Craig Evans on the DSS-Like Fragments

Craig Evans recently posted a video interview suggesting that the post-2002 DSS-like fragments now generally supposed to be forgeries are in fact likely authentic. He bases this on reported claims by Weston Fields that these fragments really did come from the Kandos' vault and that the phenomena that are used to justify rejecting the authenticity of the fragments are common in genuine DSS. For those who are interested, here was my brief (spoiler: skeptical) response to his Facebook post.

Thanks for posting your thoughts on the topic. Surely no one will object to a closer examination of authentic DSS to provide comparanda, but someone would have to pay for it, and I wouldn't expect very positive results. In my own experience (and quickly double checking some of the better preserved scrolls), minor cracks and delamination are almost always secondary when they co-occur with ink. You can often see clearly how the ink cracks with the skin and leaves the lighter interior exposed. When layers of the skin separate, you can see that the ink on the surface flakes off with it, and you would be very hard pressed to find a compelling example (let alone multiple) where an ancient scribe wrote over such an already partially-delaminated surface. The better preserved scrolls demonstrate that the DSS were generally quite smooth when inscribed. When there were issues with the preparation of the skin (holes, cracks, or even rough patches), the scribes usually avoided writing over these spots. So I find it very unlikely that we would find such a high proportion of these sorts of irregularities in the contested fragments if an ancient writer was writing on the skin. And this is in addition to the observation that most of the DSS were not even written on the type of coarse-rubbery leather found in the contested fragments, but were rather stretched, dried, and carefully prepared for writing. The two types of skin preparation are so fundamentally different that I cannot believe most of the contested fragments were ever intended for writing in the first place. So I don’t think this speculation really explains the suspicious phenomena in the contested fragments or warrants further speculations about hypothetical purity rituals. Add to that the many suspicious paleographic and textual features that have been noted, and I think you will have a very hard time convincing many specialists of the authenticity of most of the contested fragments today.

Update 11 Feb 2023

Stephen Goranson informed me of a video response posted by Kipp Davis.

Brent Nongbri on the Vatican DSS Fragments

Brent Nongbri has a brief note with images on the two Vatican Museum Dead Sea Scroll fragments. I must admit that I too was surprised to see them when I first noticed them in the Vatican Museum years ago. Trying to examine them upside down in poor lighting while resisting a torrent of people wasn't very successful at the time. :)

Loll et al. 2019 - Museum of the Bible Dead Sea Scroll Collection Scientific Research and Analysis: Final Report

The Museum of the Bible has posted the well-illustrated final report of Colette Loll et al., which concluded unanimously that all of the MOTB DSS-like fragments were modern forgeries. This confirms the suspicions of many researchers, offering considerable new material evidence to the discussion.
Most prominently, all of the inscribed fragments have irregularities with the ink, such as:

1. Ink on top of delaminated skin, where the top layer of the skin has flaked off.
2. Ink flowing down the edges of fragments and into cracks.
3. Ink on top of accrued mineral deposits.
4. Ink "feathering" or bleeding outside the boundaries of the letters.

The report also confirms the observations of others that the letters often follow the contours of the broken edges and cracks of the fragments. Another noteworthy oddity is that some of the fragments seem to have been ruled with a greasy white substance before inscription. 

The writing surfaces also seem inconsistent with genuine DSS. All but one (MOTB.SCR.004742 [Leviticus]) are written on leather, characterized by: interwoven collagen fibers; a thick, spongy texture (now brittle); flexibility and resilience (again, now brittle); bumpy surface from the grain and fibrous surface on the skin side; and the absorption of tannins through the entire skin as part of the preparation process. In contrast, genuine scrolls are (almost?) always written on parchment, characterized by: parallel aligned collagen fibers; thin, relatively stiff texture; smooth surfaces due to scraping; and sometimes a surface treatment with tannins.

The leather was apparently soaked in a lime solution to help remove the hair, a technology which is supposed to have been introduced in the 4th cent. CE. This is interesting, since one questionable Azusa Pacific University fragment is said to have been radiocarbon dated to the 1st cent. CE, and it would be easy to explain how the forger got access to similar material from this time. The report suggests that several holes in certain fragments may have been human-created and resemble leather used for Roman shoes, so the leather may have originally been created for a similar usage. Heavy mineral deposits on the surfaces (including under the ink) suggests that the leather was recovered from an ancient archeological context, though it cannot be dated precisely.

The report gives a detailed analysis of the material of the leather and sediments. On each of the fragments there was an amber-colored protein coating (probably animal skin glue), but it is not clear whether this was part of the preparation of the parchment or natural gelatinization. The report notes suspicious striations on one fragment resulting from brush strokes, which apparently applied a transparent substance to the surface. The ink is carbon-based and uses gum Arabic as a binder; the team apparently did not detect any egg-white, unlike the ink in the Schøyen ink well. The report also suggests that someone deposited a layer of sediment consistent with the Dead Sea region on the surface of the fragments, possibly while the ink was still wet.

Though I am no expert on the material side, and there are some material problems with the leather, it seems clear that the irregularities of the ink are the primary indicators for the team's decision. To quote a helpful and succinct summary:

"Aside from unambiguous conservation materials, no anachronistic or anomalous materials were identified in the studied fragments. The state of degradation and minerology of the parchment samples suggests they may old or ancient, however, physical clues, such as the application of ink over delaminated support material and sediment, as well as cracks in several fragments, suggests that much or all of the ink may have been applied more recently (111)."

Indeed, the fact that the ink and script are so problematic for each of the fragments is a strong indication that all of these fragments are modern forgeries on ancient skins.

____________________________________________________________

See also the discussions by Christopher Rollston, Sidnie Crawford, and Michael Langlois. Contrast the following statement by Emanuel Tov cited in a National Geographic article:

"I will not say that there are no unauthentic fragments among the MOB fragments, but in my view, their inauthenticity as a whole has still not been proven beyond doubt. This doubt is due to the fact that similar testing has not been done on undisputed Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts in order to provide a base line for comparison, including the fragments from the Judean Desert sites that are later than Qumran. The report expects us to conclude that abnormalities abound without demonstrating what is normal."

While I agree that it would be helpful to do similar tests with authentic DSS for comparison, the combined evidence with regard to the MOTB DSS-like fragments collected to date does seem to me to be quite compelling. These fragments are almost certainly modern forgeries.

National Geographic on MOTB DSS-Like Forgeries

Michael Greshko writes an interesting piece for National Geographic on the new report about the Museum of the Bible Dead Sea Scroll-like fragments: Exclusive: 'Dead Sea Scrolls' at the Museum of the Bible are all forgeries.

HT Michael Langlois

Årstein Justnes and Josephine Munch Rasmussen on Post-2002 Forgeries

Årstein Justnes and Josephine Munch Rasmussen have posted an interesting and challenging article The Post-2002 Fragments and the Scholars Who Turned Them Into Dead Sea Scrolls on the ASOR blog. After retelling the problematic history of the modern forgery of Dead Sea Scroll like fragments, they challenge the field of scholars who participated in this process, arguing that the scholars involved did not do due diligence and contributed to the creation and expansion of the market.

Kipp Davis on Forged Dead Sea Scrolls

Kipp Davis gives brief reflections on his work on modern Dead Sea Scrolls-like forgeries. He rehearses some of the evidence that led him to conclude that at least some of the fragments in private collections are forgeries, as well as providing cautious warnings about overzealous antiquities collectors in a market supplied by opportunists. For my own thoughts on probable modern forgeries, see my review of the Museum of the Bible Dead Sea Scrolls volume.

New Sales of DSS

Owen Jarus has a new article on recently sold DSS-like fragments that will be of interest to readers. There is also an interesting picture gallery of DSS in the US.

HT Peter Gurry

More Coverage on Possible DSS Forgeries

Nina Burleigh has a recent, short Newsweek piece out on possible DSS forgeries: "Newly Discovered Dead Sea Scrolls are Skillfully Crafted Fakes, Experts Suspect". Not much new, but interesting to see coverage in popular media outlets.


HT Rick Bonnie

Article on New DSS Fragments

Owen Jarus writes about newly purchased DSS fragments in the Museum of the Bible and Schøyen collections in Live Science. An interesting--if brief--account of how these collections were assembled.

HT Årstein Justnes

MOTB Dead Sea Scrolls Volume

Peter Gurry has pointed out that Brill has released information on the publication of the Museum of the Bible volume Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection. In addition to several introductory and overview articles, there are publications of Dead Sea Scrolls fragments of the following passages:

• Genesis 31:23–25?, 32:3–6
• Exodus 17:4–7
• Leviticus 23:24–28
• A Fragment of Leviticus?
• Numbers 8:3–5
• Jeremiah 23:6–9
• Ezekiel 28:22
• Jonah 4:2–5
• Micah 1:4–6
• Psalm 11:1–4
• Daniel 10:18–20
• Nehemiah 2:13–16C
• A Fragment of Instruction

Congratulations to all the authors and editors who have worked so hard to get this important volume published. I look forward to looking through it at some point in the near future.

Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls for Sale

Jack Sasson has pointed out an interesting article in Haaretz on the history of the sale of small Dead Sea Scrolls fragments to private collections. Apparently Kando retained several fragments in Switzerland and bequeathed them to his sons. William Kando has been selling them to private collections in Norway and the United States for very high prices. There are still some that have not been sold, and quite a few still unpublished.