The above discussion suggests that when looking at the evidence from the scrolls discov-
ered in the Judaean Desert we must proceed from a position which is respectful of the
complex nature of the evidence. It seems that we can approach the evidence from one of
two perspectives. Following Young, we can take the Qumran scrolls in toto to represent
earlier evidence than the scrolls from Masada, Naḥal Ḥever, Murabba‘at and Wadi Sdeir.
This would allow us to draw conclusions that fall into two temporally distinguished
groups, namely evidence from the last centuries B.C.E. (Qumran), and evidence from the
early centuries C.E. (all other sites).
Alternatively, we could take the position that supposes a contemporary provenience for
the scrolls from Qumran and Masada, and adds to this body of synchronic evidence the
material from Murabba‘at, Naḥal Ḥever and Wadi Sdeir. As has been indicated above,
such as position would take into account the considerations of Lieberman that delineate
scrolls into groups which reflect particular care in their production and which have a spe-
cific intended function in Jewish Palestinian society. Lieberman’s observations would
seem to fit well with Tov’s system which recognises scrolls of varying quality of produc-
tion. We have outlined above some considerations towards seeing this particular system
of categorisation as also pertaining to texts of varying degrees of authoritativeness.
The present study will progress from the perspective that all of the scrolls from the Dead
Sea area should be examined as a collective and relatively contemporaneous group, seg-
regated not in terms of chronological placement but rather in terms of locality and quality
of production. If the discussions of Doudna, Hutcheson and Young noted above should