Reconsidering the Date of the En-Gedi Leviticus Scroll (EGLev): Exploring the Limitations of the Comparative-Typological Paleographic Method

Yardeni dated the charred En-Gedi Leviticus scroll (EGLev) to the second half of the firstorearlysecondcenturyCE.Paleographicevidenceisoftenambiguousandcanpro-vide only an imprecise basis for dating EGLev. Nevertheless, a series of important typo-logicaldevelopmentsevidentinthehandof EGLevsuggestsadatesomewhatlaterthan the Dead Sea Scrolls of the first–second centuries, but clearly earlier than comparanda from the sixth–eighth centuries.The cumulative supporting evidence from the archeo-logicalcontext,bibliographic/voluminologicaldetails(woodenrollerandmetallicink), format and layout (tall, narrow columns)—each individually indeterminative—also suggests dating EGLev to the period from the third–sixth centuries CE. I argue that EGLev should be dated to the third–fourth centuries CE, with only a small possibility that it could have been written in the second or fifth centuries, which is possibly supported by radiocarbon dating.


Introduction
In the early 1970s, a team of archaeological excavators led by Dan Barag, Ehud Netzer, and Yosef Porath discovered the charred remains of at least one scroll from the location of the Torah ark in the burned ancient synagogue of En-scripts is beyond doubt, I will nevertheless argue in this paper that limitations in data and method render Yardeni's early date for EGLev improbable, and that the scroll should rather be dated to approximately the third or fourth century CE. This later dating of EGLev in some respects increases the significance of the scroll, because it provides a securely placed script sample on a soft writing support from the land of Israel from a period with almost no attestation. A third-or fourth-century date for EGLev is strongly suggested by a combination of evidence from paleographic considerations, the archeological context of its discovery, radiocarbon dating, material features of the scroll, and its format and layout.

Paleographic Analysis
The primary evidence that led Yardeni to propose an early date for EGLev was paleographic in nature. In order to properly appraise the role of paleography in dating EGLev, I will first discuss several limitations inherent in the traditional comparative-typological method and then highlight pertinent paleographic features of the script of EGLev that suggest a later date than Yardeni proposes.6

The Limitations of the Comparative-Typological Method
The traditional method of paleographically dating ancient manuscripts is fundamentally comparative and typological in nature. It is comparative, in that scripts of unknown dates are compared with script samples of known dates in order to determine their closest parallels. The former are then dated in relation to the latter on the supposition that similarity in script implies temporal proximity. This can work reasonably well with a well-populated dataset that is representative of the various styles, developments, and ranges of variation that characterized ancient scripts. But in poor-quality and poor-quantity datasets with few documented and dated samples, highly fragmentary remains, and countless missing links, the comparative method runs into severe limitations. In particular, I would suggest that in such cases there is a strong potential for bias towards well-documented periods and script styles to the detriment of poorly attested periods and script styles. In other words, if paleographers date manuscripts on the basis of preserved comparanda, they may be more likely to date manuscripts close to these comparanda, rather than to periods Textus 27 (2018)  for which no comparanda can be presented, even if this does not reflect the actual ancient historical situation.
The mid-second to the sixth centuries CE are precisely such a "dark age" in Hebrew paleography, which makes any attempts at paleographic dating within this period perilous at best. Aside from some roughly datable stone inscriptions and mosaics (mostly from the land of Israel) and a few Jewish fragments on soft supports (mostly papyri from Egypt, but also fragments from Dura-Europos), there is very little evidence for the varieties and development of the Hebrew script in this long period.7 To the best of my knowledge, internally dated materials consist only of a single papyrus from Egypt dated to 417 CE (see comparandum G below), more than fifty explicitly dated Jewish Aramaic tombstone inscriptions from Byzantine Zoora south of the Dead Sea ranging from the fourth to the sixth centuries CE (see comparandum H below),8 a few additional inscriptions,9 and a handful of explicitly dated Aramaic incantation bowls ranging from the mid-sixth century to the early seventh century CE.10 There are absolutely no comparative examples dating between the mid-second and the sixth centuries in a formal script on a soft writing support from the same region as EGLev.
To counter this lack, Yardeni identifies two roughly (paleographically) datable comparanda among the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls from the first century CE or the beginning of the second century, which she considers to be the clos- est extant parallels to EGLev. Because the script of EGLev is closest to those of these early scrolls, Yardeni proposes a similarly early date for EGLev. And yet, even if we grant for the sake of argument that Yardeni's parallels are the closest extant, that does not then guarantee that EGLev dates to the same period.
Because there are few appropriate comparanda from the third and fourth centuries, Yardeni simply cannot exclude the possibility that now-lost third and fourth century scripts were even closer parallels. In this case, the traditional comparative method employed by Yardeni breaks down due to insufficient evidence and potentially creates a bias (in my view unrealistically) towards an early date for EGLev. The traditional method of paleographic dating is also typological in nature, in that scholars must "connect the dots" between dated and datable documents to identify typological developments that take place over time and in different script styles.11 In lieu of near-perfect parallels, undated manuscripts are often placed in relation to a constructed (and unverifiable) typology pegged at points to a calendar, i.e., where a given script fits within perceived trajectories of broader script developments. These typologies always lack a certain level of resolution, and factors such as long transition periods, gaps in the typology, the idiosyncrasies of individual scribes, conservatism and archaism (particularly in formal hands like that of EGLev),12 parallel trajectories of script development, interference from different script traditions and styles, and a host of unknowable and unquantifiable sociological and material factors mean that it is only possible to suggest approximate ranges of dates for manuscripts dated typologically.13 The formal Hebrew (proto-)square script is particularly notorious for its long-term stability, greatly exasperating the problems, though it too, of course, can be shown to have undergone evolutionary development.14 11 For In best-case scenarios, bold paleographers may even attempt to give date ranges narrower than the working life of an individual scribe. In most cases, however, I would suggest that this is unrealistically precise, and paleographers should allow for wider ranges of possible dates.15 Either way, we must never forget that-given the uncertainties and unpredictability of historical processes-these ranges are in fact probability distributions (similar to the below-mentioned radiocarbon dating results), even if humanities scholars are less adept at recognizing and reporting their error. In other words, though the error is difficult to quantify in reality, a paleographer might suggest a date of 75CE for a hypothetical manuscript, with an (unverifiable) margin of error of ± 25 years to produce a date range of 50-100CE. But if we (somewhat more realistically) view this as a confidence interval of one standard deviation, that means that there is a 68.2% probability that the actual date falls within that range. In order to achieve a higher degree of confidence-say 95.4 %-we would then need to expand the proposed range to 25-125CE. This level of precision may perhaps be possible for Hebrew scripts in a relatively well-documented period such as the first century CE, but such precision is almost universally recognized to be impossible in the poorly documented period from the second to the sixth centuries CE.16 Since the possible dates of EGLev bridge these two periods-C.N.R.S., 1976), 4; Engel, Development of the Hebrew Script, 2-3. Indeed, in regard to Egyptian bookhands probably from the third to the sixth centuries, Yardeni, Book of Hebrew Script, 198, notes, "The Hebrew script on the fragments shows a clear affinity to the post-Herodian book-hand." Émile Puech, "La paléographie des manuscrits de la mer Morte," in The Caves of Qumran: Proceedings of the International Conference, Lugano 2014, ed. Marcello Fidanzio, STDJ 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 102, even speaks of the canonization of the formal script for copying biblical manuscripts in the second century CE. The fullest treatment to date of the evolution of the script in this period is Engel and because of the inherent imprecision in any form of typological dating-we must be prepared to accept broader ranges of possible dates as the result of typological paleographic dating methods than Yardeni allows in her proposed range of approximately fifty years. Thus, not only is Yardeni's date improbably early, but I would suggest that it is also improbably precise, bringing her into direct conflict with other evidence for dating the scroll. When paleographic dating is understood as making probabilistic statements rather than absolutelooking date ranges, this better highlights the possibility of a productive synthesis between traditional paleographic methods and other indicators of date (especially radiocarbon dating), which is quickly and rightly becoming common practice for dating ancient manuscripts.

Paleographic Analysis of the En-Gedi Leviticus Scroll
In order to facilitate a paleographical analysis of EGLev, let us propose a number of illustrative writing samples for comparison from the period between the first and the eighth centuries. We will first reconsider the two comparanda proposed by Yardeni, as well as several samples from across this period. These have been selected from the preserved texts based on four criteria: 1) stylistic similarity to EGLev; 2) the confidence and specificity with which they can be dated; 3) similarity of writing material; and 4) geographic spread.

2.2.1
Comparanda A = Israel Museum, Shrine of the Book, 11QTemplea, Scribe B (late first century BCE or first century CE).
Yardeni's first comparandum, 11QTemplea (or 11Q19)-the famous Temple Scroll-was discovered in cave 11 in the vicinity of Qumran.17 The bulk of the scroll is written in a hand paleographically attributable to the late first century BCE or first century CE, and it was almost certainly finally deposited in the cave during the First Jewish War against Rome (66-73 CE). In 1990-1991, 11QTemplea was dated in Zürich to a radiocarbon age of 2030 ± 40 BP (calibrated to a 1σ range of 97BCE-1CE, according to the 1986 dataset).18 11QTemplea is written in it is now possible to trace the script's evolution and to recognize its different types and subtypes, we are still far from the ability of a precise dating" ( Yardeni's second comparandum, 5/6ḤevPsalms (or 5/6Ḥev 1b), was discovered in the Cave of Letters in Nahal Ḥever, and it was finally deposited in the cave during the Second Jewish War with Rome (132-135 CE).19 It is paleographically attributable to approximately the second half of the first century CE or early second century. 5/6ḤevPsalms is written in a well-executed, calligraphic formal hand in neat, straight lines hanging just below ruled guidelines. The strokes are mostly straight and of homogenous thickness, and the resulting angular script generally leans to the left. The scribe consistently includes additional decorative strokes and subtle serifs. C = Israel Antiquities Authority, SdeirGenesis (late first century CE or early second century).
SdeirGenesis (or Sdeir 1) was claimed to have been discovered in an unidentified cave in Wadi Sdeir, where it was apparently finally deposited during the Second Jewish War with Rome (132-135CE).20 It is paleographically attributable to approximately the late first century CE or early second century. The script is an elegant, formal hand, written in neat, straight lines hanging well below the ruled guidelines. The straight but soft strokes betray some minimal (inconsistent) differentiation between thick horizontal and thin vertical strokes, and the relatively thick strokes give the script a somewhat heavy appearance. The vertical strokes generally lean to the left and often end in a sharp tip. The scribe makes regular use of additional ornamental elements and subtle serifs. 19 For its principal publication, see Peter Flint, "1b. 5/6ḤevPsalms," in Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert, DJD XXXVIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 141-166, pls. XXV-XXVII. High-resolution digital images of the scroll can be seen at http://www.deadseascrolls.org .il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/5_6Hev%201b%20891-1 (accessed 10 January 2018). 20 For its principal publication, see Catherine Murphy, "1. SdeirGenesis," in Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert, DJD XXXVIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 117-124, pl. XXII. High-resolution digital images of the scroll can be seen at http://www.deadseascrolls.org .il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/WS1-1 (accessed 10 January 2018).

D = Israel Antiquities Authority, Mur 24 (134CE).
Mur 24 consists of a series of farming contracts on papyrus found in Wadi Murabbaʿat and internally dated to the 20th of Shebaṭ, year 2 of the redemption of Israel by Shimʿon b. Kosiba (134CE).21 The bulk of Mur 24 (fragments A-I), though a documentary text, was uncharacteristically inscribed in the skilled formal bookhand of a professional scribe, albeit not as neatly and carefully as might be expected for a literary scroll. This rare example of an explicitly dated formal hand from the second century is thus an important comparandum for our purposes.
The text of Mur 24 is written parallel to the fibers in somewhat uneven lines. The letters generally respect a virtual baseline and are upright or leaning slightly to the left. The scribe incorporates ornamental additions and distinct serifs, and the script is clearly legible, though the letters are not consistently well executed. The strokes are typically homogeneous and somewhat straight, but also frequently slightly rounded.  Textus 27 (2018) 44-84 figure 1 P. Dura 11 Courtesy of the Beinecke rare book and manuscript library, Yale University scrolls.24 As an explicitly dated bookhand from second-century En-Gedi, 5/6Ḥev 44 is an invaluable comparandum for dating EGLev. The text is written in neat, straight, closely packed lines parallel to the papyrus fibers. The script is small, with a rough sense for a baseline and generally leaning to the left. The letters were carefully executed, paying attention to the ornamental additions prevalent in formal hands of the period. The scribe does not consciously differentiate between the relative thickness of vertical and horizontal strokes. A distinctive feature of his scribal practice is the use of large X's as space fillers at the ends of lines. F = Yale University, Beinecke Library Inv. DPg 25 = P. Dura 11 (c. 165?-c. 256 CE) (see Fig. 1

above).
Yale University, Beinecke Library Inv. DPg 25 (P. Dura 11) is a liturgical poem written in Hebrew.25 It was discovered in a fill near the synagogue in Dura- 24 Cf If the Jewish presence in Dura-Europos is indeed related to the establishment of the Roman garrison,29 then the poem was likely written down after the Roman conquest of the city from the Parthians c. 165 CE and the construction of the synagogue soon thereafter, but we cannot be certain. P. Dura 11 is written in a noncalligraphic, semiformal hand, characterized by a lack of precision.30 Its cramped, uneven lines are not guided by ruling lines, and the somewhat large letters vary in size (avg. about 4 mm bilinear height). Its relatively thick but inconsistent strokes vary in thickness from letter to letter, but the writer does not consciously distinguish between the relative thickness of the horizontal or vertical strokes. The script is mostly unadorned, except when decorative elements have become integral parts of the letters. The handwriting has a slight general slant counterclockwise from vertical. Letter formation varies greatly within the small fragments, with several peculiar features (e.g., the almost horizontal left diagonal of mem and the protrusion of the roof of qoph to the right of its right downstroke).31 G = Universität zu Köln, Papyrussammlung Inv. 5853-the Cologne Ketubah (417CE) (see Fig. 2  P. Ant. 47+48 are two parchment fragments of a large scroll preserving parts of 1-2Kings.37 It was discovered during excavations in Antinoopolis, Egypt, a site which also yielded numerous Greco-Roman papyri from the third to the sixth centuries CE (as well as smaller numbers from the second and seventh to eighth centuries). As such, McHardy suggests that the Kings fragments may likewise date from the third to the sixth centuries,38 and Birnbaum argues alternatively for a date in the fifth century39 or sixth century.40 Sirat dates it to the fifth or sixth century,41 and Dukan seems to prefer a date in the sixth or seventh century.42 Olszowy-Schlanger argues for the possibility of a later date for P. Ant. 47+48 based on the fact that Coptic materials were discovered at Antinoopolis up to and beyond the Muslim conquest and its paleographic similarity to early scripts from the Cairo Genizah.43 Yardeni and Engel also suggest a later date, perhaps in the seventh or eighth century.44 The dating of the scroll is complicated by a dearth of suitable comparanda at the beginning of the range of possible dates, the reverse situation of what obtains in our attempt to date EGLev.
P. Ant. 47+48 is written in a neat, calligraphic formal hand characterized by a high degree of precision and consistency. The lines fall slightly below the ruled guidelines. Its script inclines slightly to the left, and base strokes descend to the left. Most strokes are gently curved, but the letters are generally square in shape. Downstrokes tend to end with a sharp rounded tip. The scribe consciously differentiated between thick horizontal and thin vertical strokes, but the contrast is not always obvious.  Fig. 6 below). P. Berlin 8492 is a papyrus fragment containing Hebrew liturgical poetry, which was found somewhere in the Fayum.45 Given the use of papyrus and the fact that it was found along with similar Arabic papyri dated by Sachau to the eighth century CE, Steinschneider suggests that it can hardly be dated later than the eighth century.46 Chwolson concurs, placing the earliest of the Berlin fragments in the seventh century and the latest in the eighth.47 The Academy of Hebrew Language website entry suggests a date in the eighth century,48 whereas the LDAB/Trismegistos database suggests a more conservative date from the fifth to the ninth centuries.49 P. Berlin 8492 is written in an elegant formal hand in many respects very similar to that of EGLev. The lines are straight and neat, but somewhat cramped. The letters are frequently adorned with additional decorative strokes, but the serifs are more subdued than in many semiformal hands. Horizontal strokes are regularly thicker than vertical strokes, though the differentiation is not consistently observed. The script inclines slightly to the left, and base strokes descend to the left. L = MS London-Ashkar (seventh or eighth century CE) (see Fig. 7 below).
MS London-Ashkar consists of two recently reunited large fragments of Exodus, one in the possession of the Duke University Library (the Ashkar fragment), and the other the property of Stephan Loewentheil of the 19th Century Rare Book and Photograph Shop in New York (the London fragment, having previously been in the possession of Jews' College in London). It has been dated on the basis of radiocarbon dating and paleographic analysis to the seventh or eighth century CE.50 MS London-Ashkar is written in a neat formal hand in clean columns and straight lines written below the ruled guidelines. The script leans ever so 45 Sirat  the small, dense writing is clearly remarkable, being more typical of the early periods than that of later Torah scrolls, with their increasing preference for larger formats and scripts.51 One of the most distinctive features of EGLev is the conscious differentiation between thick horizontal and thin vertical strokes.52 Such a degree of shading is uncommon in the Judean Desert scrolls and in hands from the third to the eighth centuries, and is usually only found in some of the most self-consciously calligraphic of scribal hands ( While it is impossible to give an exhaustive paleographic analysis of each individual letter form here (see Figs. 10 and 11 below), in her detailed paleographic analysis of the script of EGLev, Yardeni rightly points out numerous close parallels with her early comparanda. In many respects, EGLev certainly is similar to the latest phases of the formal Hebrew script attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls.54 Most of the letter forms are quite typical of the first-and second-century scripts, and virtually all can find parallels somewhere in the voluminous early materials (in inscriptions, if not scrolls). As discussed above, however, that in and of itself is insufficient to ensure a date for EGLev in the second half of the first to the beginning of the second century CE, given the lack of resolution in our paleographic typologies for the periods in question. There are no prominent features from scripts from the second and first centuries BCE to compel an early dating. Nor are there any features that can be demonstrated to be incompatible with a third-or fourth-century CE dating.
On the other hand, there are significant features in the script of EGLev that suggest a date typologically later than the first-and second-century parallels. Some of these advanced developments were seen already by Yardeni, who nevertheless suggests that EGLev does not postdate the chosen comparanda.55 Viewed in isolation, these features do not necessarily preclude a firstor second-century date, but these late features never occur in combination in any scrolls from the first and second centuries, suggesting that EGLev should be dated somewhat later. First, the left leg of the he of EGLev intentionally and consistently begins below the roof (=HIK; ≈C; ≠ABDEFGJL; mixed forms in Zoora inscriptions, but the separated form clearly predominates in the fifth and sixth centuries),56 a feature which can occasionally be found in early (usually ossuary) inscriptions and cursives (e.g., Mur 18, an Aramaic loan bill dated to 55 CE), but appears usually only in the form of accidental and exceptional cases in scrolls from the first and second centuries,57 suggesting a date from the third century or later.58 Second, final mem is particularly important for dating EGLev, because the left downstroke frequently (almost always?) starts below the roof,59 creating an opening in the top-left of the letter that is not a feature in scrolls from the first or second century (though it can be found in some inscriptions), but is common in later periods (=GHIK; ≈CJ; ≠ABDEFL; closed form predominant throughout in Zoora, but open becomes more common in the 5th century).60 Furthermore, final mem barely drops below the baseline established by most other letters, whereas earlier forms tend to be larger and drop further down below the baseline (=EFGHIJKL; ≈BCD; ≠A).61 Third, the left leg of taw in EGLev has shifted to the right and downward, such that there is either a clear four-way "+" intersection between the left leg and roof or the left leg starts to descend from a point on the roof to the right of its left tip in a sort of fully developed "T" pattern (=DGIKL; ≈EHJ; ≠ABCF; Zoora evidences a period of transition, with mostly the older form in the fourth century and mostly transitional forms later, with the "T" form becoming more prominent from the fifth century onwards). The transition to this form from the earlier "⊢" form where the roof moves right from below the top of the left leg has hardly 56 As noted also by Yardeni in Segal et al., "Early Leviticus Scroll," 17. 57 In an exceptional case, 11QtgJob regularly, but not always, has the left leg separated from the roof. The kaph of EGLev is normally narrow, but sometimes has a longer roof stroke (e.g., the kaph at i.8.4.2)66 than is characteristic of the first and second centuries (=FGIJL; ≠ABCHK). Final nun is short and relatively straight, which tends to be a late typological development (=BHI; ≈CJL; ≠ADEFGK). ʿayin is large and rounded on the right, whereas examples from the first and second centuries tend to be smaller and more angular (=GHIJKL; ≠ABCDE). Yardeni also notes that nonfinal nun sometimes has a fully developed "roof" stroke (e.g., the nuns at i.2.5.2 and i.8.2.2), which is a relatively late decorative feature.67 Thus, while Yardeni is certainly correct that in many ways the hand of EGLev is very close to those of the first and second centuries,68 these significant typological developments beyond documented bookhands in scrolls from the first and second centuries CE would seem to suggest dating EGLev later than the early second century. Early precursors for some of these features can be found (particularly in inscriptions or cursives),69 but the combination of these late features does not occur in extant scrolls from the first and second centuries.70 Such belated introduction into the calligraphic, formal bookhand of features already evident sporadically in early inscriptions and cursives is not unexpected. This later dating is further supported by many close similarities with Zoora 34 and 36 (comparandum H) of the fifth century, clearly demonstrating the long-term stability of the formal script.
On the other end of the spectrum, EGLev consistently has earlier forms than comparanda from around the 6th-8th centuries. In conjunction with the extensive similarity with late hands of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this undoubtedly means that EGLev cannot be dated paleographically later than perhaps the DJD X (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 23, says the difference in length between waw and yod only develops gradually in the Byzantine period. fourth or fifth century (the period of Zoora 34 and 36). This is not the place to trace all of the later developments in the Hebrew script, but a representative example is in order. The aleph of EGLev, with the relatively straight and simple left leg leaning to the right (=D; ≈ABCEHIJ; ≠FGKL; tends to become more vertical in later periods) and the intersection between the central diagonal and left leg at the top tips of each stroke (=ABCDHI; ≈EF; ≠GJKL; in time the intersection tends to move down the left leg; Zoora inscriptions show both forms, indicating a period of transition), probably indicates a date before the sixth or seventh century at the latest.
In sum, most of the features of the script of EGLev are equally compatible with dates within the range of the first to the fourth centuries CE. A pattern of significant features fit better in the third or fourth century, whereas there are no features that clearly suggest the first or second century over and against the third or fourth century. Significant differences from later comparanda make it unlikely that EGLev was written after the fifth century. Thus, based on examination of the script, I would suggest dating EGLev to around the third or fourth century CE, with only a small probability of it having been written in the second or fifth century.

Supporting Arguments
As observed above, there are compelling paleographic reasons to suggest a date for EGLev in the third or fourth century CE, but much of the evidence is ambiguous and imprecise. Indeed, the very nature of paleographic evidence and method often precludes definitive answers, especially at the level of precision necessary for dating EGLev. For this reason, it is crucial that we also consider several independent, nonpaleographic supporting arguments that can provide important additional evidence for dating the scroll.

3.1
Archeological Context According to archeological evidence, the synagogue at En-Gedi was burned to the ground somewhere between the middle of the sixth century CE and the beginning of the seventh century. A horde of coins was discovered in a house adjacent to the synagogue, the latest of which dates to the early years of Justinian I ( ing of thousands of low-value bronze coins was found in the niche for the Torah ark in the synagogue itself, and an initial screening by Bijovsky suggests that the latest date to the period between 498-538CE.72 Two later coins from Justin II (565-578CE) and a gold tremissis of Maurice (582-602 CE)-the latter of which was found in a thick layer of ash from the destruction-were discovered in the village of En-Gedi in undisturbed stratigraphic contexts.73 This fact leads Yizhar Hirschfeld to date the destruction to the end of the sixth or early seventh century during a Saracen raid,74 but Bijovsky considers this evidence insufficient to move the date back that far.75 The destruction of the village and synagogue between the mid-sixth and early seventh centuries necessarily puts an upper limit on how late EGLev could have been copied. The apparent location of EGLev in the synagogue's Torah ark suggests that it was still in active use within the community that maintained it.76 If Yardeni's proposed early date were accepted, that would imply that the scroll was nearly 500 years old when the synagogue was destroyed, which I suggest is highly unlikely.77 On the one hand, in recent years scholars have become increas- Bijovsky, "The Coins," 164. 74 Yizhar Hirschfeld, "Introduction and Chapter 1: Architecture and Stratigraphy," in En-Gedi Excavations II, ed. Yizhar Hirschfeld (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 1-156, esp. 16-17, 25, who also notes the appearance of wheel-made slipper lamps, the first appearance of which is normally dated to the end of the sixth or beginning of the seventh century. 75 Bijovsky, "The Coins," 164. 76 Of course, given the many uncertainties about the disposal practices for old scrolls in this period and the early history of Jewish genizot, it would perhaps be saying too much to exclude the possibility that an old scroll no longer useful for Torah readings would be preserved in the Torah ark. 77 In addition to the normal ravages of time and wear and tear, this would further mean that EGLev would have had to have survived at least the (First and) Second Jewish War(s) against Rome, despite the destruction wrought on En-Gedi and the surrounding region. If the scroll was brought from elsewhere at a later time, this problem is hardly alleviated, as the destruction during the Bar Kokhba revolt was both devastating and widespread. For a likely example of intentional destruction of a Torah scroll during this period, see the torn fragments of MurGen-Exod.Numa.  , 2002), 351-446, though this resource must be used with caution, due to its many inaccuracies. Of course, it is possible that some of the Qumran scrolls were deposited before the First Jewish War, but that would only make them younger at the time of their deposition and strengthen our argument here. 80 These data, therefore, hardly support the proposed early dating, allowing at best for the unlikely possibility of such a date, contra Segal et al., "Early Leviticus Scroll," 4. reliable ranges of probable dates even more precise than traditional paleographic typologies can reasonably be supposed to allow, especially in cases where paleographic typologies are based on low-quality and low-quantity datasets. As noted above, this is precisely the case with the study of the development of the formal Hebrew (proto-)square script from the second to the sixth centuries CE, exponentially increasing the relative weight that should be given to the radiocarbon dates.
A sample presumed to be from EGLev was radiocarbon-dated in conjunction with the publication of the scroll, and the results are published as supplementary material in the Science Advances article. EGLev was delivered by its excavators to the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in a box (box 198) containing charred material (the intact part of the scroll had not by that point been isolated from the surrounding material for further study). The sample to be dated was taken from the carbonized material surrounding the chunk we now know to be EGLev before the material was transferred to archival boxes. Thus, while the published, intact portion of EGLev was not itself sampled, the IAA is fairly confident that the sample was taken from the same material.81 Nevertheless, given the fact that the sample was not taken from a contiguous portion of the scroll and that the original contents of the box are not entirely clear to me, we must admit some degree of uncertainty as to whether the sampled material was in fact originally from EGLev or another source, such as perhaps another scroll from the Torah ark or perhaps even the wood of the Torah ark itself. Only a further sample from part of the contiguous remains of EGLev (ideally the top margin) is likely to clear up the ambiguity entailed in the sampling.
Elisabetta Boaretto at the Weizmann Institute D-REAMS Radiocarbon Laboratory dated the selected "charcoal" sample using the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry technique within a single standard deviation to 1754 ± 40 BP. Calibrated according to the OxCal v.4.3.2 program, that yields the following probability distribution. There is a 68.2% probability that the parchment (if indeed it was that) came from an animal that was killed between 235-340CE. Expanding our sights to include a 95.4% confidence interval, the probability for the date of the skin is distributed as follows: 140-160CE (2.0 %), 165-200 CE (4.2 %), and 205-390CE (89.2%). In other words, there is a high probability that the sample should be dated somewhere between 235-340CE (68.2 %), and an even higher probability that it should be dated somewhere more broadly in the third or fourth century (approximately 90%). There is a small probability that it could 81 Beatriz Riestra of the IAA, personal communication. To the best of my knowledge, there is no explicit before-and-after documentation of the sampling available for further verification.
be dated to the mid-to late second century (just over 6 %). The combined probability of the sample dating from the period between 50-125 CE as suggested by Yardeni, however, is negligible. Thus, if the sample was indeed from EGLev, radiocarbon dating strongly supports our suspicion that the proposed early date is improbable. Instead, it indicates a probable date in the third or fourth century at 90% confidence, with the most likely interval from about 235-340CE. Of course, this radiocarbon dating has additional complicating factors, which must be taken into account. For example, of the five internally dated documents from the Second Jewish War (dated between 128-135CE) that were subjected to radiocarbon dating in the 1990-1991 and 1994-1995 series, four yielded good dates (at or near 1σ), but XḤev/Ṣe 8a (internally dated to 135 CE) was dated to 1758 ± 36 BP,82 which calibrates according to the 2013 dataset on the OxCal v.4.3.2 program to 235-335CE (68.2%), with a 2σ range covering a period from 140-385CE. This distribution is strikingly similar to that of EGLev, and yet the actual date of writing unexpectedly falls somewhat outside the 2σ range.83 Nevertheless, XḤev/Ṣe 8a is dated somewhat later than Yardeni's proposed early date for EGLev, so the results from EGLev would have to be even further removed from the actual date of writing than the anomalous (and as yet unexplained), problematic XḤev/Ṣe 8a results for Yardeni's dating to hold up. Yet in the archeological reports, treatment records of the IAA, and lab results from the Weitzmann Institute, I see no reason to suspect either contamination or laboratory error in the results for EGLev. They conform well to the expected age of the material based on the archeological context and other circumstantial evidence discussed in this article. EGLev was burned in antiquity, remained buried in situ for well over 1000 years, and was never the object of chemical treatments in the hands of conservators, making it an ideal candidate for radiocarbon dating. There is very little opportunity in the known afterlife of the charred remains for any contamination to have occurred, and the normal δ13C value (-21.2 ‰ PDB) and carbon content of 45.5 % are consistent with a clean parchment sample.84 Any possible contaminants were likely removed in the pretreatment cleaning process, though the details of this process are not

Bibliographic Analysis
In the study of the development of the Hebrew book it is essential to consider not only the script, but also all the material features that make these textual artifacts "books." Several such bibliographic/voluminological details of EGLev may be significant for its proper dating. One of the most important is that the scroll was apparently originally rolled around a wooden roller.86 The micro-CT scan shows a well-preserved solid inner core in the most protected parts of the scroll where complete revolutions have been well preserved.87 This core cannot be parchment, but looks very similar to what might be expected from the distorted cellular structure of burned wood.88 Wooden rollers of this type are well documented in Greco-Roman book production,89 but Haran argues that they were adopted relatively late in Palestinian Jewish book production.90 As far as we can tell, such rollers were infrequent in scrolls known from the first and second centuries CE,91 but are well known in later rabbinic literature (e.g., 85 I am grateful to Hans van der Plicht for being willing to discuss some of the technical issues regarding the radiocarbon dating. This possibility was suggested to me by an anonymous reviewer, but I am not aware of any published arguments. Edward Herbert, "4. 11QEzekiel," in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2-18, 11Q20-31, ed. Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, DJD XXIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 15-28, pls. II and LIV, esp. pp. 15-16, concludes (based on an examination by H.J. Plenderleith) that the scroll was hollow, allowing water to run through its inner core and fill up with sand grains. 95 In a SBL paper dated 19 November 2017, Oren Gutfeld and Randal Price reported that they found a 46 cm-long stick embedded into jar fragments when excavating in Cave 53 near Dura-Europos lacks wooden rollers.96 Thus, as far as the evidence permits evaluation, it appears that wooden rollers were uncharacteristic of scrolls from the first and second centuries CE (though not entirely unattested) and only became a normal feature somewhat later. Furthermore, even if a few of the Qumran scrolls did have wooden rollers at their ends (as in 4Q82), it is interesting to note that EGLev has a roller preserved at the beginning of the scroll, possibly in agreement with rabbinic prescriptions for adding rollers at both the beginnings and ends only of Torah scrolls (e.g., b. B. Batra 14a; y. Meg. 1.71d). Overall, the presence of such a roller at the beginning of EGLev suggests a date from the third century or later. Furthermore, Barag claims that EGLev was found next to the remains of "a wooden disc set at the base of a rod on which a scroll was rolled," as well as "a small seven-branched silver lamp, possibly one of the decorations of the Torah ark curtain or one of the ornaments of the mantle of the Torah scroll."97 While it is not certain that the disk and decoration were ever attached to EGLev or that either they or the wooden roller were attached during the initial production of the scroll (rather than being added later), the possibility is suggestive. Circular bases and ornaments on Torah scrolls are all unattested in Hebrew scrolls from the first and second centuries CE.
Another factor potentially important for dating EGLev is the composition of its ink, which the editors claim is likely to have contained metals, based on the higher density of the ink in the micro-CT scan in comparison with the surrounding material.98 Iron gall inks began to replace carbon-based inks in late antiquity (perhaps around the fourth century CE?),99 but the precise history of this transition remains unknown. Nevertheless, recent studies have identified earlier mixed inks that are carbon-based, but contain metallic elements, Qumran, which they suggest may have been used for packing jars; see http://www.liberty .edu/media/1147/archaeology/SBL_Qumran_section_paper_2017_sm.pdf (accessed 15 January 2018). They kindly sent me a photograph, and it seems clear that this stick was not specially prepared as a roller for a scroll. Mireille Bélis, "The Unpublished Textiles from the Qumran Caves," in The Caves of Qumran: Proceedings of the International Conference, Lugano 2014, ed. Marcello Fidanzio, STDJ 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 123-136 (127), also found a stick in a jar in the Amman collection containing artifacts from Qumran. She informs me, however, that this and another she found in Cave 11 do not appear to be suitable for attaching to a scroll. though it remains controversial whether these are accidental contaminants or intentional additives. Some papyri from Herculaneum (before 79 CE) contained quantities of lead,100 and some papyri from Egypt (second century BCE to third century CE) contained copper.101 Some Dead Sea Scrolls likewise may have had corrosive, metallic, mixed inks, though again it is debated whether or not these were intentional additives. 102 The elemental compositions observed in Dead Sea Scrolls by Nir-El and Broshi, however, would be unlikely to produce the same degree of visible contrast between ink and substrate evident in the imaging of EGLev.103 Given current knowledge of ink compositions, the probable presence of metal in the ink of EGLev is possibly suggestive of a relatively late typological development, but a date in the first or second century CE cannot be precluded.

Format and Layout
In a 2016 survey of the column layouts of late Herodian and post-Herodian scrolls from the Judean Desert, Kipp Davis has suggested a diachronic development within high-quality literary scrolls moving from wide to narrow columns.104 According to Davis, there are few (if any) good examples of late or post-Herodian scrolls from Qumran with tall, narrow columns, and most scrolls