alert us to anything, it should be that the dating of scrolls from the Judaean Desert, using
palaeographical evidence that is unsubstantiated by external archaeological data, lends
more uncertainty to our endeavour than it resolves.^734 A firm position on the exact dating
of the scrolls will thus be avoided as much as is possible in the following examination.
Rather, this study will aim to reach conclusions that remain relevant irrespective of the
precise dating that scholars attribute to the scrolls.
That is not to suggest that it suffices to ignore the question of dating the scrolls entirely.
Indeed, it will need to be remembered that the differences in temporal setting considered
in Young’s study must be taken into consideration in our final analysis. To this end, the
material from Masada and Qumran will be treated primarily as contemporary evidence,
and the later material from other sites from the Judaean Desert will be factored into the
analysis with due consideration of their later provenience. Such an approach seeks to, at
least partially, reconcile the diachronically driven views of Young with the synchronic-
ally driven views of Tov. However, it is the view of the writer that we can be relatively
free to comment upon the textual character of certain scrolls that have been grouped ac-
cording to the quality with which they have been manufactured and executed, without the
need to enter into the arguments that surround the specific dating of these texts. Our
comments in this respect should hold independently of whether we attribute an early dat-
ing to the deposit of the scrolls in the caves near Qumran (before the turn of the Common
Era), or a late dating (after the turn of the Common Era). In either case, we are still dis-
cussing scrolls from Qumran and Masada that saw out their existence as authoritative
734
See note above.