The Contents of the Manuscripts from the Caves of Qumran1

Florentino García Martínez

KULeuven

As it is clear from the Research Seminar program, my own presentation and that of Charlotte

Hempel are supposed to be centered on the contents of the manuscripts found in the Qumran

caves. I think that in the minds of the organizers, a profile or profiles of the manuscript

contents would help to complement, sharpen, and/or correct the conclusions provided by the

presentation of the archaeological and material elements of the caves (the main focus of the

research seminar). Charlotte Hempel’s presentation will give a specific profile of Cave 4,

while I will offer, if possible, a general profile of the whole collection or collections. In order

to achieve this goal it is necessary to look at both the commonalities of the manuscript

contents from the different caves, and the peculiarities of the contents of the different caves.

Before embarking on the profile of each individual cave, it will be helpful to list the

conclusions of the most relevant studies dealing with the caves, not from the point of view of

the contents, but from the perspective of material culture, paleography, regional context, etc.,

because this will hopefully reveal some of the problems we need to take into consideration

when looking at the contents of the manuscripts. I will list the conclusions of these studies in

chronological order, which, in my opinion, are the most relevant in the last fifteen years for

the present topic.

The 1999 article and excavation report by Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel

“Residential Caves at Qumran”2 established firmly the need to distinguish between the

residential caves in the marl terrace (4a, 4b, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and the two excavated by Broshi

and Eshel) and the natural caves in the cliffs (1, 2, 3, 6 and 11), which were considered

unsuitable for sustained habitation, thereby disagreeing with de Vaux’s 3 assertation that Cave

1
I want to thank Eibert Tigchelaar and Mladen Popović, who have read and commented on a previous
version of the paper. They are in no way responsible for the errors which may have remained. I also want to
thank Jeremy Penner, who has polished my English.
2
Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, “Residential Caves at Qumran,” DSD 6 (1999): 328-348.
3
R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (The British Academy: Oxford: OUP, 1973), 51: “Cave
11 was inhabited in the Chalcolitic period, in Iron Age II, and finally at the same period as Khirbet Qumran, as
the pottery found there (but rare elsewhere) attests.”

1
11 could have been4 inhabited. This basic division has been generally accepted and it will

allow us to consider separately the contents of the two groups of caves.

In the very important 2007 article “Old Caves and Young Caves,”5 and in his study in

2011, “Wie viele Bibliotheken gab es in Qumran?,”6 Daniel Stökel ben Ezra established that:

the average age of the dated scrolls from Cave 4 and from Cave 1 differs to such an

extent from that of the manuscripts of Caves 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11 that the possibility that

they are all randomly chosen samples of the same “population,” the same library,

becomes improbable. In other words, it can be shown statistically to be highly unlikely

that the manuscripts from Caves 1 and 4 are random samples coming from the same

collection of manuscripts as those from Caves 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11, hidden in an

emergency just before 68 CE. Instead, I propose that the manuscripts from Cave 1 and

Cave 4 represent an older form of the Qumran manuscript collection than those from

Caves 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11. The latter caves represent the manuscript collection of the

same community but at a later stage.7

His conclusion that we are dealing with two temporally different collections, has found a wide

consensus, but also opposition, both by those who propose a different paleographical dating of

the manuscripts8 and by those who find unconvincing the historical explanation of Stökel ben

Ezra (two chronologically different deposits, between 9 and 4 BCE for the old caves and 68

CE for the young caves)9 and the alternative explanation of Hanan Eshel10 (only one deposit in

68 CE, but the manuscripts from Cave 1 are a selection of the manuscripts from Cave 4 which

served as stacks for aging manuscripts). Despite these reservations, Stökel ben Ezra’s article

4
Broshi and Eshel, “Residential Caves,” 332: “Cave 11 is relatively big, but it does not have a leveled floor
as expected from a place fit for habitation,”
5
Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves: A Statistical Reevaluation of a Qumran Consensus,”
DSD 14 (2007): 313-333.
6
Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, “Wie viele Bibliotheken gab es in Qumran?,” in Qumran und die Archäeology (J.
Frey, C. Clausen, and N. Kessler eds; WUNT 1.278; Tübingen: Mohr Shiebeck, 2011), 327-346.
7
Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves,” 315.
8
For example, F. García Martínez, “Reconsidering the Cave 1 Texts Sixty Years After Their Discovery: An
Overview,” in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS, Ljubliana 2007 (ed. D.
Falk, S. Metso, and E. Tigchelaar; STDJ 91; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 1-13 (pp. 8-9). But see Stökel Ben Ezra’s
answer in, “Further Reflections on Caves 1 and 11: A Response to Florentino García Martínez,” in The Dead
Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (ed. C. Hempel; STDJ 90; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 211-223.
9
For example, Mladen Popović, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse in Times of Crisis? A Comparative
Perspective on Judaean Desert Manuscripts,” JSJ 43 (2012); 551-594 (pp. 580-81).
10
As raported by Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves ,” 331.

2
has at the very least made scholars aware of the necessity of determining if the different

caches of scrolls represent a single collection or multiple collections.

The third article I will review that focuses on the material aspects of the caves was

written by Joan Taylor and published in 2012: “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs: The

Qumran Genizah Theory Revisited.”11 As the title suggests, Joan Taylor revisits the genizah

theory, originally formulated for Cave 1 by Sukenik 12 and more recently defended by George

Brooke for the same cave.13 Taylor’s article contains many tantalizing suggestions (e.g., on

the time-span in which the scrolls may have been hidden, on the size of the collection and its

origin), but her primary aim is to prove that the caves were selected as internment locations

for worn out scrolls in need of preservation for a later burial deposit, not only in Cave 1 but in

all the natural caves on the cliff (and possibly also the “empty” tombs of the cemetery).

The scrolls found in the marl terrace caves, particularly Cave 4, could be a real

genizah or temporary storehouse, “for manuscripts prior to processing and burial.” To quote

her conclusion: “The Dead Sea Scrolls that we possess are the result of preservation-burials

of manuscripts after processing at Qumran, during which time the temporary store area

(genizah)-with workshops-was in the marl caves.” 14 If I have understood Taylor correctly, she

argues that the deposition of scrolls in the caves took place over an extended period of time

(burial preparation was a long process): “a date in the reign of Herod at the earliest,

continuing at least to the year 68 CE;” 15 regarding the question of whether the scrolls found in

the caves formed a single or multiple collection/s, she writes: “In my view, the vastness of the

scroll preservation-burials (which indicates a correspondingly vast originating holding) can

only be explained by thinking of the entire Essene school, over a period of time, not narrowly

in terms of one single library hidden at a single point in time.”16

11
Joan A. Taylor, “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs: The Qumran Genizah Theory Revisited,” in “Go
Out and Study the Land (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honour of Hanan
Eshel (ed. A. M. Meir, J. Magnes, and L. H. Schiffman; JSJS 148; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 269-315.
12
Already in the title of his two Hebrew volumes of 1948-49: Eleazar L. Sukenik, Megilot Genuzot mitokh
Genizah Keduma shenimtse’ah beMidbar Yehudah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1948-49) (Hebrew).
13
George J. Brooke, Qumran and the Jewish Jesus: Reading the New Testament in the Light of the Scrolls
(Cambridge: Grove Books, 2005), 9.
14
Taylor, “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs,” 305.
15
Taylor, “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs,” 297.
16
Taylor, “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs,” 303.

3
 One article, which also deals with the genizah theory and takes into consideration the

material elements and the paleography of the manuscripts, but puts the greatest emphasis on

their contents, was published by Stephen Pfann in 2006: “Reassessing the Judean Desert

Caves: Libraries, Archives, Genizas and Hiding Places.”17 In this study Stephen Pfann

explores the possibility that “each individual cave might represent a single coherent library,”

and concludes by arguing that the caves whose profile can be established (excluding thus

Caves 7, 8, 9 and 10 which have an “elusive character” 18) represent a different and distinct

library: Cave 1 represents a priestly Essene group and Cave 6 a lay Essene group; 19 Caves 4

and 5 were genizahs for both priestly and lay Essenes during the occupational phases of the

site. Cave 11 represents a priestly zealot’s library and Cave 3 a lay zealot’s library, both

brought from Jerusalem, possibly by Yehuda ben Yair;20 and finally Cave 2 would be a cave

“potentially connected with Simon bar Giora.”21

I will finish this review with two studies published in 2012 that synthesize the relevant

data on the material culture, palaeography, and regional context of Qumran caves, but which

also pay attention to the contents of the manuscripts in their respective deposits. In “Qumran:

Caves, Scrolls, and Buildings,” Sidnie White Crawford 22critically discusses all the works that

I have mentioned, and after looking into the contents of the different caves she concludes that

Caves 5, 7 and 8 are collections for the private use of the Qumran inhabitants of these caves, 23

that the manuscripts found in the caves of the cliff all have the same sectarian profile, and that

the manuscripts from Cave 4 tie “all other collections to itself and to each other.” 24 For

Crawford the eleven caves form a single collection or corpus and, while she seems not to

exclude completely the possibility “that some older manuscripts were stored away in certain

17
Stephen Pfann, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves: Libraries, Archives, Genizas and Hiding Places,”
BAIAS 25 (2007): 147-170.
18
Pfann, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves,” 166.
19
Pfann, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves,” 156-158.
20
Pfann, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves,” 158-161.
21
Pfann, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves,” 167.
22
Sidnie White Crawford, “Qumran: Caves, Scrolls, and Buildings,” in A Teacher for All Generations:
Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (ed. E. F. Mason, S. I. Thomas, A. Schofield, and E. Ulrich JSJS
153/1: Leiden: Brill, 2012), 253-273.
23
Crawford, “Qumran: Caves, Scrolls, and Buildings,” 265.
24
Crawford, “Qumran: Caves, Scrolls, and Buildings,” 266.

4
caves before the end of the settlement,” 25 she finally opts for the “quick hiding” scenario of

the standard traditional interpretation put forward by de Vaux. To quote her conclusion: “All

of these facts create a strong chain of evidence that it was the inhabitants of Qumran who

owned the scroll collection and who hid the majority of the Scrolls, perhaps first in the

relatively inaccessible caves in the limestone cliffs, but then finally and quickly in the large,

conveniently nearby Cave 4 in 68 CE.”26

The most lucid, incisive and complete study of the topic I know, is the long article by

Mladen Popović, published also in 2012: “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse in Times of Crisis? A

Comparative Perspective on Judaean Desert Manuscript Collections.”27 The article compares

the collection of manuscripts from Qumran, comprised almost entirely of literary texts, with

all other collections of manuscripts from the Judaean desert, collections made up primarily of

documentary material. Popović thus underlines the distinctive features of the collection from

Qumran as a scholarly, school-like collection. He also analyses the historical context

surrounding the deposition, characterized by violence and conflict; he notes the absence of

coins in the Qumran caves and concludes that refugees did not hide in them. This implies a

somewhat different deposition scenario, perhaps reflecting the anticipation of violence. 28

Broadly, the lived context of the Judaean desert collections other than the one at Qumran

points to the deposition of many personal collections; the manuscripts from Qumran,

however, point to a communal, school-like context,29 and after discussing if at Qumran we

have single or multiple collections, Popović concludes:

The movement behind the Dead Sea Scrolls can be characterized as a textual

community, reflecting a milieu of Jewish intellectuals who were engaged on various

levels with their ancestral traditions. The collection of texts attracted people and

shaped their thinking, while at the same time people shaped the collection, producing

25
Crawford, “Qumran: Caves, Scrolls, and Buildings,” 271.
26
Crawford, “Qumran: Caves, Scrolls, and Buildings,” 273.
27
Popović, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse,” 551-594.
28
Popović, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse,” 254-257.
29
Popović, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse,” 578.

5
 and gathering more texts. In this sense, the site of Qumran and its surrounding caves

functioned like a storehouse for scrolls.30

This quick review of the main studies dealing with the material culture, paleography,

and comparative regional context of the caves shows the great diversity of opinions among

scholars today. For many years the general opinion was that the scrolls found within the caves

formed part of a single collection, the library of the Qumran community, hidden in the caves

for safe keeping from the Romans.31 The questions now asked are whether the archaeological

remains represent a storehouse for scrolls (Popović), burial deposits or genizahs for

manuscripts (Taylor), multiple collections formed by different groups, each represented by

one of the caves (Pfann), multiple deposits at different times all belonging to a single

collection (Stökel ben Ezra), or multiple collections from a single group coming from

different places (Schofield32). What can a profile of the contents of each single cave add to

this polyphony, or shall we say cacophony?

Let us now look at the contents of each individual cave (Cave 9 and 10 can be safely

ignored, as only one papyrus fragment with a few letters was found in the former, and only an

ostracon with two letters in the latter) with the help not only of the indices of DJD 39,33 but

also of the programmatic article by Eibert Tigchelaar. 34 I can be short with the contents of

Cave 1, since in 2010 I published an article dedicated to “revisiting” this cave, and in which,

after discussing the opinions of other colleagues, I reached a rather conservative conclusion:

All things considered, the traditional opinion, which sees Cave 1 as the repository of

part of the treasures of the library of Qumran in order to hide and protect them from

impending danger, when presented in an orderly and thoughtful manner, seems still

the best explanation. If we take seriously the high number of jars, already broken in

30
As is formulated in the article abstract on p. 551, and developed on pp. 585-594.
31
See, for example, the classic hypothesis formulated by J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the
Wilderness of Judaea (trans. J. Strugnell; SBT 26; London: SCM, 1959) or by F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library
of Qumran (3d. ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, first edition from 1961).
32
Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for the
Community Rule (STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009). See also J. J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The
Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).
33
Emanuel Tov, ed., The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in
the Judaean Desert Series (DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000).
34
E. Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. J. J. Collins
and D. C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 163-180.

6
 antiquity, and the high number of linen textiles found in the Cave, we may conclude

that the orderly hiding of the manuscripts was interrupted and never completed, or that

Cave 1 was emptied of part of its treasures before modern times, as Stegemann

concluded for Cave 3. We will never know. What we do know is what we have: a few

well-preserved manuscripts and many more small remains of other compositions. And

when we consider all of them, we have a perfect sample of the library of which the

holdings of Cave 1 were once a part of, a cross section, as it were, of the Qumran

collection as a whole.

In the article I mentioned at the beginning35 where I compared the contents of

Cave 1 with all the other known materials from Qumran, I concluded that the most

interesting element brought forth by the completion of the publication was the change

offered in the proportions between biblical, para-biblical, and sectarian manuscripts,

and the increased importance of non-sectarian para-biblical materials as compared

with the two other categories. And when one takes into account not only the seven big

manuscripts published outside DJD but the forty manuscripts included in DJD 1

(leaving out of consideration the thirty other manuscripts non classified or identified

reproduced on plates XXXIII-XXXVII) the profile of the contents of Cave 1 is rather

similar to the profile of the collection as a whole: 15 “biblical” manuscripts, 9

“sectarian” compositions, and 22 “para-biblical” non sectarian compositions.36

I was, of course, operating at the time with the tripartite division of the manuscripts put

forward in DJD 137 (biblical or canonical, apocryphal and/or pseudepigraphal, and sectarian or

Essene; the problematic apocryphal and pseudepigraphical category was subsumed in the

“para-biblical” category used later in the DJD series38). But, as you know, I have since then

35
I was referring to an article published in Spanish in 2006, F. García Martínez, “Qumrán en el siglo XXI:
Cambios y perspectivas después de 50 años de estudios,” MEAH 55 (2006): 309-334, available also on the
website of the Asociación Española de Estudios Hebreos y Judios: http://www.aeehj.net.
36
F. García Martínez, “Reconsidering Cave 1 Texts Sixty Years After Their Discovery: An Overview,” in
Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth
Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana (ed. D. Falk, S. Metso, and E. Tigchelaar; STDJ 91: Leiden: Brill, 2010), 1-13.
37
According to a proposal by Milik: “Ouvrages canoniques, Ouvrages non canoniques (Commentaires et
Apocryphes), ouvrages nouveaux de la ‘bibliothèque Essénienne,” in Qumran Cave 1 (ed. D. Barthélemy and J.
T. Milik; DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 46. 
38
DJD 13, DJD 19, DJD 22, and DJD 30.

7
abandoned completely these classifications (not only “biblical” and “non biblical” but also

“sectarian” and “non sectarian”) because they are an anachronism and do not help us to

advance our understanding of these texts.39 I am on record for having defended the idea that

we should consider all the texts (I mean all of them) by what they are in their historical

context: a collection or collections of religious texts. Or, to express this idea with the words of

Eibert Tigchelaar: “The most characteristic feature of both the entire corpus and the

collections of the individual caves is the fact that virtually all the manuscripts contain texts of

a religious nature or touching upon religious issues. Only a few, badly preserved fragments

are the remnants of nonliterary texts such as letters, accounts or deeds, and it cannot be

excluded that some of those actually stem from Naal ever.40”

My conclusion for the profile of the collection from Cave 1 and its statistics may look

thus a little outdated by my present thinking. Besides, we all know that we have no real idea

of the original holdings of the cave. But in order to profile the cave we need to use what we

have, which are the 46 useful manuscripts. If we apply the categories proposed by Armin

Lange in DJD 39 for the non-biblical texts, 41 or the thematic grouping of the manuscripts

proposed by Tigchelaar42 and we start looking at the 46 useful manuscripts from Cave 1 using

these categories, we end up reaching the same conclusion I reached in my 2010 article.

In Cave 1 we find texts written in Hebrew and in Aramaic, 43 both on leather and

papyrus,44 several of them copied by the same scribe responsible for manuscripts found in

39
F. García Martínez, “¿Sectario, so-sectario, o qué? Problemas de una taxonomcorrecta de los textos
qumránicos,” RevQ 23 (2008): 383-394.
40
Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” 164.
41
Armin Lange with Ulrike Mittman-Richert, “Annotated List of the Texts from the Judaean Desert
Classified by Content and Genre,” in The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (E. Tov ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 115–164. These categories are:
“parabiblical,” “exegetical,” “concerned with religious law,” “calendrical,” “poetical,” “liturgical,” “sapiential,”
“historical,” “apocalyptic” and “eschatological.”
42
Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” 163-180: “Authoritative Scriptures and the Formation of the Bible,”
“Extending Scriptures by Interpretative Rewriting,” “Expanding Scripture by Ascribing Traditions to
Foundational Figures,” “Expounding Scripture in Commentaries and Pesharim,” “Interpreting the Law in Legal
Works,” “Harmonizing Times and Festivals: Calendrical Documents and Annals,” “Performing Scripture:
Liturgical and Poetical Manuscripts,” “Understanding All There Is: Sapiential Texts,” “Envisioning the End:
Apocalypses and Eschatological Texts,” and “Returning to the Law: Community Rules and Related Texts.”
43
1Q19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 32, the non-characterized and non-identified texts 1Q63-66, and the non-classified
text 1Q67 are in Aramaic; all the rest of the materials are in Hebrew.
44
Although papyrus is poorly represented, used only for 1Q70 and 1Q70bis.

8
other caves45 (according to Ada Yardeni as many as 5346), and at least one manuscript (1QHa)

was copied at Qumran according to the analysis of the ink used.47

One of the advantages of using the Study Edition48 is that we have noted for each

manuscript the copies found in other caves. Regarding all the so-called “biblical texts” from

Cave 1, copies have been found in other caves, as well as all of the following:

Hodayot: 1QHa, 1Q35, 4Q427-432

Serekh Texts: 1QS, 4Q255-264, 5QS

Serek ha-‘Edah: 1QSa, 4Q24949

Aramaic Levi: 1Q21, 4Q213-214, 4Q540-541

Dibre Moshe: 1Q22, 4QDM

Enoch-Giants: 1Q23-24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q530-533, 4Q556, 6Q8

Instruction: 1Q26, 4Q415-418a, 4Q423

Mysteries: 1Q27, 4Q299-301?

Apocryphon of Moses?: 1Q29, 4Q408, 4Q375-376

New Jerusalem: 1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q232, 4Q554-555, 5Q15, 11Q18

War Scroll: 1Q33, 4Q285, 4Q491-496, 11Q14?

Liturgical Prayers: 1Q34, 4Q507-509

Jubilees: 1Q17-18, 2Q19-20, 3Q5, 4Q176a, 4Q216-24, 4Q482-483, 11Q12

The better represented works in other caves are Jubilees (manuscripts found in 5

caves), New Jerusalem (also found in 5 caves), and Enoch-Giants (found in 4 caves). This

fact proves that Cave 1 has a similar profile with Cave 4 and 11 and with the corpus as a

45
For a discussion of the hand that copied both 1QpHab and 11Q20, see DJD 23, 364. For a discussion of
the scribe that copied 1QS and several other manuscripts from Cave 4, see E. Tigchelaar, “In Search of the
Scribe of 1QS,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel
Tov (ed. S. M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 439-452.
46
A. Yardeni, “A Note on a Qumran Scribe,” in New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean and
Cuneiform (M. Lubetski; Hebrew Bible Monographs 8; Sheffield: Phoenix, 2007), 287-298.
47
I. Rabin, O. Hahn, T. Wolff, A. Masic and G. Weinberg, “On the Origins of the Ink of the Thanksgiving
Scroll (1QHodayota),” DSD 16 (2009): 97-106, and I. Rabin, “Archaeometry of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 20
(2013): 124-142 (on pp.139-140)
48
F. García Martínez and E. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill – Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000).
49
S. J. Pfann has identified no less than 8 copies of the Serek ha’Edah among what was considered a single
papyri manuscript in cryptic writing from Cave 4 (4Q249) and edited them in Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic
Texts and Miscellanea Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 547-571.

9
whole, and also that this corpus as a whole cannot be defined simply as Jewish religious

literature, but rather Jewish religious literature representing a particular stream of Judaism

because of the peculiar halakhic or ideological ideas appearing in some of the

compositions.”It is true that Hodayot, Serek and War Scroll copies point to a peculiar group

that many would identify as Essenes, but the other compositions like Jubilees or Enoch do not

point in this direction, and they are the best represented within the corpus.

Cave 250 has provided us with 26 useful fragments of manuscripts, all of them copied

on leather, of which 17 represent “biblical” books and the rest contain diverse compositions,

among which is the only preserved copy of Sirach found at Qumran, 51 two copies of

Jubilees,52 an Apocryphon of Moses,53 and an Apocryphon of David?;54 also attested in Cave 4

on two or three copies,55 and two Aramaic texts also known from other caves: the New

Jerusalem56 and a copy of the Book of Giants.57 The copy of Leviticus (2Q5) was written in

palaeo-Hebrew characters, all the other manuscripts are in the later Hebrew alphabet,

although a copy of Exodus (2Q3) has the tetragrammaton written also in palaeo-Hebrew as is

done in some manuscripts from Caves 1, 3, 4 and 11.

Cave 2 contains a couple of interesting characteristics when compared with the other

caves: it holds the only copy of Sirach, a sapiential writing clearly different from the other

sapiential writings from Caves 1 and 4, and it contains not a single yaḥad text (neither Serek,

nor CD, nor Milḥamah texts are represented in the holdings). But as for the rest, the profile is

rather similar to that of Cave 1, even if the palaeographical dating of the manuscripts is later

than that from Cave 1. According to the estimates of Baillet, the Cave 2 fragments range from

the early to late Herodian period.

50
Edited by Maurice Baillet in Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD 3 ; Oxford : Clarendon, 1962), 45-93.
51
2Q18, DJD 3, 75-77.
52
2Q19 and 2Q20, DJD 3, 77-79.
53
2Q21, DJD 3, 79-81.
54
2Q22, DJD 3, 81-82.
55
4Q372 and 4Q373 were edited and published under the title “4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb and c”
by E. Schuller and M. Bernstein in Wady Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wady Daliyeh and Qumran Cave
4.28: Miscelanea, Part Two (DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 165-197 and 199-204. Both manuscripts
overlap with 2Q22 and 4Q371 overlaps with 4Q373. E. Tigchelaar has published another copy, 4Q373a, “On the
Unidentified Fragments of DJD XXXIII and PAM 43.680: A New Manuscript of 4QNarrative and Poetic
Composition, and Fragments of 4Q13, 4Q269, 4Q525 and 4QSb,” RevQ 21/83 (2004): 477-485.
56
2Q24, DJD 3, 84-89. Attested in 1Q32, 4Q554, 4Q554a, 4Q555, 5Q15 and 11Q18.
57
2Q26, DJD 3, 90-91. Attested in 1Q23, 1Q24, 4Q203, 4Q530, 4Q531, 4Q532, 4Q533 and 6Q8.

10
 Also according to Baillet, the editor of the fragments in DJD 3, the most noteworthy

feature of the Cave 2 fragments are their occasionally sharp edges (e.g., 2Q1; 6; 11; 21 2; 24

8) which may be related to their destruction by enemies: “Leur destruction est d'ailleurs

imputable a de multiples causes. La première et la plus ancienne semble avoir été

l’intervention maligne des mains ennemies qui découpèrent certains rouleaux au moyen

d’instruments tranchants.”58 This feature would favor a quick hiding scenario and would bring

close the holdings of Cave 2 to the holdings of Cave 4 (of which the same has been asserted

already by de Vaux;59 Cotton and Larson only accept as such the case of 4Q460/4Q35060). But

after a thorough discussion of the matter, Popović concludes: “In light of the foregoing, I

conclude that there is no evidence that clearly indicates Roman or auxiliary soldiers damaging

manuscripts from Cave 4 or any of the other Qumran caves.”61 I think we can conclude that

the holdings from Cave 2 do not give us any reason to suppose that they represent a collection

different from the better preserved manuscripts from Cave 1, and the multiple copies of

Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ruth or Jubilees cast doubt on the suggestion that we

should envision the Cave 2 scrolls as those of a personal library.

The extant holdings of Cave 362 are even more meager than those of Cave 2: extant are

the remains of 6 fragmentary manuscripts identified by the editor, 3 texts qualified by Baillet

as “Textes de charactère mal definie,” (3Q7-9), 2 groups of Hebrew fragments (3Q10-11) and

2 groups of Aramaic fragments (3Q12-13) non-identified, as well as some isolated fragments

in Hebrew and Aramaic. And of course the Copper Scroll (3Q15).63

Baillet identified the fragments of Ezekiel (3Q1) and Psalms (3Q2) (one fragment each

with only a few extant words), Lamentations (3Q3; two fragments with the Tetragrammaton

58
DJD 3, 45-46.
59
R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Schweich Lectures 1959, Revised Edition in an
English Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1973), 100 n. 3; R. de Vaux,
Qumrân Grotte 4: 2 (DJD 6; Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 21-22.
60
H. Cotton and E. Larson, “4Q460/4Q350 and Tampering with Qumran Texts in Antiquity?” in Emanuel:
Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S.M. Paul et al.;
VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 113–125
61
Mladen Popović, “ Roman Book Destruction in Qumran Cave 4 and the Roman Destruction of Khirbet
Qumran Revisited,” in Qumran und die Archäologie (ed. J. Frey, C. Claussen, and N. Kessler; WUNT2. 278;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 239-291 (on p. 250).
62
Maurice Baillet, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD 3; Oxford : Clarendon, 1962), 94-103.
63
Edited by J. T. Milik in the same volume, DJD 3, 211-302.

11
in palaeo-Hebrew writing), one larger fragment (3Q4) with the remains of Isaiah 1 intersected

with non-biblical words published as “commentaire d’Isaïe,” and from which Baillet says:

“Ce que l’on saisit du commentaire donne l’impression qu’il était plus littérale que les

pesharim connus.64” 3Q5 was published as “Une prophetie apocryphe65” but the fragments
66
were directly and independently identified by Rofé and by Deichgräber67 as a copy of

Jubilees. Among the “Textes de Charactère mal define” we have the 6 fragments of 3Q7,

published as “Un apocryphe mentionant l’ange de la presence.68” Baillet notes with some

caution a possible relationship with the Testament of Judah, and in his edition of 4Q484

Testament de Juda (?) he is a little more affirmative: “Toutte identification est impossible,

mais les ff. 1, 7 et 19 pourraient suggérer une parenté avec le Testament de Juda… surtout si

l’on se rappelle que 3Q7 pourrait bien représenter des restes du même passage.”69 Further,

Cave 3 contained two very small fragments (3Q8) published as “Un texte mentionant un ange

de paix ( ?),”70 and the three fragments of 3Q9, published as “Un texte de la secte 71”—an

identification without doubt because of the use of ‫ ועדתנו‬on the last line of frag. 3 together

with the words ‫ אשמת פשע‬in line 2, a phrase also used in 1QS 9:4.

The Copper Scroll (3Q15) has drawn a wide variety of interpretations, both in terms of

its real meaning (a legend from folklore about imaginary treasures 72 or a catalogue of hiding

places for real treasures73), its origin (the Qumran community,74 the Temple of Jerusalem, 75 or

64
DJD 3, 96.
65
DJD 3, 96-98.
66
A. Rofé, “Further Manuscript Fragments of the Jubilees in the Third Cave of Qumran,” Tarbiz 34 (1965):
333-336.
67
R. Deichgräber, “Fragmente einer Jubiläen-Handschrift aus Höhle 3 von Qumran,” RevQ 5/19 (1965):
415-422.
68
DJD 3, 99.
69
M. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4: III (4Q4Q482-4Q520) (DJD 7 ; Oxford : Clarendon, 1982), 3.
70
DJD 3, 100.
71
DJD 3,100-101
72
J. T. Milik, “Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la grotte 3Q (3Q15),” in DJD 3, 211-302.
73
J. M. Allegro, The Treasure of the Copper Scroll (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960).
74
S. Goranson, “Sectarianism, Geography, and the Copper Scroll,” JJS 43 (1992): 282-287 and most
recently É. Puech, The Copper Scroll Revisited (Leiden: Brill, 2010).
75
As argued by the majority of scholars; see J.K. Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll – 3Q15: A Reevaluation
(STDJ 25; Leiden: Brill, 1999).

12
from the war of Bar Kochba76), and its deposition date in the cave (before 70, 77 around 100,78

later on79). As far as I can see there are three essential factors to decide upon regarding these

matters: the date of the script, the language of the composition, and the place of deposition

within the cave. As for the date of the script, according to the palaeographical study of

Cross,80 the script “is to be placed in the second half of the Herodian era, that is, within the

broad limits of A.D. 25-75;”81 Milik, however, prefers a date between 30 and 130 CE: “Au

terme de l’enquête paléographique, on dispose d’un marge d’un siècle, env. 30-130 après J.C.

pour situer l’écriture du catalogue; quelques indices semblent pourtant être en faveur de la

seconde moitié de cette période.”82 No unanimity is thus among the scholars.

The language of the composition is certainly closer to the defining features of

Mishnaic Hebrew than Biblical Hebrew. But here also there is no unanimity. For Milik it is a

spoken dialectal Hebrew,83 but for others it represents an earlier form of Mishnaic Hebrew

and is thus related to the Hebrew of some other older compositions such as 4QMMT. 84 As for

the place of deposition within the cave, everybody agrees, already since it was first discovered

by H. de Contenson, that the scroll was not found alongside the others in the cave, but

somewhere else. But the interpretation of this fact is also disputed, since according to de

Vaux, “Ils étaient un peu à l'écart de la masse des jarres et des couvercles brisés et on n'a

recueilli dans leur voisinage aucun fragment écrit sur peau ou sur papyrus. Ces indices

archéologiques ne suffisent pas à prouver que les rouleaux ont été déposés après la poterie et

les autres textes mais ils ne s’opposent pas à une telle conclusion.”85 And Milik emphasized

76
E. M. Laperrousaz, “La grotte 3 de Qoumrân et le 'Rouleau de cuivre': L'origine et la nature du 'Rouleau
de cuivre', ” in Qoumrân et les manuscrits de la mer Morte (ed. Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz; Paris: Éditions du
Cerf, 1997), 207-213.
77
This was the common opinion in the 1950s and recently defended by Puech.
78
This is the opinion of Milik in the official edition of the scroll in DJD 3.
79
B. Z. Luria, Megillat ha-Neḥošet Mimidbar Yehuda (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1963, Hebrew).
80
Published in DJD 3, 217-221.
81
DJD 3, 217.
82
DJD 3, 283.
83
DJD 3, 227.
84
A. Wolters, “The Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew,” RevQ 14/ 55 (1990):483-495;
F. Jiménez Bedman, El misterio del Rollo de Cobre de Qumrân: Análisis Lingüístico (Biblioteca Midrásica 25;
Estella: Verbo Divino, 2002).
85
DJD 3, 201.

13
that “Le fait d’avoir trouvé dans la même grotte les textes esséniens (plut haut, 3Q1-14) et les

rouleaux de cuivre n’est pas du tout décisif pour leur origine commune.”86

Because the Copper Scroll appears to be such an anomaly some scholars go so far as

to exclude the contents of Cave 3 from the rest of the Qumran corpus. Daniel Stökel Ben Ezra

in a forthcoming book is quite explicit:

Die letzte Möglichkeit ist daher, zu erwägen, die Kupferrolle sei von Priestern in

Höhle 3 verborgen worden und hänge nicht mit den anderen Rollen zusammen. Dies

wiederum öffnet die Büchse der Pandora, dass nicht nur der Jachad als Bewohner

Qumrans, sondern auch andere Gruppen in den Höhlen um Qumran Texte verborgen

haben können. Besteht ein Unterschied zwischen den 15 Schriftrollen aus Höhle 3 und

den Schriftrollenensembles in den anderen Qumranhöhlen? Zwar scheinen sie

paläographisch aus der gleichen Zeit zu stammen, doch erzwingt der Inhalt keinesfalls

eine Verbindung zu den anderen Qumranrollen. Kein einziges Fragment gibt den

Anlass zur Vermutung jachadischer Autorenschaft. Die Inventarliste gibt einen

Pescher zu Jesaja an (3Q4) – dessen winziges Fragment allerdings nichts enthält, dass

diese Identifikation berechtigen würde. Das gleiche gilt für 3Q9 „Sectarian Text“.

Auch die anderen Fragmentgruppen (Ezekiel, Psalmen, Klagelieder, Jubiläenbuch,

Hymne, „Testament Judas, Text mentioning the Angel of Peace, nicht identifizierte

hebräische und aramäische Fragmente) erzwingen keinen Schluss auf Zugehörigkeit

dieses Korpus zu Qumran. Schließlich ist Höhle 3 von allen Höhlen mit Schriftrollen

die nördlichste und am weitesten von Qumran entfernte Höhle. Von den fünf Krügen

aus Höhle 3, die mit Neutronenaktivationsanalyse auf ihre Herkunft geprüft wurden,

sollen alle aus Jerusalemton gefertigt worden sein. Angesichts des kumulativen

Gewichts dieser Argumente ist die überzeugendste Lösung, nicht nur die Kupferrolle

sondern auch die anderen Fragmente aus Höhle 3 aus dem Korpus der Qumranrollen

auszuscheiden und sie einer anderen Gruppe zuzuordnen, die dem Tempel nahestand

(Pfann).87

86
DJD 3, 276.
87
D. Stökel Ben Ezra, Lehrbuch Qumran (forthcoming). I thank Daniel Stökel Ben Ezra for sending me a
copy of the manuscript of his forthcoming book and for allowing me to quote from it.

14
 In spite of the difficulties surrounding the Copper Scroll, I see no hard evidence that

proves without doubt it was deposited in Cave 3 at a time later than the other documents, and

that we should therefore separate the deposit of the contents of this cave in two different

periods: the initial hiding of the manuscripts 3Q1-14 followed by a later deposition of the

Copper Scroll (3Q15) (something that otherwise would have been nothing abnormal in light

of the regional context in which the caves served as places of refuge on different occasions).

But, in my opinion, if we look to what can be ascertained from the scant remains of

3Q1-14 we need to conclude that the profile of Cave 3 is no different than the profiles of

Caves 1 and 2: note the presence in Cave 3, next to the three “biblical” manuscripts, of a copy

of Jubilees, of a pesher-like text, a possible copy of the Testament of Judah, and an ‘edah

manuscript. A difference between the profile of Cave 3 and the profiles of Cave 1 and Cave 2

is that in Cave 3 we do not have multiple copies of the same composition.

Since the Copper Scroll is, in my view, more of a documentary text than a literary one,

it would not be completely dissonant with other documentary texts, lists, anales, etc. of the

corpus found mostly in Cave 4, but also in Cave 6. Much has been done by those wishing to

exclude the Copper Scroll from the rest of the collection by examining the Greek letters, and

particularly the Greek loanwords of the document, comparing them with the Greek and Latin

loanwords in rabbinic literature, and then contrasting them with the lack of Greek loanwords

in other documents (where do we find Persian and particularly Aramaic loanwords). My study

of these loanwords, however, has shown that they are restricted to the architectural

terminology and as such they are no different from the Greek loanwords of musical

terminology we find in the much older Book of Daniel.88

Charlotte Hempel has recently published a thorough article examining the profile of

Cave 4;89 after looking at what Cave 4 has in common with the other caves, particularly with

Caves 1 and 11, and at the distinctive elements of Cave 4, she concludes: “A good case can be

88
F. García Martínez, “Greek Loanwords in the Copper Scroll,” in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Roma: Studies in
Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst (ed. F. García Martínez and G.P. Luttikhuizen; JSJS 82;
Leiden: Brill, 2003), 119-145.
89
Charlotte Hempel, “‘Haskalah’ at Qumran: The Eclectic Character of Qumran Cave 4,” in The Qumran
Rule Texts in Context: Collected Studies (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 154; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2013), 303-337. This chapter is found within the eight part of the book titled: “Does 4Q Equal Qumran? The
Character of Cave 4 Reconsidered.” It is published for the first time in her book.

15
made that Cave 4 comprises the most eclectic and scholarly corner of the collection.” 90

Indeed, a look at the “Annotated List of the Text of the Judaean Desert Classified by Content

and Genre”91 shows that the Cave 4 contents are very closely connected to the contents of

Cave 1, and that they are also related to the contents of Cave 11. But the same list also shows

some of the peculiarities of the contents of Cave 4: Calendar texts are almost exclusively

present in Cave 4,92 the same is evident with Sapiential texts, texts which Cave 4 has in

common only with Cave 1,93 and, of course, with the texts written in Cryptic A. 94 Calendar

and Cryptic texts are generally considered to be “sectarian,” which would accentuate the

commonalities of Cave 4 with the other caves, but not so with the Sapiential texts. As

Tigchelaar notes, Sapiential texts “illustrate the merging together of many different kinds of

knowledge, including the appropriation of non-Jewish scientific concepts, as well as the

fusion of diverse literary forms and genres. This in turn suggests the rise of a new kind of

Jewish scholar, who tries to integrate all available disciplines and fields of knowledge.” 95 This

sapiential interest would also explain “the presence of various scientific texts in the corpus,

such as 4QHoroscope (4Q186), 4QPhysiognomy (4Q561), 4QZodiology and Brontology

(4Q318), and perhaps also the various astronomical texts, such as the Astronomical Enoch and

4QLunisolar Calendar (4Q317).”96

Neither the texts classified by Lange as “Historical Texts and Tales” are considered

“sectarian,” nor the “Documentary texts,” nor the “Letters” and the “Scribal exercises,” all of

which are attested only in Cave 4.97 It is true that these texts are a clear minority within the

holdings of the cave, and some of them are of an uncertain precedence, but they need to be

explained within the general profile.98 Cave 4 contains nevertheless some oddities on its

90
Hempel, “‘Haskalah’ at Qumran,” 336.
91
A. Lange with U. Mittmann-Richert, “Annotated list of the Text of the Judaean Desert Classified by
Content and Genre,” DJD 39, 115-164.
92
The only exception is 6Q17 published by Baillet in DJD 3, 132-133. The Calendar Texts from Cave 4 are
analyzed by Hempel, “‘Haskalah’ at Qumran,” 319-329.
93
The only exceptions are 1Q26 and 1Q27 published in DJD 1, 101-107.
94
The only exception is 11Q23, published in DJD 23, 419-420. Hempel, “‘Haskalah’ at Qumran,” 312-317.
95
Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” 176.
96
Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” 176.
97
With the only exception of 6Q26, an Aramaic papyrus with remains of a contract, published by Baillet in
DJD 3, 138-139.
98
This seems to me perfectly possible within Hempel’s hypothesis.

16
opistographs: for example, on the 4Q460/4Q350 scroll, the documentary text 4Q350, a Greek

language ledger which ticks off quantities of cereals, was written on the verso of 4Q460

(4QNarrative Work and Prayer), or 4Q338 (4QGenealogical list) was written on the verso of

4Q201 (4QEnocha), 4Q414 (RitPur A), considered to be “sectarian,” was written on the verso

of the “non-sectarian” 4Q415 (4QInstructiona), or 4Q433a, a Hodayot-like text written on the

verso of 4Q255 (4QSa).99

Cave 5100 has yielded a limited number of manuscripts, 15 identified and 10

unclassified. The cave is located on the marl plateau, very close to the settlement. The cave

that was discovered and excavated by archaeologists (as were Cave 3 and Cave 8), giving us

the opportunity of considerer their holdings without the disturbance of the Bedouin’s previous

excavation and dispersion. For de Vaux: “en dehors des débris de manuscrits et de quelques

os de gros animal mêlés aux déblais, la grotte n’a livré aucun objet et pas un seul tesson de

poterie. Malgré cette absence de mobilier, la grotte paraît avoir été creusée pour être une

habitation.”101 De Vaux seems to refer to permanent habitation, in spite of the absence of

objects and pottery, and the same assumption led Milik to define the holdings of Cave 5 as

those of a private library: “Ils nous livrent les restes de la bibliothèque privée d’un anachorète

essénien du Ier siècle de notre ère.”102 Milik dates, in fact, most of the manuscripts to the first

century,103 or defines them as “écriture tardive” which “doit s’entendre: de la fin du Ier siècle

avant J.C., ou des soixante-dix premières années du Ier siècle après J.C.”104

When we look at the contents of the 15 identified fragments we count 7 “biblical”

scrolls, including two copies of Lamentations (5Q1 Deuteronomy, 5Q2 Kings, 5Q3 Isaiah,

5Q4 Amos, 5Q5 Psalms, 5Q6-7 Lamentations), a Phylactery in its case (5Q8), a composition

published as “Ouvrage avec des toponymes,” which is a copy of the Apocryphon of Joshua,

99
These opistographs seem to me more difficult to explain within the same hypothesis.
100
Edited by Milik in DJD 3, 167-197.
101
R. de Vaux, “Les Grottes 5Q et 6Q,” DJD 3, 26
102
J. T. Milik, “Textes de la Grotte 5Q,” DJD 3, 167.
103
With the exception, of course, of 5Q1, a “écriture pré-hasmonéenne” dated to the first half of the second
century B.C.E., and 5Q2, a “écrirture hasmonéenne, postérieure à celle de 5QDeut, mais probablement relevant
de la même école de scribes.” Milik, DJD 3, 169 and 172.
104
Milik, DJD 3, 167.

17
attested in Cave 4105 (5Q9), a composition “Ecrit avec des citations de Malachi” interpreted by

Carmignac as a possible Malachi pesher (5Q10),106 a copy of the Serek (5Q11), a copy of CD

(5Q12), a composition entitle “Un règle de la secte” (5Q13), in which frag. 4 certainly quotes

1QS III 4-5, another composition with curses (5Q14), and a copy of the Aramaic New

Jerusalem. This brief description of the contents makes clear that the profile of Cave 5 is

rather similar to the profile of Caves 1 and 2. If Milik’s assertion were true that the contents of

this cave are the remains of a private library, we would have a different profile. Milik is very

specific in his assertions: some manuscripts “ont pu être apportés par notre ermite du dehors

(nos 1 et 2), d’autres auront été recopies par lui-même dans son ermitage (l’un des deux

exemplaires des Lamentations, nos. 6 et 7), mais la plupart doivent provenir de la bibliothèque

‘centrale’ du monastère.”107 Milik’s proposal seems logical. The number of manuscripts is not

that high, although it is comparable to the amount found in Cave 6 and 11, and it offers a very

similar profile to the holdings of Cave 1 and 4; but this has no external support, and does not

seem compatible with the lack of ceramic and other material which would attest continuous

habitation. My conclusion in the case of Cave 5 is that its holdings are also a cross section of

the corpus as a whole, and that the cave has the same profile as the holdings of the other caves

examined until now.

Cave 6 is situated on the cliff close to the water system; it was emptied by the

Bedouins who took the manuscripts and also “une jarre et un bol,” although de Vaux

considers the possibility of habitation doubtful. 108 The holdings of Cave 6 comprise fragments

of 31 scrolls, 18 of which have been identified by the editor who also proposed a tentative

identification for the other 3.109 An interesting characteristic of this cave’s profile is that the

high proportion of the texts found there is written on papyrus (more than 50%, if we count the

105
4Q378 and 4Q389, edited by C. Newsom in Qumran Cave 4: 27: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. G.
Brooke et al.; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 241-262 and 263-288.
106
J. Carmignac, “Vestiges d’un pesher de Malachie (?),” RevQ 4/13 (1963): 97-100. 
107
Milik, DJD 3, 167.
108
de Vaux, DJD 3, 10: “Douteux.”
109
Baillet, DJD 3, 105-141. The tentatively identified texts are: 6Q19, a “Texte en rapport avec la Genèse
(?),” a single leather fragment with the remnants of 3 lines written in Aramaic; 6Q20, a “Texte en rapport avec le
Deutéronome ( ?),” another single leather fragment written in Hebrew which may have come from the first
column of the scroll; and 6Q21, a “Fragment prophétique (?),” also a single leather fragment with the remains of
3 lines from the top of a column.

18
unclassified fragments). Among the manuscripts copied on leather we find “biblical” texts:

6Q1 (Genesis), 6Q2 (Leviticus) (both written in palaeo-Hebrew) and 6Q6 (Canticles). We

also find “non-biblical” compositions: 6Q11 (Allegory of the Vine), 6Q12 (Apocryphal

Prophecy), 6Q13 (Priestly Prophecy), 6Q14 (Apocalypse Aramaic), 6Q15 (a copy of the

Damascus Document with the divine name ‫ אל‬written in Palaeo-Hebrew; of the five

fragments preserved, frag. 5 does not have correspondence within CD but with 4Q270 2 ii),

6Q17 (Calendrical Document) and the 3 tentatively identified fragments 6Q19-21. Among the

manuscripts copied on papyrus we also find “biblical” texts: 6Q3 (Deuteronomy), 6Q4

(Kings), 6Q5 (Psalm 78?), 6Q7 (Daniel), and “non-biblical” compositions: 6Q8 (papEnGiants

ar), 6Q9 (Apocryphon Sam-Kings), 6Q10 (Prophecy), 6Q16 (Benediction), 6Q18 (Hymn with

divine name ‫ אל‬written in Palaeo-Hebrew) and all the unclassified fragments of 6Q22-31.

Among these unclassified fragments Milik identified 6Q23110 as a copy of the Aramaic

composition Words of Michael edited now by Puech as 4Q529,111 and Eshel has identified

6Q30 as a copy of Proverbs. 112 6Q26 contains the extant remains of an Aramaic contract or of

an account and is noteworthy because it provides a parallel to similar documentary texts from

Cave 4 whose provenance is disputed.

Michael Wise has raised the possibility that the manuscripts from Cave 6 represent the

remains of a collection of private study copies, since a good number are written on papyrus

and many in a cursive or semicursive hand.113 This has been rightly contested by Daniel Stökl

Ben Ezra who has pointed out that the manuscripts were written by different persons and date

to different eras.114 Thus is it unlikely that one hand would have copied them and that the

characteristic assumed by Wise would provide us with a specific profile for this cave. The

dubious possibility of habitation would certainly favor considering it as an emergency hiding

place where scrolls and pottery were deposited at the time of the Roman attack, as in the other

110
J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 91.
111
É. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4. 22: Textes araméens Première partie 4Q529-549 (DJD 31; Oxford:
Clarendon, 2001), 1-8.
112
H. Eshel, “6Q30, a Cursive Sin and Proverbs 11,” JBL 122 (2003): 544-546.
113
M. O. Wise, “Accidents or Accidence: A Scribal view of Linguistic Dating of the Aramaic Scrolls from
Qumran,” in Thunder in Gemini and Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple
Palestine (JSPSup 15; Sheffield: JOSOT, 1994), 103-151, on pp. 120-122.
114
Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves,” 323-324.

19
caves on the cliff. Pfann connects Cave 1 and Cave 6 as Essene caves, because of the presence

of the Serek, Milhamah, and Hodayot manuscripts in Cave 1, and the presence of CD in Cave

6. He suggests for this reason, and also because phylacteries and phylactery cases were found

in Cave 1, that Cave 1 represents an Essene priestly library and Cave 6 an Essene lay

library,115 a conclusion that seems to be contradicted by the fact that in Cave 4, both Serek and

CD texts were found, as well as phylacteries. After comparing the palaeographical dates of

the documents of Cave 1 and Cave 6 Pfann concludes: “the final decline of collecting ends

before AD25 for cave 1Q and about AD50 for cave 6Q, possibly indicating separate termini at

which each group was forced to abandon the Qumran site.”116

Pfann thus assumes multiple collections, belonging to multiple groups, deposited at

multiple times; but a careful look at the contents of the 18 identifiable scrolls do not seems to

confirm these conclusions. Cave 6 does not have multiple copies of the compositions

preserved unlike Cave 1. However, the use of the divine name ‫ אל‬written in Palaeo-Hebrew in

6Q15 and 6Q18 does correspond to the same use in 1Q14, 1Q27, and 1Q35, and the contents

of the 18 identified manuscripts of Cave 6 show the same profile that we have found for the

other caves with the same mix of religious texts, as indicated by the presence of 6Q15 (CD)

and 6Q17 (a calendrical document), and thus belonging to the same peculiar religious group

that we have found in the other caves.

Most scholars consider Cave 7 to be the deposit of a Qumran community member

particularly interested in Greek, or the hiding place of the Greek works of the library, as the

18 papyri fragments and the papyri imprint on the clay found in the cave are all in Greek.

Stöckel Ben Ezra has formulated what seems to be a sort of comunis opinio in this way:

Some of the minor caves do indeed reflect a choice by the librarian or the reader. The

most palpable case is Cave 7, which contains exclusively Greek documents and is the

only cave to have revealed a considerable amount of Greek texts. Somebody with a

particular taste for Greek readings probably dwelled in this cave at the time of the

attack. The scrolls may reflect his private collection or borrowings from the main

115
Pfann, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves,” 156-158.
116
Pfann, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves,” 158-159

20
 library. Alternatively, if the manuscripts were hidden in Cave 7 in an emergency, Cave

7 could reflect the Greek section of the library being secured in this cave just as

Roman libraries usually had two sections, one for the Greek, one for the Latin

books.117

But this “considerable amount of Greek texts” would be less considerable if 7Q4, 8, 11-14

were part of the same manuscript, as Émile Puech has proposed.118 In this case we do have

only 3 identified manuscripts (7Q1 LXX Exodus, 7Q2 Epistle of Jeremiah, 7Q4, 8, 11-14

Enoch) and 9 unidentified fragments. Stöckel Ben Ezra did not take into consideration Cave 7

in his analysis of the “Old Caves and Young Caves” (because the other caves with less that 10

dated manuscripts would be “statistically less reliable” 119), but the 5 manuscripts dated by

Roberts120 (frags. 1-4 are dated around 100 BCE and frag. 5 between 50 BCE and 50 CE)

would make Cave 7 an “old cave,” which would be difficult to combine with his

understanding of the cave as “a private collection or borrowings from the main library.” 121

And Mladen Popović has astutely noted “There is an inscription (in Cave 7) of the name of

Rom’a in Aramaic characters on a large jar, and that in a preliminary publication de Vaux

refers to a small fragment in Hebrew from Cave 7, which was either a mistaken attribution or

this fragment has since been overlooked.” He also signals that, “In most other Qumran caves

we find Aramaic texts alongside Hebrew and, of course, some Greek manuscripts were also

found on Cave 4. This does not suggest a linguistic division within the collection or

collections of scrolls.” And concludes “This data, although meager – and this is also the case

for the evidence concerning a single inhabitant with an interest in Greek texts only—corrects

the impression of exclusively Greek writings from Cave 7.122”

If we consider the contents of the three identified manuscripts (Exodus, Epistle of

Jeremiah, and 1 Enoch) we should conclude that the profile of Cave 7 is not essentially

different from the profile of the other cave we have looked at up until now.

117
Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves,” 323.
118
É. Puech, “Sept fragments grecs de la letter d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103, 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân
(= 7QHén gr),” RevQ 18/70 (1997) 313-323.
119
Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves,” 317.
120
As reported by Baillet in DJD 3, 142.
121
Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves,” 323.
122
Popović, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse,” 571.

21
 Cave 8,123 located near Cave 7 and equally within the enclosure wall of the Khirbet,

has preserved only 5 manuscripts: a copy of Genesis (8Q1), a copy of Psalms (8Q2), a

Phylactery (8Q3), a Mezuzah (8Q4), and two fragments of a Hebrew manuscript, published

by Baillet as a “passage hymnique,” and defined as “Le texte est de caractère hymnique, mais

il faut sans doute le replacer dans le cadre d’un récit.” 124 In my opinion, the text belongs rather

to the exorcism genre or the like, as clearly indicated by the phrase ‫ בשמכה גנור אני מירא‬in 1 1

and the reference to ‫ כול הרוחות‬in 2 6.

Taking into consideration all the material remains found in the cave, one is tempted to

agree with de Vaux’s formulation:

Si l'on considère seulement les grottes qui contenaient des documents écrits, la

présence de ceux-ci s'explique de différentes faons. Ces textes peuvent être ceux

qu'un membre ou un petit groupe de la communauté avaient a leur usage et qu'ils ont

abandonnes dans la grotte qu'ils habitaient (grottes 5Q, 7 à 9Q, 11Q) ou qu'ils ont

entreposés ou cachés, avec leur vaisselle, dans une cavité voisine de leur lieu de

campement (grottes 2Q, 3Q, 6Q).125

Aside from the pottery, de Vaux describes the material remains of Cave 8 as follows: “deux

étuis à phylactère à quatre compartiments et un étui à phylactère à une seule case ; les deux

modèles s’étaient déjà rencontrés dans la grotte 1Q. Un morceau de semelle de sandale, une

datte avec sa peau, une figue, plusieurs noyaux de dattes, un noyau d’olive. Beaucoup de fines

lanières et des languettes de cuir. Restes d’étoffe et de ficelles. ”126 According Joan Taylor the

“fines lanières” were about 100 leather strips used for binding scrolls. For Taylor, these strips

are evidence that the scrolls were processed for their burial in this cave, as in Cave 7 and 9. 127

But, as Popović has noted, “the number of leather reinforcing tabs and thongs from Cave 8 is

matched by those from Cave 4”128 and they can simply indicate that they were hidden with the

123
Baillet, DJD 3, 147-162.
124
Baillet, DJD 3, 161
125
de Vaux, DJD 3, 34.
126
de Vaux, DJD 3, 31.
127
Taylor, “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs,” 292.
128
Popović, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse,” 572.

22
scrolls. And in my opinion, olives, dates and the like point more to habitation than to a

working place.

But I am supposed to look to the contents of the manuscripts, and although more

numerous than those of Caves 9 and 10, three compositions are too meager a basis to establish

a profile, as even Pfann recognizes. 129 Daniel Stöckel Ben Ezra completely agrees: “The three

scrolls from Cave 8 and the single manuscript from Cave 9, which may also reflect the private

reading interests of their inhabitants or private property, are too few to sustain any

argument.”130 The only thing I can add is that these 3 manuscripts are Jewish religious

literature.

Concerning the contents of the manuscripts from Cave 11, I can be equally short as

with the contents of Cave 1, as I have previously written an article on the topic in 2010. 131 In

this article I tried to ascertain: What is peculiar to Cave 11? And, how do the materials from

Cave 11 relate to the Qumran collection as a whole, now that all the manuscripts have been

published? I also discussed: 1) Emmanuel Tov’s proposition, which considers the contents of

this cave more homogeneous and more sectarian than the contents of other caves 132 (this, in

my opinion, may be true for the scribal characteristics, but certainly not for the contents of the

compositions), 2) the opinion of Daniel Stöckel ben Ezra who considers Cave 11 as a young

cave133 (which to me seems correct since Herodian and late-Herodian manuscripts make up

the majority of its contents, and does not require different deposition scenarios), and 3) de

Vaux’s opinion, which considers the deposits of Caves 5, 7-9, and 11 as habitation caves and

the that manuscripts as abandoned by the inhabitants. 134 I also examined de Vaux’s notes on

Cave 11 in his preliminary report 135 and in his final statement in the Schweich Lectures, 136 and

129
Pfann, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves,” 166.
130
Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves,” 323.
131
F. García Martínez, “Cave 11 in Context,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Texts and Context (ed. C. Hempel;
STDJ 90; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 199-210.
132
E. Tov, “The Special Character of the Texts Found in Qumran Cave 11,” in Things Revealed: Studies in
Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone (ed. E. Chazon, D. Satran, and R. Clements;
JSJS 89; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 187-196.
133
Stökl Ben Ezra, “Old Caves and Young Caves,” 313-333.
134
de Vaux, DJD 3, 34.
135
R. de Vaux, “Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân: Rapport préliminaire sur les 3e, 4e et 5e campagnes,” RB 63
(1956): 533-577.
136
Quoted in note 2, but which apparently can only refer to temporary habitation.

23
concluded that the most likely scenario was an orderly hiding of some of the holdings of the

collection of Qumran for safe keeping, such as in Cave 1:

The location of Cave 11 is at a considerable distance from the Khirbet, the presence of

the same jars and linen, attesting to the same way of preservation and transport of the

manuscripts as in Cave 1, and even the fact that the entrance to Cave 11 was concealed

in antiquity, would be consonant with this interpretation.137

Concerning the relationship of the holdings of Cave 11 with the holdings of the other

caves I concluded:

In my opinion the most significant observation to make in the wake of the full

publication of the Scrolls in the DJD Series concerns the proportions of the categories

of manuscripts which formed the collection as a whole. We now have some idea of the

full spectrum of preserved material and are no longer dependent on best preserved

manuscripts from Cave 1 which were published relatively speedily. Looking at the

collection as a whole we notice a significant shift in the proportions of manuscripts

that have been classified as “biblical,” “para-biblical,” and “sectarian.” In particular,

the increased importance of “non-sectarian” “para-biblical” material compared with

the other two categories is noteworthy. It is now possible to state without exaggeration

that these sorts of materials constitute the majority of the collection outnumbering

both the “biblical” and the “sectarian” manuscripts together. If we recall the overview

over the contents of Cave 11 spelt out above (9 “biblical” texts, 3 or 4 “sectarian”

compositions, and 8 or 9 “para-biblical” texts) we may safely conclude that the

general profile of Cave 11 is very similar and practically identical to the profile of the

collection as a whole as it emerges today. Like the contents of Cave 1, the materials

from Cave 11 form a perfect sample of the library of which the holdings of Cave 11

once formed a part and thus represent a cross-section of the Qumran collection as a

whole.138

137
García Martínez, “Cave 11 in Context,” 209.
138
García Martínez, “Cave 11 in Context,” 210.

24
As in my review of Cave 1, I was operating here with the usual tripartite categories, and also

as in the case of Cave 1, applying the categories of DJD 39 139 and/or of Ticghelaar’s article140

would not make any difference.

Upon completing this overview, it is time to make some conclusions. The review of

the main articles on the topic showed us a polyphony of voices very far away from what for

many years was the general opinion. Against the hypothesis of a single collection hidden in

the caves for safe keeping from the Romans, the current debate now includes discussion of

storehouses for scrolls (which is somehow compatible with the scenario of storing the scrolls

for safekeeping against the Romans, even within a single deposit), the burial of manuscripts,

genizahs, and multiple collections and multiple deposits (which is clearly incompatible with

the traditional opinion). My review of the contents of all the caves leads me more in the

direction of the traditional opinion, a single collection and a single deposit. But it is clear that

the evidence preserved allows no conclusive argument to prove the point. We do have some

good manuscripts in Cave 1 and Cave 11, which in my view are closely related, even if in

Cave 11 we do not have the most characteristic yaḥad compositions. But for the rest of the

caves, except for Cave 4, we have only meagre remains which can point in a certain direction,

but which are too scanty to be considered as definitive proof. Besides, through the reports of

other discoveries in antiquity we are now very much aware of how partial and accidental our

evidence really is and how inadequate our historical data. This gives all the weight to the wise

words of Eibert Tichgelaar:

There is no evidence that all the manuscripts of the corpus were ever, at any time,

together in one collection. Nor can one know, for that matter, whether all those

manuscripts that were together at a certain time at the same place, were actively read

and studied, or merely deposited. Even the status of Cave 4, as a library, repository,

temporary place of concealment, or perhaps even a genizah, is unclear. We may not

know the precise historical events which eventually resulted in the deposit of

manuscripts in different caves at and near Qumran; we may conclude, however, from

139
Quoted in note 40.
140
Quoted in note 41.

25
 the contents of those manuscripts, that the corpus is not a random reflection of all

kinds of available Jewish texts of the time, but is part of a specific current in Early

Judaism.141

We are not yet able to say exactly what this specific current in early Judaism was, nor

if this current formed a large single group or if it was composed of by interrelated small

groups which shared the same approach to Scripture and certain peculiar legal traditions (both

would provide an explanation for the multiple copies of the same compositions). Therefore

we are not able to prove definitively or disproof the traditional hypothesis or the new

interpretations of the evidence we have. My analysis of the contents suggests that a single

collection and a single deposit is a reasonable interpretation (but not hard proof) of the

evidence we have. And since I do not believe anymore that the tripartite division of categories

I have used in the past are helpful to understand the collection or collections of the caves, I

will simply define it as a collection of religious Jewish literature from the Second Temple era.

141
Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” PAGE NUMBER.

26