for this passage. This is the sort of circumstance that would qualify as a text-critical “smoking gun” of almost unbelievable good fortune, and it prompts scholars to pose some serious questions: how much more critically ought we examine readings in manuscripts that appear to be too good to be true? How much more so does this hold for manuscripts of unknown or dubious provenance? sees the relationship between " and ! in the opposite direction, and says that the " reading “is not the original intention of the wording.” DAVIS 22 3.2. A Diacritical Notation? In theory, text critical anomalies or salaciously controversial texts are those that are apt to garner the most popular attention, and we see the effect of this in the media circus that followed the discovery and announcement of the fragment from the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.”71 An unusual fragment from the MOTB provides a possibly controversial reading of a different sort: it preserves only a fairly mundane text, and one that is faithful to its ! counterpart, but there may also be evidence of textual variation at least in its source text. Editor Martin G. Abegg transcribed two words on the left-edge of MOTB. Scr.003175 line 3 in correspondence with Neh 2:15 as ‫ואשוב ו̊ ̊אבו֗ ]א‬, “Then I turned back and ent[ered,” and he offered the following remarks: A vav is expected as the first letter of the last word of line 3, but its appearance is unlike the six examples of this character present elsewhere in the fragment (line 1: ‫ו֗ ̊ש]עריה‬, line 2: ‫ ואין‬and ‫מקום‬, line 3: ‫ בחומה‬and ‫)ואשוב‬. The bottom of the visible traces suggests that the scribe’s pen nib again split on the downstroke and perhaps what ink might have been present below was thin and eventually flaked off. The surface of the skin appears to be intact. Otherwise it remains to posit a very clumsy vav that the scribe did not attempt to correct. Fig. 7. MOTB.Scr.3175 line 3 (Neh 3:15) and Biblia Hebraica Kittel 1937 edn. (BHK) This might seem like a reasonable explanation, except for the fact that the wāw in question—the first letter of the word—is written so surprisingly close to the last letter of the previous word. Not only is there no obvious word space to separate between them, but the wāw of the second word is actually suspended above the base of the bêt of the first 71 Cf. I.e. Christian Askeland, “Jesus Had a Sister-in-Law,” Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog, 24 April 2014, http://evangelicaltextual criticism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/jesus-had-ugly-sister-in-law.html; Roger Bagnall has alternatively argued for the authenticity of the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife fragment on the dubious premise that there are no known forgeries of this kind. As he puts it, according to the New York Times, “I don’t know of a single verifiable case of somebody producing a papyrus text that purports to be an ancient text that isn’t. There’s always the first.” Laurie Goodstein, “Fresh Doubts Raised about Papyrus Scrap Known as ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,’” New York Times, 4 May 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/us/fresh-doubts-raised-about-papyrus-scrap-known-asgospel-of-jesuss-wife.html?_r=0. DAVIS 23 word. There are instances in the Judaean Desert scrolls of words that have not been distinguished by word spaces, but as far as I know this is an unprecedented anomaly. How does a scribe commit such an error in the first place? The placement of the letter is troubling enough, but this is exacerbated by the shape of the letter, which bears little resemblance to the examples of wāw on the same fragment (recall also Abegg’s observation that the surface of the skin where this letter appears is intact). Astonishingly, this letter in its placement relative to the word ‫ ואשוב‬is much closer in appearance to a small, superscripted Greek letter α, and eerily similar to a diacritical notation that was printed in Rudolf Kittel’s 1937 edition of the same passage in Biblia Hebraica (BHK).72 We can’t know the source of this apparent error on MOTB.Scr.003175, but the absence of any reliable knowledge about this fragment’s provenance should give us dramatic pause, especially in the light of its possible relationship to a modern printed edition. Conclusion I posed the question at the beginning of this paper as to the degree in which textual consistencies already observed by others in manuscript fragments from late acquisitions in The Schøyen Collection and MOTB align with patterns in their appearance, material consistency and scribal features. The results of this study can be organised into eight separate categories according to 1) size, 2) colour, 3) condition, 4) scribal skill, 5) letter formation, 6) alignment, 7) palaeographical consistency and 8) textual plausibility, and then plotted onto a table (See APPENDIX). In addition to these eight criteria I have also included entries for the number of columns and lines surviving in each of the fragments, line spacing, and letter size. I have focused my attention on everything apart from line spacing and letter sizes, and have highlighted in red the following observations: 17/28 total non-provenanced fragments—11/15 from The Schøyen Collection and 6/13 from MOTB— are described as exceptionally coarse in texture, and I posit here this feature as the primary distinguishing characteristic that separates these fragments from the Qumran DSS as well as most of the other Judean Desert manuscripts. · 12 of these 17 fragments (= 71%) are described as especially dark in colour · 11/17 (= 65%) of these fragments comprise an area of <7.25 cm2, and 14/17 (82%) contain less than six lines of text · 10/17 (= 59%) of these fragments exhibit writing that has been described as hesitant, poor, or unpracticed · For those fragments on which the ink has bled outside of letter frames, 4/5 (= 80%) are also among those that exhibit every one of the above four features · For those fragments where lines appear to correspond with the contours of the fragment edges, 3/4 (= 75%) are also exceptionally coarse in texture, especially dark in colour, and exhibit hesitant writing · For those fragments that contain problematic palaeographical inconsistencies that 72 Cf. Davis, “Paleographical and Physical Features,” 27. DAVIS 24 seem to have been affected by post-deposit conditions 6/10 (= 60%) are also exceptionally coarse in texture, especially dark in colour and exhibit hesitant writing · For those fragments that contain what I consider to be implausible textual correspondences with modern text editions all three73 also are exceptionally coarse in texture and dark in colour, exhibit hesitant writing and problematic palaeographical inconsistencies. Of the eight criteria listed in the final columns of the table eight fragments (MS 4612/9; MS 5214/1; MS 5233/2; MS 5480; MOTB.Scr.003170; MOTB.Scr.003171; MOTB.Scr.003175; MOTB.Scr.003183) exhibit at least five, three of which (MS5214/1; MS 5480; MOTB.Scr. 003183) exhibit six, and one (MOTB.Scr.003175) seven. I embarked on this study from an observation made by Eibert Tigchelaar about the question of provenance for the recently published Schøyen DSS fragments: there is nothing linking them to Qumran, and they contain a variety of features that strongly suggest a different place of discovery: “This could be one (or multiple?) different findplace(s) where multiple small fragments of biblical books and an occasional pseudepigraphic work, many written in those hesitant and inconsistent hands, were preserved.”74 If the fragments in the collections were removed from the same find-place, then they represent a very unusual collection of largely small scrolls containing texts penned by especially noviciate scribes who had access to little more than extremely poorly prepared parchments and leather. But moreover, and more problematically when factoring in the high number of dubious palaeographical anomalies and the existence on at least three fragments of highly suspicious textual features, this is also a group of scribes who appear to have had access to twentieth century text editions! Tigchelaar suggested as an alternative that a number of these fragments might have been produced by modern forgers—unscrupulous thieves, perhaps toiling within a Cave of Wonders to manipulate the goodwill combined by philanthropic support for academic research and religious faith. Daniel Falk drew a very interesting word picture in a recent panel review session of the Schøyen DSS editions published under the title Gleanings from the Caves: It’s an oxymoronic image, if you think about it: gleaning in caves? That’s not normally where one gleans. It is also an ironic image: gleaning is the practice of gathering of the leftovers after the commercial crop has been harvested, and is enshrined in the biblical laws the right of the poor. And there is an intentionality in leaving—allowing significant leftovers: the prohibition 73 Not discussed in this paper is the bizarre case of MOTB.Scr.003183, which contains what appears to be a large, empty space before the first preserved text at the beginning of line 4. According to editors Flint and Hebrison, “Micah 1:4–6 (Inv. MOTB.SCR.003183),” 184: “The indentation is not immediately apparent since line 4 is situated at the bottom edge of the fragment. The beginning of the line is broken by the bottom edge, but one would still expect to see at least the top portions of letters here, though none are preserved. A straight dryline can be seen for a portion of this vacat, making clear that the lack of ink here cannot be explained by distortion of the scroll itself (wrinkle, water dammage, shrinkage, etc.). The presence of this dryline confirms the absence of letters from the beginning of the line. This portion of the line does not appear any more abraded than the rest of the fragment; therefore, it is unlikely that text was once there but has since worn off.” The vacat itself would not be so problematic did it not so dramatically affect the potential reading of the text, and this is especially pronounced in the reconstruction provided by Marilyn J. Lundberg, which matches precisely ! Mic 1:6, but requires the insertion of text in the vacat. In other words, the preserved fragment provides the cursory appearance of a !-like text, but on close inspection is both physically impossible, and textually absurd. 74 Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Caves? Really?,” 6. DAVIS 25 against picking up droppings; the requirement to not harvest the corners. Applying the metaphor to the Schøyen scrolls [and I would add to all the scrolls in modern, private collections] the image is ironically inverted: who are the “gleaners”? Not the bedouin, but the wealthy collectors, and the beneficiaries in this topsy-turvy trickle-up / trickle-down economy are the scholars, gathering what they can. There is the issues of legality which are reversed as well, and intentionality, where it’s required by law to be intentional in leaving stuff to be gathered; here, you really get a sense of how hard both collectors and scholars work to try to gather what scraps they can.75 If there is one thing that the post-2002 DSS fragments have in common, it is the symbiotic relationship they represent that is forged between religiously motivated private collectors and desperate and eager scholars as they endeavour together to preserve and enrich a shared cultural heritage—how fragile. There are undoubtedly authentic artefacts of extremely high importance in both The Schøyen Collection and the MOTB which have a tremendous role to play in achieving this objective. But let this preliminary survey sound the cautionary alarm: we would be naive to imagine that these datasets are free from pollution, and, as scholars, we would be remiss in our failure to exercise due diligence in our efforts to ensure that they remain in service of the common good, and not as a repository for the wares of profiteers. 75 Transcribed from a review session of Elgvin with Davis and Langlois (eds), Gleanings from the Caves (triennial meeting of the IOQS, Leuven, Belgium, 19 July, 2016). Lines total Lines (mm) Letters (mm) Area (cm2) Grain Colour Scribe 2 cols, 9 lines 2 cols, 5 lines 2 cols, 9 lines 9 lines 8 lines 4 lines 6 lines 4 lines 3 lines 5 lines 3 lines 2(.5) lines 4 lines 3 lines 2 lines 7 6 5.5 7 4–5 6 7.5–8 7 6 6.5–7 5 7 7 7 6–7 ca. 3 3–3.5 ca. 2.5 ca. 3 1.5 2–2.5 2–3 2–2.5 2 2.5 1.5–2 2.2–2.7 1.5–2 2.5 1.5–2 115.17† 16.47 109.67 39.36 4.58 3.68 16.79 6.05 2.53 8.01 2.42 3.35 5.76 14.24 1.88 worn worn smooth uneven coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse dark brown brown brown dark brown black light brown dark brown dark brown dark brown brown brown dark brown black dark brown large/regular skilled/assured consistent skilled/precise very small hesitant/inconsistent hesitant partially regular hesitant/inconsistent consistent small hesitant/inconsistent small hesitant hesitant/small MOTB.Scr.000120 MOTB.Scr.000121 MOTB.Scr.000122 MOTB.Scr.000123 MOTB.Scr.000124 MOTB.Scr.003170 MOTB.Scr.003171 MOTB.Scr.003172 MOTB.Scr.003173 MOTB.Scr.003174 MOTB.Scr.003175 MOTB.Scr.003183 5 lines 4 lines 4 lines 2 lines 2 cols, 5 lines 3 lines 4 lines 7 lines 4 lines 2 lines 4 lines 4 lines 6.8–7.3 6.3 6.2 6.8 7.7 6 5.6–6 6.8 7 7–8 5–6 5.6 2.5 2.2 2 2.3 2.5 2.5 1.9 2 2.5 1 2 2.3 5.29 1.87 2.63 4.18 24.75 3.76 5.16 7.39 7.74 6.24 4.29 13.58 uneven worn worn worn worn uneven coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse light brown black brown dark brown brown dark brown dark brown black brown dark brown dark brown dark brown novice skilled skilled skilled skilled unpracticed unpracticed skilled skilled novice novice unpracticed NCF.Scr.004742 4 lines 5 1.6 2.29 worn light brown (red?) skilled Letter forms Alignment Consistency Plausibility Schøyen MS2713 MS2861 MS4611 MS4612/1 MS4612/4 MS4612/5 MS4612/9 MS4612/11 MS5214/1 MS5214/2 MS5233/1 MS5233/2 MS5440 MS5441 MS5480 ‫ת‬,‫ר‬,‫ע‬,‫מ‬,‫ל‬,‫ו‬,‫ב‬,‫א‬ ‫מ‬,‫י‬,‫ח‬,‫ה‬ ‫מ‬,‫ל‬,‫כ‬,‫ה‬ ‫ש‬,‫ה‬ bleeding bleeding = BHS misaligned misaligned ‫ע‬,‫י‬,‫ו‬ MOTB † figures and features in italics are not drawn from published sources, but are otherwise my own measurements and observations. ‫א‬ ‫ת‬,‫מ‬,‫ו‬,‫ה‬ ‫מ‬ ‫ת‬,‫ע‬,‫מ‬ bleeding misaligned misaligned bleeding bleeding ‫ע‬,‫מ‬,‫ו‬,‫ה‬ ‫ש‬,‫ר‬,‫ע‬,‫מ‬,‫י‬,‫ה‬ ‫ש‬,‫ם‬,‫ח‬,‫ה‬,‫ב‬,‫א‬ ‫ש‬,‫מ‬,‫ה‬,‫ד‬,‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫מ‬,‫ם‬,‫ו‬,‫ה‬,‫ב‬,‫א‬ ‫ת‬,‫ל‬,‫ה‬,‫ב‬,‫א‬ ‫א‬ = BHK = BHS(?)