2017-02-15

Dating DSS Awry #1 — Appendix

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

This post is an appendix to How Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls Went Awry — #1.

Solomon Birnbaum’s palaeographic dating of the DSS to the mid 1st C BCE was published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 115 (Oct., 1949), pp. 20-22, “The Date of the Cave Scrolls“.

Birnbaum compared the Isaiah Scroll from Cave 1 with the Nash Papyrus. He set out key letters from each as follows:

The result of the comparison was then applied to the Covenant Scroll and the Habakkuk Commentary also from Cave 1:

Bio
Latest Posts

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

Sons of God, Daughters of Men … and “Giants” — Why are they in the Bible? - 2023-02-03 02:46:15 GMT+0000
Demigods, Violence and Flood in Plato and Genesis — [Biblical Creation Accounts/Plato’s Timaeus-Critias – 7c] - 2023-01-25 09:00:48 GMT+0000
Primeval History from Cain to Noah — [Biblical Creation Accounts/Plato’s Timaeus-Critias – 7b] - 2023-01-23 07:12:28 GMT+0000

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

One thought on “Dating DSS Awry #1 — Appendix”

Pingback: Vridar » Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls — #2

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=145080#p145080
Neil made a good synthesis of the work without being an “expert” of the field.

-- Enrico Tuccinardi, - October 2022
"I want to say here that this site is so resourceful and highly on top of the most modern scholarship in the areas discussed here. . . I know of no other site which offers a wide range of topics related to careful critical analysis of historically and scripturally related issues."

-- Martin Lewadny, - March 2009
"Neil Godfrey and Tim Widowfield, who both write at Vridar . . . happen to be some of the most astute and well-read amateurs you can read on the internet on the subject of biblical historicity. I call them amateurs only for the reason that they don’t have, so far as I know, advanced degrees in the subject. But I have often been impressed with their grasp of logic and analysis of scholarship. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their work."

— Richard Carrier, – March 2014
"I find your blog most interesting and appreciate your ongoing effort to keep to the evidence for the issues discussed!"

-- Thomas L. Thompson, - April 2020
"I think you have a high quality blog that provides a positive public service by discussing academic topics within a wider audience."

— Russell Gmirkin, – October 2016
"Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job."

— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014
"Thanks much for this book review. I think it expands, and contributes to, the effort in honouring Thomas that we with Lukasz originally had in mind with this volume. Best, Emanuel"

-- Emanuel Pfoh - August 2020
"I still wonder at all the material you turn out for Vridar. The more I read your stuff (and I still do, of course), the more I realize how much we all owe you. Your voice is unique."

— Earl Doherty, November 2013 (personal email)
"I’ve even been cited by atheists with approval (which I really don’t know how to take, so thanks, I think, but I’m not sure, Vrider (even though I feel like I need to take a shower now))."

-- Jim West, – September 2010
"Note that I do not use the term ‘amateur’ pejoratively. . . . In fact, Godfrey is extremely well read and his librarian skills have brought many important academic works to my attention."

Raphael Lataster - August 2019
"Thanks for this detailed interaction! I’ll try to offer something more substantial than 'Thank you' in response at some point, but I didn’t want to wait . . . to express appreciation for your detailed interaction with what I’ve written!"

— James McGrath, – June 2009
"Neil, for what it is worth it is obvious to me that if you had earlier in life tracked into a graduate program at one of the world’s leading research universities you would be one of the world’s formidable ones. You are doing essentially the same quality now (apart from the philology and languages) except mostly sticking to commenting on others’ work as informed comment/discussion."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
"For an excellent example of generally high-quality scholarship by someone who isn’t a biblical studies professor, see Neil Godfrey’s work posted on the website vridar.org."

— Tom Dykstra, – JOCABS 2015
"Very good. This post is going straight to the March 2016 Biblical Studies Carnival."

—N.T. Wrong, – March 2016
"Many thanks for this post, and for the quality of your blog."

— Philippe Wajdenbaum, – November 2018
"Here I give an admittedly subjective short list, in random order, of useful, high level and regularly updated weblogs on the study of the Old Testament . . . ‘Vridar: Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science’ (http://vridar.org/) by Neil Godfrey"

-- Klaas Spronk, - Bibliotheca Orientalis LXXI, 3/4 (2014)
"Thanks for your very elaborate review! I realized that I hadn’t added your blog to our blogroll. This oversight has been corrected. Looking forward to more segments."

— Anthony Le Donne, – September 2009
"I’d like to thank you for this very nice representation of what I was trying to show in the book. It’s always gratifying when a reader zeroes in on exactly those aspects I thought were most interesting and most central to my argument. Thank you for this careful and engaged reading of my work – much appreciated!"

— Eva Mroczek, – June 2017
"I have found your website really valuable as an interpretive filter for Biblical scholarship, especially the origins of Christianity and historicity of Jesus issue. Your clarity of expression, fair comments and personal insights are much valued. I refer to your site frequently as yet more names and publications pop up requiring an academic critique and helpful recommendations for book purchases. So, please continue to delve deeply and share this intellectual sustenance with your grateful readers."

— Mary Booker, – February 2020 (personal email)
"By the way, my thanks to Neil for an ongoing superb job of exposing Jim’s review for what it is: a farcical and none too effective exercise in mythicism assassination, nothing to do with rational, let alone unbiased, scholarship. I’m also happy to see even Jim giving Neil credit where credit is due."

— Earl Doherty, June 2011
"Neil, You’ve done a clean job in your posting on ‘Jesus the Healer’. It reflects well on you. Best, John"

— John Moles, September 2011 (personal email)
"I always enjoy reading Neil’s blog because I think that he is careful, thorough, intellectually fair, and honest."

— April DeConick, – November 2007
"Fantastic. I’m so glad you’re helping to spread these ideas!"

Nancy Fraser - June 2019 (personal email)
"Vridar is consistently thought-provoking, well-informed, and asking the right questions. There are intelligent, thoughtful comments and commenters regularly offering productive discussion. Books and publications are covered with a range of perspectives with attempts at fair and accurate representation of others’ arguments and content (where there are occasional and inevitable missteps on that I notice Neil making corrections and apologies where warranted, which wins points with me). Please carry on."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
"These reviews of yours are so bloody weird!"

— James Crossley, – April 2010

Thomas Worthington on David Fitzgerald responds to Tim O’Neill’s review of Nailed: “Being a Christian while studying Christian claims is relevant as it tells others that you *believe the stories* a priori,…” Jan 30, 09:09
db on David Fitzgerald responds to Tim O’Neill’s review of Nailed: ““Ehrman is Agnostic, Pagels is Buddhist, Fredrickson is Jewish, Not sure about Riley, Rubenstein is Jewish, Aslan a Muslim. Many…” Jan 29, 14:47
Ken Kaplan on David Fitzgerald responds to Tim O’Neill’s review of Nailed: “Reverse the last sentence before the Shroud comment. O’Neill’s contention was attacking the Gospel accounts as history.” Jan 28, 17:58
Ken Kaplan on David Fitzgerald responds to Tim O’Neill’s review of Nailed: “I did not read the entire thing but I will comment on two points, 1) your assertion of predominance of…” Jan 28, 17:54
Russell Gmirkin on Demigods, Violence and Flood in Plato and Genesis — [Biblical Creation Accounts/Plato’s Timaeus-Critias – 7c]: “The above left out the quotes I was responding to: It thus seems likely that this aggression against the Greeks…” Jan 25, 18:44
Russell Gmirkin on Demigods, Violence and Flood in Plato and Genesis — [Biblical Creation Accounts/Plato’s Timaeus-Critias – 7c]: “<> Good nuanced discussion. There is a definite contrast between Timaeus, which portrayed the earthquake and flood as bringing about…” Jan 25, 18:42
John on Another Pointer Towards a Late Date for the Gospel of Mark?: “Used some of your ideas here in a blog post: https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2023/01/corporate-sin-post-script-did-the-historical-jesus-know-john-the-baptist-my-last-blog-post-for-a-little-while/ . Thanks” Jan 24, 17:05
Philippe Wajdenbaum on The Ambiguity of the Serpent: Greek versus Biblical: “Dear Austendw, Many thanks for your detailed reply. We will probably not convince each other, but it is a worthy…” Jan 19, 19:39
Austendw on The Ambiguity of the Serpent: Greek versus Biblical: “Hi Philippe I had really hoped to just alert Neil to a different modern approach to the issue of the…” Jan 18, 20:01

Neil Godfrey

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

Share this:

Like this:

One thought on “Dating DSS Awry #1 — Appendix”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply