We have already gone some way to addressing this question by adopting Tov’s view that
distinguishes between ‘de luxe’ temple affiliated editions and manuscripts that do not fit
this category. The scrolls from Masada, Murabba‘at, Naḥal Ḥever and Wadi Sdeir all
show similar qualities in formatting and content that connect them with this ‘de luxe’
group of temple affiliated texts.^1349 In contrast, many of the scrolls from the caves near
Qumran can be viewed as reflecting different, perhaps sub-standard, production val-
ues.^1350
(^) ology. I. Hutchesson, "63 B.C.E.," 186, has raised doubts about the numismatic evidence used by de Vaux
in his conclusions, but his argument amounts to special pleading. At any rate, the date of 63 B.C.E. sup-
ported by Hutchesson’s proposal has been abandoned by Doudna in favour of a later date of 40 B.C.E.
Doudna’s argument on the basis of the radiocarbon analyses similarly provides no solid evidence that con-
tradicts the archaeological evidence. The strongest evidence in favour of the earlier dating remains the lack
of historical references that post-date 40 B.C.E., which may be a result of the period during which certain
texts were brought into the library, rather than a reflection of the date in which the entire collection was
deposited in the caves. In this case the view of the majority of scholarship is adopted in lieu of further evi-
dence that supports Doudna and Young’s minority position and, more importantly, casts doubt on the ac-
cepted archaeological interpretations of the sites. It follows that if the differences between the collections at
Masada and Qumran cannot be explained in terms of chronology, another explanation must be sought. The
view adopted here, to be discussed below, sees the differences as relating to the divergent social settings
that lie behind each of these collections. 1349
E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 91, notes that “the large format was used mainly or only for
authoritative texts, since this distinctive format gave the scroll prestige, as in the case of luxury scrolls ... If
indeed the large size of a scroll was an indication of its authoritative status, this assumption would have to
be linked with a certain center or period, since many small scrolls contained equally authoritative texts.”
This view is echoed by D.M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 269: “such exact textual standardiza-
tion [of the proto-rabbinic texts] is only possible with reference to single exemplars of the relevant texts,
exemplars almost certainly kept in the temple.” 1350
D.M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 221, has suggested that a number of the less profession-
ally executed scrolls from Qumran could be exercise texts. Similarly M.O. Wise, "Accidents and Acci-
dence: A Scribal View of Linguistic Dating of the Aramaic Scrolls from Qumran," Thunder in Gemini and
Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Palestine (JSPSup 15; Sheffield: