The Case for Retraction of Academic Authentications of Forged Fragments

By Jonathan Klawans

---

Abstract: This position paper issues a call for editors and publishers with oversight over peer-reviewed publications of inauthentic post-2002 Dead Sea Scroll-like fragments to embark on the processes that would consider (and likely result in) retraction. By common consent, findings in the publications identified in this essay are unreliable at best; many present material subsequently deemed falsified. Retraction is the proper and justified measure to take regarding these publications in order to correct the academic record and alert any and all potential readers to the untrustworthy nature of their content.

1. Introduction

In the normal course of scholarship, methodologies develop and sharpen, opinions shift, and perspectives that once seemed all too obvious may in time seem, to many or even most, entirely misguided. Years from now, some of what we consider the best of our own generation’s work may suffer the same fate. In this respect, scholarship is self-correcting: newer articles and monographs will revisit positions of the past, offering correctives and better understandings. Unfortunately, the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls has also been marked in recent years by something quite worse than soon-to-be outdated misunderstandings of ancient source material: the publication of fraudulent evidence. This problem, however, is not-self-correcting. The proper academic response to the prior publication of unreliable data is official retraction.

The clearest and most helpful guide to retraction is produced by the UK-based Committee on Publication Ethics.[1] Interested readers should consult the entire document, which includes seven pages of content followed by an eighth page of bibliography. For our purposes, the initial portion of the introductory summary is most salient:

Editors should consider retracting a publication if:

They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).[2]

This paper claims that academic publications of forged (or very likely forged) Dead Sea Scroll fragments fit this bill. In some cases, the fabrication of ostensibly ancient source material—by unknown forgers, not by the authors—has been decisively proven by scientific testing or sufficiently established by subsequent peer-reviewed publications. In other instances, circumstantial evidence of similarity with demonstrable forgeries is sufficient to establish the unreliability of findings. What is more, none of the publications reviewed here addresses questions of authenticity in any meaningful way. The unquestioned presumption of authenticity displayed in these publications constitutes its own fundamental error that further justifies the call for retraction. Even the seed of self-correction is absent.

It is important to clarify that retraction normally entails marking all available versions of an article as such, usually with a freely-available retraction notice and a watermark or other notice on the published item itself. Retraction does not typically entail withdrawing the article from circulation entirely. According to the COPE:

In extremely limited cases it may be necessary to remove an article from online publication, such as when the article is clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public.[3]

As we find no such thing in any of the published items to be discussed here, this essay does not call for any item to be removed from publication. As has happened with the one scroll publication retracted thus far (see below), the original—clearly watermarked “retracted”—can and normally should remain available to readers. Retraction is not retroactive censorship.

Arguably, Dead Sea Scroll scholars already generally know which fragments are likely to be fakes. To the degree this is the case, the ongoing unmarked, uncorrected availability of these publications remains a concern all the more. While educated scholars can read recent articles about Scroll forgeries and work backwards to which publications are flawed, the point of retraction is to make this process transparent and accessible even to the uninitiated: problematically flawed research should be clearly labeled as such, at the point of origin.

According to the COPE, the purpose of retraction is as follows:

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to articles that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable content or data may result from honest error, naïve mistakes, or research misconduct. The main purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish the authors.[4]

We need not, therefore, delve deeply into any motives, explanations or justifications that authors or editors of these works may offer—though, depending on the processes put in place by various publishers, authors may have the opportunity to defend themselves or their work if they wish. Here we leave authorial intent largely aside. If we can establish—and this is not hard to do—that certain journal articles and book sections have published flawed and unreliable data, then the bar has been met. When the case for retraction has been established, best practice mandates that editors and publishers follow their internal processes, hopefully operating in general accordance with the ethical guidelines of the COPE (or, to the extent that such exist, the publishers’ own established ethical guidelines such as those of Brill).[5] But to date, only one major publication of fake scrolls has been retracted, withdrawn from sale, and made freely available online (again, see below). There is more work to be done to set the record straight so that even students and the educated public can easily and readily discern which publications can no longer be relied upon.

2. Provenance and Authenticity

It must be noted right off the bat that the publication of forgeries is not the only problem in the articles we are reviewing here. These articles also published unprovenanced objects. Roberta Mazza has recently and rightly called attention to the various moral problems arising from publishing unprovenanced manuscript materials.[6] Dennis Mizzi and Jodi Magness prioritized the very same issue, with regard to the post-2002 fragments in particular.[7] Arguably, no scholars should be involved with unprovenanced objects, and a number of academic societies and journals—and even, since 2018, Biblical Archaeology Review—have policies against publishing unprovenanced discoveries.[8] The justifications of these policies are obvious and well-known: the markets promote the looting of archaeological sites, which leads to material and intellectual loss: the damage done to looted sites cannot be undone. In most cases, unprovenanced objects cannot be properly provenanced once ripped from their original contexts.[9] In addition to the material and intellectual damage, cultural damage is done when objects are removed from their place of origin.[10] Finally, the markets are often even more wretched: the illicit trade in antiquities too often interfaces with other criminal, even violent endeavors such as gang warfare, drug trades, illicit arms transfers and terror funding.[11] And if scholars should not be involved with publishing such finds, all the more they should shun the sordid activities of purchasing, collecting, or authenticating objects from the markets for buyers or sellers.[12]

Subordinating authenticity to provenance, however, will not solve the problems we are addressing here. As for considering retraction: Every publisher and editor involved in these publications knew that they were publishing unprovenanced fragments that emerged from the markets. So it would be unethical, from our current vantage point, to change the rules after the fact and retract publications authenticating forged scrolls on the basis that the objects in question were unprovenanced. What is more, many of these publications, as we will see, skirt the issue and add further confusion by confidently assigning Qumran provenance to the fragments in question, often based on false testimony by sellers. Going forward, we may be able to prevent problems like the publication of forged scrolls by insisting on proper provenance. But when scholars writing in academic venues have erroneously assigned ancient provenance to modern forgeries, retraction must be considered.

3. Two Books, One Retraction

In the summer of 2016, two major volumes appeared, each of which purported to present to the public a significant number of heretofore unknown and unpublished Dead Sea Scroll fragments.

One of these volumes was entitled Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection and published the fragments held by the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.; the volume was edited by Emmanuel Tov, with Kipp Davis and Robert Duke, and published by Brill.[13] In late 2017 doubts about the authenticity of the fragments grew and became widespread, in no small part because of articles published initially in volume 24 of Dead Sea Discoveries, authored and co-authored by Kipp Davis.[14] Among other issues, these articles highlighted the disproportionately biblical nature of the new fragments, along with other problematic features like darkened appearance, mis-alignments, paleographic inconsistencies and the inscription of variants inspired by prior publications. The Museum of the Bible, for its part, already concerned about the possibility of fakes in its collection, had commissioned external testing for some of its fragments in April 2017. The disturbing results of these tests—combined with the concerns raised in the aforementioned journal articles and elsewhere—compelled the MOTB to commission the independent review by Art Fraud Insights (October 2018).[15] Their Final Report, released in November 2019, concluded that all sixteen of the Museums’ fragments are fake. It is worth citing their key conclusions in full (the bold is original):

After an exhaustive review of all the imaging and scientific analysis results, it is the unanimous conclusion of the Advisory Team that none of the textual fragments in the Museum of the Bible’s Dead Sea Scroll collection are authentic. Moreover, each exhibits characteristics that suggest they are deliberate forgeries created in the twentieth century with the intent to mimic authentic Dead Sea Scroll fragments.

Once this determination was made, the Advisory Team became focused on how they were constructed to deceive. Through physical examination, we determined that, with one exception, the substrate of the Museum’s scroll fragments appears to be leather rather than the surface tanned and untanned parchment that is characteristic of the authentic Dead Sea Scrolls. The degraded condition of the fragments reinforces our theory that modern writing was applied to small scraps taken from archeological deposits of leather. Through elemental and molecular analysis, we further found that the raw skins of the leather substrates for the MOTB fragments appear to have been lime-depilated, a technology that postdates the original Dead Sea Scrolls.

All of the MOTB fragments, despite being purchased from different sources, were remarkably similar in that they were all heavily coated with a shiny amber material that was identified by FTIR analysis as a protein, most likely animal skin glue. It is likely that the glue was applied primarily as a means of reinforcing the fractured and torn substrates before writing. At the same time, coating the surfaces with animal glue would simulate the gelatinization seen in many authentic Dead Sea Scroll fragments, where hydrolysis has permanently converted the collagen fiber network to a hard, gluelike mass. We concluded the fragments have been further manipulated with a coating selected to simulate the surface appearance of many of the originals.[16]

The full report is detailed, exhaustive, and well-illustrated. Intriguingly, the report compares the hole-patterns in the fragments with ancient remnants of sandal leather.[17] Particularly informative are the close-up images of bleeding ink on damaged or rough leather.[18] Notably, the report speaks of features common to forgeries: the use of anachronistic materials or ingredients, combined with signs of artificial aging. No surprise: the authors of the Art Fraud Insights report are no strangers to the nature and history of forgery.

In the aftermath of this report, in March 2020, the MOTB issued statements conceding the inauthenticity of its entire scroll collection.[19] And in a move that is, at least for now, all too rare, in August 2020, Brill retracted the 2016 volume edited by Tov, Davis and Duke, discontinuing its sale and making the PDF freely available online, each page watermarked “Retracted.” The PDF now features the following notice of retraction:

In March 2020, the Museum of the Bible (MOTB) announced the results of a second round of scientific study of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments published in Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection (2016). The 212-page report (https://motbv5-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/motb-dss-report-final-web.pdf) concludes that the fragments are modern forgeries. As a consequence, Brill has retracted the volume. It will no longer be available for purchase but will be freely accessible online. Please be aware that the publication’s editors are divided on the question of whether the report proves beyond doubt that the fragments are inauthentic.[20]

Brill acted responsibly and correctly. The question is, however, why other such publications have not similarly been recalled.

Also in the summer of 2016, Torlief Elgvin, working with Kipp Davis and Michael Langlois published Gleanings from the Caves, presenting scroll fragments and scroll-related artefacts in the Martin Schøyen Collection to the public. The volume was published by Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, in the Library of Second Temple Studies series.[21] Unbeknownst to most readers at the time, Elgvin withheld nine of Schøyen’s fragments from the volume; these were published separately, the following year, by Davis and a number of colleagues (Elgvin and Langlois included) in one of the earliest academic articles to highlight the inauthenticity of Post-2002 Dead Sea Scroll-like fragments.[22] A few years later, in 2019, Elgvin and Langlois published an article in Revue de Qumran entitled “Looking Back: (More) Dead Sea Scrolls Forgeries in the Schøyen Collection.”[23] Just like it sounds, this piece reconsiders—and rejects—the authenticity of many of the fragments published in the Schøyen volume. This article also expresses regret that Gleanings was published without acknowledging more explicitly the likely presence of forgeries in Schøyen’s collection.[24] By their reconsidered admission, at least ten (and possibly twelve) of the twenty-six manuscripts published in Gleanings are forgeries; this in addition to the seven Schøyen manuscripts (nine fragments) already assessed as forged and published separately from the volume.[25] Consequently, Gleanings from the Caves can no longer properly be read or consulted without thoroughly considering the contents of Elgvin’s and Langlois’s “Looking Back.” To be sure, there are a number of authentic fragments and objects published in this volume. But the fact that nearly half of the manuscript materials have been deemed inauthentic by the volume’s own editors renders the ongoing availability of this book—for purchase, no less—an academic and moral conundrum.

The Committee on Publication Ethics address questions arising when some but not all of a given publication is deemed problematic:

If only a small part of an article reports flawed data or content, this may be best rectified by a correction. Partial retractions are not helpful because they make it difficult to determine the status of the article and which parts may be relied upon. Similarly, if only a small section of an article (e.g., a few sentences in the discussion) is plagiarised, editors should consider a correction (which could note that text was used without appropriate acknowledgement and cite the source) rather than retracting the entire article, which may contain sound, original data.

In the case of Gleanings from the Caves, we are not dealing with “a small part” or (by analogy to plagiarism) “a few sentences.” Nor does the article published separately by Elgvin and Langlois, in a firewall-protected publication, constitute a proper or readily available “correction.”

What is more, two introductory essays to Gleanings raise additional problems. The first essay, by Martin Schøyen, is entitled “Acquisition and Ownership History: A Personal Reflection”; the second, by Elgvin, is entitled “Texts and Artefacts from the Judaean Desert in the Schøyen Collection: An Overview.”[26] Each of these essays is problematic, in at least two ways. First, neither Elgvin nor Schøyen mention the acquisition, ownership, or research on the nine suspect fragments withdrawn from the volume and published elsewhere. Second, these essays convey incorrect information regarding the provenance of fragments later deemed to be forged, accepting and repeating the now disproven testimony of William Kando, tracing various fragments back to his father, his father’s customers, and before that to Qumran.[27]

It is true that Gleanings from the Caves drops hints here and there regarding doubts about authenticity. When publishing the nine withheld fragments, Davis and his colleagues correctly note that:

The editors alluded to numerous problems with a handful of fragments published in Gleanings from the Caves, but these were allowed to remain in the volume because any decision with regards to their authenticity was at the time inconclusive.[28]

The footnote to this statement points readers back to various passages of Gleanings that speak of “hesitant hands” and paleographic “inconsistencies.”[29] But this is no justification for keeping the volume in print as is. Brill’s retracted volume was similarly peppered with hints of paleographic problems.[30] Brill rightly retracted the volume nevertheless.

T&T Clark ought to follow Brill’s example. This flawed volume must be retracted in part or in whole. At least ten, and possibly twelve, forged manuscripts are published therein and provided inaccurate provenance and identifications in relation to the broader Judean Desert corpus. As later admitted, the introductions and overall framing of the volume withheld essential information. And yet, an academic publisher (T&T Clark) offers this volume for sale, as part of a peer-reviewed series (Library of Second Temple Studies). The entire PDF should be made available freely online, and either the entire book or at least the most problematic sub-sections—the sections publishing admitted forgeries for sure, and the perhaps also the imprecise introductory essays by Schøyen and Elgvin—should be watermarked “Retracted.”[31] The Table of Contents should also be carefully redacted, with forged fragments marked as such, so that readers find there the information that, for now, is only easily available in “Table 1” of Elgvin’s and Langlois’s 2019 “Looking Back.” The Retraction notice should call attention to the key publications proving (and admitting) the presence of forgeries in the collection, including Davis, “Caves of Dispute”; Davis et al., “Nine Dubious”; and Elgvin and Langlois, “Looking Back.” As of this moment of writing, however, a customer looking at the volume on the publisher’s website would have no way of knowing that anything is awry.[32] This is not acceptable.

4. Suspect Fragments published by Esther Eshel and Hanan Eshel

Elgvin’s volume on the Schøyen fragments includes a posthumously published essay by the late Hanan Eshel detailing his involvement with the identification, authentication, and publication of a number of fragments.[33] In the chapter’s first footnote, readers are informed that the work is “adapted from a more annotated version” that H. Eshel published in 2010.[34] In both versions, readers learn that in 2003, H. Eshel was “asked to serve as the academic advisor to several American collectors” who procured fragments for display at a series of exhibits held from 2003 to 2005. Working in partnership, Esther Eshel and Hanan Eshel published one of these fragments in 2004, a larger clutch of fragments in 2005, and another group in 2007.[35] These articles count among the earliest peer-reviewed publications of post-2002 fragments.

In the 2004 essay, published in Hebrew (in Tarbiz), the Eshels present what they refer to as “XQpapEnoch,” a five-line papyrus fragment the text of which aligns, roughly, with 1 Enoch 8:4–9:3. “Though undoubtedly found at Qumran, as we cannot identify the cave, we suggest labelling his fragment XQpapEnoch.”[36] As it happens, the papyrus published here—and republished in English a year later—would eventually make its way to the Schøyen collection.[37] Due to emerging suspicions regarding its authenticity, however, the fragment was among those fragments withheld from the official publication of the Schøyen collection and published separately in late 2017. Beyond the general justified suspicions surrounding post-2002 fragments, grounds for doubt regarding this particular manuscript include suspicious correspondences with modern printed editions and academic discussions; the manuscript has been counted among the modern forgeries not only by Elgvin and Langlois (in “Looking Back”), but also in a separate treatment by Justnes and Elgvin.[38] Alas, this fragment was not “undoubtedly found at Qumran.” The publication of the fragment in Tarbiz—which does not even consider the possibility of inauthenticity—ought to be retracted.

The Eshels’ second article at issue here was published a year later. It was published in Dead Sea Discoveries with a confident title: “New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf, 4QIsab, 4Q226, 8QGen and XQpapEnoch.”[39] The article begins with an expression of gratitude to the Jordanian Department of Antiquities and the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Museum, for collecting and preserving the 15,000 Cave 4 fragments in one place: “Had these texts been scattered across the globe, the fate of Qumran research is difficult to imagine.”[40] Having placed their efforts in continuity with the traditions of Qumran scholarship, the Eshels then acknowledge their involvement as “academic advisors” for Lee Biondi’s exhibitions, “From the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Forbidden Book,” extending thanks also to William Noah.[41]

As for the content of the article: Virtually half (roughly 12 of 23 pages) presents a slightly edited translation of the Eshels’ 2004 Hebrew edition of “XQpapEnoch,”[42] which, as we have noted already, has been deemed a forgery twice over.[43] This would be enough to merit retraction—half of an article is no “small part”—but the rest of the article fares little better, publishing five fragments (assigned to four manuscripts) that bear many of the hallmarks of the post-2002 fragments.

As for these fragments, the Eshels’ first move—apparent in the above-quoted title—is to assimilate them to the official corpus. Four of the fragments “appear to have originated in Cave 4 at Qumran,” while regarding a fifth “as best can be determined, its origins are from Cave 8.”[44] We should note for the record that Eibert Tigchelaar’s system currently employed for (many of) the unprovenanced fragments was not conceived of or devised until 2012, so the Eshels cannot be blamed for not employing that nomenclature.[45] Still in keeping with standards in place since the 1960s, they could have adopted XQ (or X) designations for all of the fragments, not just XQpapEnoch.[46] For the rest, the Eshels assign the fragments not only to specific caves, but even to pre-existing manuscripts from said caves: 4QGenf [=4Q6], 4QIsab [=4Q56], 4Q226 [4QpsJubb] and 8QGen [=8Q1].

Unfortunately, the fragments are likely fakes; the Qumran assignations, therefore, problematically erroneous. Four of the five remaining fragments are, problematically, biblical (reproducing text from Genesis and Isaiah) and the fifth constitutes a close paraphrase of Genesis, identified by E. Eshel and H. Eshel as coming from 4Q226, Pseudo-Jubileesb. However we run these percentages, the fragments published in this article are too biblical in relation to what one might expect of any random assortment of Qumran fragments (one out of five is the more likely percentage).[47] Beyond this, the fragments are all “blackened due to poor preservation.”[48] The alignments are visibly irregular, and a surprising number of scribal errors and other oddities are noted along the way.[49] Because these fragments were published early enough to be included in the Qumran Biblical Manuscripts Accordance module, the fragments were addressed in a blog post by forgery-sleuth Årstein Justnes; all five of the biblical/quasi-biblical fragments are deemed “probable forgeries.”[50] Finally, it must be emphasized that all of the fragments published in this article—biblical, quasi-biblical, Enochian—passed through the hands of William Kando.[51] I will concede: only the Enoch fragment has been demonstrated false by peer reviewed argument, while the rest are deemed here (and by many) to be likely fakes by sound comparison. While we could hope for better poof, the fact is that these privately held fragments are unlikely to be subjected to scientific testing. But the bar for retraction is not determined by proof of forgery; the bar for retraction is met by demonstrable unreliability and error. No scholar would rely on the text of these fragments today; no one accepts the Qumran origin claim as accurate. These widely held judgments should now be tied directly to this problematic publication itself.

The Eshels’ subsequent publication—in Hebrew, in Meghillot—is a bit more restrained rhetorically. The English title even bears the somewhat more tentative title, “Preliminary Report on Seven New Fragments from Qumran”; the Hebrew title, however, translates somewhat differently: “Seven Fragments of Scrolls from Qumran that are Soon to be Published.” Here too the Eshels explain their role as advisors to collectors and exhibitors and express their hope that whatever remaining fragments out there might also be published, so that the corpus of Qumran scrolls can be complete.[52] And in this article as well, they confidently assign all of the fragments to Qumran, each one to a specific cave and once again, caution aside, they assign each fragment to existing Qumran manuscripts. Two are assigned to 4QExodc [=4Q14], one to 4QDeutf [=4Q33], one to 4QJerc [=4Q72], two (“without a doubt”) to 11Psc [=11Q7], and a final fragment to 4Q416 (4QInstruction).[53]

Here again we face a publication that presents both likely forgeries and certain ones. The Exodus fragments published here were subsequently purchased by Schøyen (cataloged as MS 4612/2a and 4612/2b).[54] These were withheld from Gleanings and published in Davies et al, “Nine Dubious”; these are certain forgeries. One of the Psalms fragments and the Instruction fragment published here were subsequently purchased by the Green family and published in Brill’s retracted volume.[55] These were deemed certain forgeries by Art Fraud Insights.[56] As for the rest, the fragments identified as 4QDeutf, 4QJerc, and 11Psc frg 3b, have been deemed “probable forgeries” by Justnes.[57] And once again, all of these fragments passed through the hands of William Kando. As multiple lines of suspicion converge, the bars of error and unreliability have been met; this article too should be retracted.

Hanan Eshel’s tragic death (in 2010 at the age of 51) took place before he could learn that certainly most, and possibly all of the fragments published in these articles are twenty-first century forgeries, incorrectly identified as Qumran scroll fragments. The unfortunate but requisite next step is to issue retractions, making the watermarked content freely available. Readers who seek out these essays should be provided resources and references to learn more about the scroll forgeries.

To be sure, the Eshels did, during this same era, participate in the identification, publication (and even purchase) of what appear to be authentic Judean Desert fragments. Among other efforts, in 2003, H. Eshel identified a previously published fragment as belonging to XJudges;[58] in 2007, E. Eshel, H. Eshel and Magen Broshi published yet another XJudges fragment (privately held).[59] In 2006, H. Eshel, working with Yosi Baruchi and Roi Porat, published a small clutch of fragments from a Leviticus scroll, purchased directly from unidentified Bedouin; believing the fragment was discovered in Nahal Arugot, they named the fragment accordingly.[60] Notably, none of these likely authentic fragments passed through William Kando’s hands. These articles ought to remain in print as published, and they constitute the lasting legacy of the Eshels’ efforts to bring more scrolls to light.

5. The Azusa Fragment Published by James Charlesworth

James Charlesworth was also among those scholars directly involved in the purchase and transfer of various fragments, both authentic and forged. As for authentic fragments: two of the pre-2002 unprovenanced but likely authentic Schøyen fragments (MS 2713 [Josh] and MS 2861 [Judg]) passed through Charlesworth’s hands and were published in DJD 38 (XJoshua) and DJD 28 (XJudges). While officially denied “Q” assignations in the DJD series, Charlesworth expressed his own hopes that the fragments in question derive from Qumran.[61] When the fragments were republished in Gleanings, the scholars involved (including H. and E. Eshel) expressed less confidence that the fragments could be traced back to Qumran, suggesting other Judean Desert locations instead.[62]

Turning to post-2002, likely forged, fragments, Charlesworth’s efforts were particularly associated with the five scrolls purchased by Azusa Pacific University in 2009 and exhibited by the APU in summer 2010.[63] The accompanying catalogue remains the best (and only?) way to see all five fragments together.[64] The APU fragments had been scheduled to be published in Charlesworth’s Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project.[65] Based on various 2017 references to the work as “forthcoming,” it must have been rather far along at that time.[66] Lagging behind the Schøyen Collection and Museum of the Bible volumes, it was not yet published when the scandals broke in 2017. The volume never appeared in print.

Charlesworth did publish a preliminary edition of one of the five APU Scrolls, APU 4, which presents a version of portions of Deuteronomy 27:4–6.[67] Speaking of the fragment’s “Putative Provenance,” Charlesworth alludes to William Kando, without mentioning him by name: “The Arab who formerly owned the fragment belongs to the family through whom the Dead Sea Scrolls have come to scholars. He claims it is from Qumran Cave IV.”[68] Charlesworth also indicates that his “attempts to prove that the fragment is a fake failed.”[69]

We now know better. Generally speaking, the fragment resembles the known forgeries. It is biblical, darkened, poorly aligned and hole-ridden. Charlesworth admits in his article that the paleography is inconsistent; he speculates about an elderly scribe using forms learned in his youth.[70] The fragment also inscribes a previously known variation: In comparison to the MT, line 2 of the APU fragment reads “Mount Gerizim” in place of “Mount Ebal,” in agreement with the Samaritan Pentateuch. Excited about the possibilities, Charlesworth suggests the fragment in question preserves the “original reading” of Deuteronomy 27.[71] In a subsequent book chapter, Charlesworth pushes the same line.[72] Charlesworth’s emphasis on his forged fragment’s outsize significance renders his publications even more problematic than they would otherwise be; his claim echoes here and there in the literature on Deuteronomy and the Samaritan Pentateuch.[73] In any event, having published another post-2002 forgery, these articles too find their place in the present retraction list.

6. The Lanier Amos and a Worn-out Pen

In 2014, coinciding with his work on the MOTB fragments, Emanuel Tov published three fragments of Amos (covering 7:17–8:1) that were purchased by Lanier Theological Library directly from William Kando in 2013.[74] Tov’s edition—not labeled as preliminary—appeared as an article published in Dead Sea Discoveries in 2014, not long after the Lanier Library’s purchase.[75] In line with Tov’s treatment of unprovenanced fragments, Tov expresses little confidence in William Kando’s claim that the fragment came from Cave 4.[76]

To my knowledge, the Lanier fragments have not yet been subject to publicly available scientific tests or detailed academic scrutiny. The Lanier Library, at least for now, continues to display the fragments and, according to a statement published online in December 2020, the institution stands by their authenticity:

Forgeries abound, but the artifact that is being preserved at the LTL is genuine and we are privileged to participate in the long term care of this invaluable artifact.[77]

There are reasons to wonder, however.

We now know that that the fragments’ origin resembles or even matches those of the MOTB’s forged fragments.[78] Moreover, the physical features of the fragments point to forgery. As can clearly be seen from the photographs published in Tov’s article, the fragments are darkened. They display inconsistent alignments and letter-spacings characteristic of the discounted fragments. What is more, Tov’s edition points to a relatively high number of variants and scribal errors, a number of which are recorded (as he notes) in BHS.[79] And finally we also see, once again, references to paleographic inconsistency. Ada Yardeni is quoted to the effect that the scribe may have used a worn-out nib.[80] The same explanation is credited to her throughout the paleographic discussions of the forged fragments in Tov, Davis, and Duke, Dead Sea Scroll Fragments.[81] But in the present article, Yardeni offers a parenthetic contrast highlighting the problematic anomaly: “unlike most scrolls written with carefully designed utensils.”[82] Tov’s 2014 publication also warrants retraction, for publishing what certainly seems to be another clutch of forged post-2002 Dead Sea Scroll-like fragments.

7. Fragments of Tobit and Enoch

Among the Schøyen-owned fragments withheld from Gleanings and presented to the public as forgeries by Davis and his colleagues in 2017 was a papyrus fragment of the Aramaic version of Tobit, overlapping with Tob 14:3–4.[83] As it happens, this fragment had been published once already, in a 2006 essay co-authored by Michaela Hallermayer and Elgvin.[84] The fragment in question was identified as 4Q196 (papTobita ar frg 18a); it had been purchased from the Kando family.[85] This situation is rather straightforward. Alone among the cases we have considered so far, in this instance the entirety of the earlier article (which publishes only the Tobit fragment) can be deemed unreliable on the authority of one of the original authors. Elgvin was one among many authors of the more recent publication conceding inauthenticity. With one of two primary authors having deemed the entirety of the earlier publication to be in error, this matter needs no further comment in the present context. This article too should be retracted.

A more complicated instance concerns a leather fragment of the Aramaic version of 1 Enoch (overlapping with 1 Enoch 7:1–5); this fragment too was among the Schøyen-owned fragments withheld from Gleanings and presented to the public as forgeries by Davis and his colleagues in 2017.[86] A few years prior, in 2013, Michael Langlois published a study arguing (to quote the English abstract) that the fragment “sheds light on variant readings exhibited by ancient Greek and Ethiopic witnesses of 1 Enoch 7:4.”[87] Unlike the other articles discussed in this essay, this paper does not publish the fragment in full. Also, the essay’s title clearly implies the provisional nature of the argument, given that the fragment discussed was not yet published (“un manuscript… inédit…”) and indeed never has been. While retraction is the proper response for articles and essays that publish false data, articles that secondarily use false data do not immediately fall in the same category and are not our main concern presently. Yet here too we confront original content that has been decisively undermined by its own author; Langlois was a co-author of the 2017 piece on the Schøyen forgeries, which concluded that the fragment’s ink “was inscribed on the existing sediment.”[88] And in this case, Langlois also serves as the editor of the publishing journal. The editorial board of Semitica should consider what ought to be done in this somewhat unusual case. A corrective notice may be called for, and perhaps that is sufficient. (The article is included below in the list of articles for retraction, but with a preceding question mark.)

8. An Instructive Comparison: The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife

We cannot possibly call out all other known or widely suspected forgeries that have been academically authenticated in peer reviewed journals, even if we restrict ourselves to the last two decades. But we can offer one brief comparison, to another widely-acknowledged forgery, authenticated in a well-respected journal in the same period of time: Harvard Theological Review’s 2014 publication of Karen King’s authentication of the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.”[89]

Arguably, HTR should seriously consider retracting the article by King that incorrectly authenticated the surely forged fragment.[90] But three factors complicate the situation and contrast with the cases we have discussed here. First, King’s authentication was controversial from the get-go, and few scholars took the document seriously.[91] Second, although King argued incorrectly in her published essay, King did acknowledge the possibility of forgery at various times in her article, and no reader of her essay could think the matter ends there.[92] Third, the editors of HTR ensured that the fuller issue in which King’s HTR article appeared would include a critical voice.[93] So in this respect, the regular process of academic self-correction was already in evidence, immediately and proximately juxtaposed with King’s original article. While any article found to have published fraudulent data may well merit retraction, the mitigating factors just mentioned render this case debatable.

By contrast, the situation we face with academic authentications of post-2002 biblical and quasi-biblical fragments is really quite clear, and free of these mitigating factors. The original publications were taken very seriously—so seriously, in fact that fragments have made their way into online databases and (otherwise) authoritative print resources.[94] The possibility of forgery was neither acknowledged nor considered—in some publications, the possibility was apparently suppressed. And yet, the publications remain available—for sale in some cases—without correction or advisement.

9. Conclusion

The retraction of published academic work is a serious matter. The foregoing is intended to raise the charge and initiate discussion, albeit with the decided hope that supervising editors and publishers will implement processes that will result in the retraction of the articles and book sections identified above (and listed again immediately below).

There is ultimately one main point that should decide the matter: these articles, by the preponderance of evidence, published forged documents, based on false testimonies of provenance. Indeed, that at least ten manuscripts published in Gleanings are forgeries is granted even by the volume’s editors. The falsehood of the Enoch fragment published twice by the Eshels (2004, 2005) has also been demonstrated twice over. The Exodus fragments published by the Eshels in 2007 are among the manuscripts withheld from Gleanings and deemed fake. One of the two Psalms fragments published by the Eshels in 2007, along with the 4QInstruction fragment, made their way to the Green Collection, and were among the fragments deemed decisively forged by the Art Fraud Insights report. Charlesworth’s surrender regarding the APU fragments he was involved with—including the single Deuteronomy fragment discussed above—can be measured by the fact that the promised Princeton volume never appeared. And as for the Lanier Amos: the fragments resemble the fakes and share their point of origin. The owners may well hold hope, but the record cannot stand on hope. The Tobit fragment co-published by Elgvin has been undermined by Elgvin himself.

The publishers and editors with oversight of these works should initiate the processes to reevaluate these publications. Brill has set the standard for the rest to follow: the articles and book-sections publishing fake scrolls should be retracted. The watermarked versions should be made freely available online. And retraction notices should direct readers to relevant articles treating the forged scrolls in general or, when possible, analyzing the specific fragments in particular. This will take time and effort; but academic publishers should sense the importance and necessity of setting the record straight. As things stand now, the academic record is sullied and insufficiently reliable. Clarifying action can and should be taken.

Jonathan Klawans is Professor of Religion and Judaic Studies at Boston University; jklawans@bu.edu.

Acknowledgments

A small number of readers and reviewers of prior versions of this piece offered suggestions that improved and tightened what appears here. While supportive of the project, these readers were not sure where an article like this should appear or what form it should take. I refrain therefore from naming them here. I am grateful to Ancient Jew Review for a prompt reading and enthusiastic response.

Provisional List of Cited Articles, Books and Book-Chapters that Merit Retraction

Charlesworth, James H. “What is a Variant? Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Deuteronomy.” Maarav 16 (2009): 201–12.

Charlesworth, James H. “An Unknown Dead Sea Scroll and Speculations Focused on the Vorlage of Deuteronomy 27:4.” Pages 393–415 in Jesus, Paulus, und die Texte von Qumran, edited by Jörg Frey and Enno Edzard Popkes. WUNT 2.390. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

Elgvin, Torleif, Kipp Davis and Michael Langlois, eds. Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from The Schøyen Collection. LTST 71. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. [See n. 31 above for the detailed listing of problematic book sections.]

Esther Eshel, and Hanan Eshel. “A New Fragment of the ‘Book of Watchers’ from Qumran (XQpapEnoch)” [Hebrew]. Tarbiz 63.2 (2004): 171–79.

Eshel, Esther, and Hanan Eshel. ‘New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf, 4QIsab, 4Q226, 8QGen, and XQpapEnoch.” DSD 12.2 (2005): 134–57.

Eshel, Esther, and Hanan Eshel. “A Preliminary Report on Seven New Fragments from Qumran” [Hebrew]. Meghillot 5–6 (2007): 271–78.

Hallermayer, Michaela, and Torleif Elgvin. “Schøyen Ms. 4234: Ein neues Tobit-fragment vom Totem Meer.” RevQ 87 / 22.3 (2006): 451–61.

(?) Langlois, Michael. “Un manuscrit araméen inédit du livre d’Hénoch et les versions anciennes de 1 Hénoch 7,4.” Semitica 55 (2013): 101–16.

Tov, Emanuel. “New Fragments of Amos.” DSD 21.1 (2014): 3–13.

Other Works Cited

Art Fraud Insights. Final Report, November 2019: Museum of the Bible, Dead Sea Scroll Collection Scientific Research and Analysis. https://motbv5-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/motb-dss-report-final-web.pdf

Biondi, Lee. From the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Bible in America. Camarillo, CA: Legacy Ministries, 2009.

Brill Publishers. Brill’s Publication Ethics. March 2024; https://brill.com/fileasset/downloads_static/static_publishing_publicationethics.pdf (accessed May 17, 2025).

Brill Publishers. “Retraction Notice.” August 6, 2020; https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004322868/BP000001.xml (accessed December 9, 2024).

Brodie, Neil. “Congenial Bedfellows? The Academy and the Antiquities Trade.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27.4 (2011): 408–37.

Brodie, Neil. “Scholarly Engagement with Collections of Unprovenanced Ancient Texts.” Pages 123–142 in Cultural Heritage at Risk. Edited by Kurt Almqvist and Louise Belfrage. Stockholm: Ax:son Johnson Foundation, 2016.

Cargill, Robert R. “First Person: The Importance of Archaeological Provenance.” BAR 44.5 (2018): 6, 76.

Charlesworth, James H. “XJudges.” Pages 231–33 in Qumran Cave 4: XXVIII. Miscellanea, Part 2. Edited by Moshe Bernstein et al. DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.

Charlesworth, James H. “XJoshua.” Pages 231–39 in Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. DJD 38. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.

COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Council. COPE Retraction Guidelines — English. Version 2: November 2019. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

Davis, Kipp. “Caves of Dispute: Patterns of Correspondence and Suspicion in the Post-2002 ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments.” DSD 24.2 (2017): 229–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26570629.

Davis, Kipp, Ira Rabin, Ines Feldman, Myriam Krutzsch, Hasia Rimon, Årstein Justnes, Torleif Elgvin and Michael Langlois. “Nine Dubious ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments from the Twenty-First Century.” DSD 24.2 (2017): 189–228.

Depuydt, Leo. “The Alleged Gospel of Jesus’s Wife: Assessment and Evaluation of Authenticity.” HTR 107.2 (2014): 172–89.

Elgvin, Torleif and Michael Langlois. “Looking Back: (More) Dead Sea Scrolls Forgeries in the Schøyen Collection.” RevQ 113 / 31.1 (2019): 111–33.

Eshel, Esther, Hanan Eshel, and Magen Broshi. “A New Fragment of XJudges.” DSD 14.3 (2007): 354–58.

Eshel, Hanan. “A Second Fragment of XJudges.” JJS 54.1 (2003): 139–41.

Eshel, Hanan. “Gleaning Of Scrolls From The Judean Desert.” Pages 49–87 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Contexts, edited by Charolotte Hempel. STDJ 90. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2010.

Eshel, Hanan. “The Fate of Scrolls and Fragments: A Survey from 1946 to the Present.” Pages 33–50 in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from The Schøyen Collection. Edited by Torleif Elgvin, Kipp Davis and Michael Langlois. LSTS 71. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.

Eshel, Hanan, Yosi Baruchi, and Roi Porat. “Fragments of a Leviticus Scroll (ArugLev) Found in the Judean Desert in 2004.” DSD 13.1 (2006): 55–60.

Govier, Gordon, with illustration by Cornelia Li. “NEWS: DEAD SEA FRAUDS: Sixteen forged fragments of Scripture have been discovered. Are there more?” Christianity Today 64.9 (Dec. 2020): 13–15.

Hoff, Cynndie. “The Dead Sea Scrolls, A Journey of Scripture from Qumran to Azusa: Discovery and Scholarship.” APULIFE Magazine 23.1 (Spring 2010): 12–13.

Johnson, Michael Brooks. “A Case Study in Professional Ethics Concerning Secondary Publications of Unprovenanced Artefacts: The New Edition DSS F.Instruction1.” Distant Worlds Journal 2 (2017): 28–44.

Justnes, Årstein. “The Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments and Bible Study Software.” Lying Pen of the Scribes. November 29, 2016; June 1, 2018. https://lyingpen.com/2016/11/29/the-post-2002-dead-sea-scrolls-like-fragments-pollutions-in-accordance/

Justnes, Årstein, and Ludvik A. Kjeldsberg. “‘Much Clean Paper for Little Dirty Paper’: The Market for Dead Sea Scrolls in the Twenty-First Century.” JAJ 14.2 (2023): 222–62, https://doi.org/10.30965/21967954-bja10043.

King, Karen. “‘Jesus said to them, “My wife . . .”’: A New Coptic Papyrus Fragment.” HTR 107.2 (2014): 131–59.

Kjeldsberg, Ludvik A., Årstein Justnes, and Hilda Deborah. “A Database of Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments.” Journal of Open Humanities Data 10.1 (2024): 25. https://doi.org/10.5334/johd.140.

Kjeldsberg, Ludvik A., Årstein Justnes, and Martin Stomnås. A Database of Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments: https://lyingpen.uia.no/databases/post-2002frgs/.

Lanier Theological Library and Learning Center. “Original Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment.” N.D. https://www.laniertheologicallibrary.org/original-dead-sea-scrolls-fragment-on-display/ (accessed December 19, 2024).

Lanier Theological Library and Learning Center. “Exhibition Update: Dead Sea Scroll Fragment at the LTL.” December 7, 2020. https://www.laniertheologicallibrary.org/exhibitions-updates/9927/ (accessed December 19, 2024).

Mazza, Roberta. Stolen Fragments: Black Markets, Bad Faith, and the Illicit Trade in Ancient Artefacts. Stanford, CA: Redwood Press, 2024.

Mizzi, Dennis and Jodi Magness. “Provenance vs. Authenticity: An Archaeological Perspective on the Post-2002 ‘Dead Sea Scrolls-Like’ Fragments.” DSD 26.2 (2019): 135–69.

Museum of the Bible. “A Journey for the Truth: Investigating the Recent Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments.” https://www.museumofthebible.org/dead-sea-scroll-fragments (accessed October 28, 2024).

Noah, William H. Ink & Blood: Dead Sea Scrolls to the English Bible. Murfreesboro, TN: ACO, 2005.

Nongbri, Brent. “How the ‘Jerusalem Scrolls’ Became the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran Cave 1: Archaeology, the Antiquities Market, and the Spaces In Between.” HTR 115.1 (2022): 1–22.

Qimron, Elisha. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings [Hebrew]. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–2014.

Reed, Stephen A. “Find-Sites of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 14.2 (2007): 199–221.

Sabar, Ariel, Veritas: A Harvard Professor, a Con Man, and the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife. New York: Doubleday, 2020.

Shanks, Hershel. “Scholarship and Authority in Israel.” The Chronical of Higher Education. 52.19 (January 13, 2006): The Review, B14.

Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Notes on the Three Qumran-Type Yadin Fragments Leading to a Discussion of Identification, Attribution, Provenance, and Names.” DSD 19.2 (2012): 198–214, doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/156851712X644659

Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “A Provisional List of Unprovenanced, Twenty-First Century, Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments.” DSD 24.2 (2017): 173–88.

Tov, Emanuel, Kipp Davis and Robert Duke, eds. Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection. Publications of Museum of the Bible 1. Leiden: Brill, 2016 [Retracted August 5, 2020].

Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 69. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

White, Rachel. “Publication of Azusa Pacific University’s Dead Sea Scrolls to Enhance Biblical Scholarship.” News provided by Azusa Pacific University May 23, 2017. https://www.prweb.com/releases/publication_of_azusa_pacific_university_s_dead_sea_scrolls_to_enhance_biblical_scholarship/prweb14358390.htm (accessed December 19, 2024).

Yadin, Yigael. Tefillin From Qumran (X Q Phyl 1–4). Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1969.

Yarchin, William. Treasures of the Bible: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Beyond. Azusa, Ca.: Azusa Pacific University, 2010.

Yardeni, Ada. “Hershel’s Crusade, No. 3: Forgeries and Unprovenanced Artifacts.” Biblical Archaeology Review 44.2 (2018): 39–42.

[1] COPE Council, Retraction Guidelines; https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines.

[2] COPE Council, Retraction Guidelines, 2.

[3] COPE Council, Retraction Guidelines, 5.

[4] COPE Council, Retraction Guidelines, 3.

[5] I am not aware of guidelines clearer or more widely accepted that COPE’s. COPE Members include important Religion/Biblical Studies publishers such as Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Taylor & Francis (including Routledge), and Sage. While Brill is not currently a member, Brill’s own statements on publication ethics refer frequently to COPE: “In order to ensure the research integrity of our publications, and by so doing to ensure that we achieve our aim of providing scholars with superior service, Brill works closely with authors and editors to promote adherence to the core principles of publication ethics as articulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)” (Brill’s Publication Ethics 1).

[6] Mazza, Stolen Fragments; see esp. 140–55.

[7] Mizzi and Magness, “Provenance vs. Authenticity.”

[8] The ASOR policy, as adopted in 2015 and revised in 2019 is posted here: https://www.asor.org/about–asor/policies/policy-on-professional-conduct/; the SBL’s similar (but briefer) standard is available at https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/SBL-Artifacts-Policy_20160903.pdf. The Biblical Archaeology Review was for many years a prime venue for scholars writing about or interested in unprovenanced objects; see Yardeni, “Hershel’s Crusade.” Robert Cargill, upon taking over for Shanks in January 2018, adopted a new policy; see Cargill, “First Person: The Importance of Archaeological Provenance.”

[9] Ironically one exception to this general rule concerns (some of) the Dead Sea Scrolls—fragments discovered by scholars in Caves 1, 4 and 11 provide after-the-fact confirmation that (some of) the marketed scrolls were in fact removed from those caves. See Nongbri, “Jerusalem Scrolls” (on Cave1) and Reed, “Find-Sites.”

[10] For one general treatment of the intellectual and cultural damage done by the antiquities market, see Mazza, Stolen Fragments.

[11] On these and other social harms arising from the markets, see Brodie, “Scholarly Engagement,” 131–33.

[12] For an informed description of academic involvement in antiquities markets as brokers and authenticators, see Brodie, “Congenial Bedfellows.”

[13] Tov, Davis, and Duke, Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments [Retracted].

[14] Davis, “Caves of Dispute” and Davis et al., “Nine Dubious.”

[15] For this accounting of the MOTB’s concerns and testing, see Art Fraud Insights, Final Report, 1.

[16] Art Fraud Insights, Final Report, 2.

[17] Art Fraud Insights, Final Report, 7–11.

[18] Such photographs appear for practically each fragment throughout the report.

[19] See MOTB, “A Journey for the Truth.”

[20] Brill, “Retraction Notice.” The statement also appears at the opening of the now freely available PDF of Tov, Davis, and Duke, Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments [Retracted].

[21] Elgvin, Davis, and Langlois, Gleanings.

[22] Davis et al., “Nine Dubious ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments.”

[23] Elgvin and Langlois, “Looking Back.”

[24] Elgvin and Langlois, “Looking Back,” 111–12.

[25] For the details, see Elgvin and Langlois, “Looking Back,” 130–32 (“Table 1”).

[26] See Elgvin, Davis, and Langlois, Gleanings, 27–32 (=Schøyen, “Acquisition”) and 51–60 (=Elgvin, “Texts and Artefacts”).

[27] See, e.g., Elgvin, Davis, and Langlois, Gleanings, 29–30 (for Schøyen’s acceptance of William Kando’s testimony of fragments later deemed fake) and 52–53 for Elgvin’s rather accepting summary. For Elgvin’s later, more sober, assessment of this testimony see Justnes and Elgvin, “Private Part of Enoch,” 203.

[28] Davis et al., “Nine Dubious,” 190.

[29] Davis et al., “Nine Dubious,” 190–91, n. 3.

[30] See especially Kipp Davis’s overall assessment of the fragments’ frequently irregular paleographic features: “Paleographical and Physical Features of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Museum of the Bible Collection: A Synopsis,” in Tov, Davis, and Duke, Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments [Retracted], 19–35.

[31] Following what we have argued above and what is admitted in Elgvin and Langlois, “Looking Back” (esp. 130–32) the following chapters should be retracted at the very least: I: “Acquisition,” by Schøyen; III: “Texts and Artefacts,” by Elgvin; VII: “MS 4612/4. 4Q(?)GenMiniature” by Elgvin and Davis; X: “MS 4612/5. 4Q(?)Num” by Elgvin; XI: “MS 5214/1. 4Q(?)Deut1,” by Elgvin; XII: “MS 5214/2. 4Q(?)Deut2,” by Elgvin; XV: “MS 5480. 4Q(?)Sam,” by Elgvin; XVII: “MS 5440. 4Q(?)Kgs,” by Davis and Elgvin; XVIII “MS 4612/9. 4Q(?)Jer,” by Elgvin and Davis; XX: “MS 5233/2. 4Q(?)Ps,” by Elgvin; XXI: “MS 4612/11. 4Q(?)Prov,” by Elgvin; XXII: MS 5441. 4Q(?)Ruth,” by Elgvin. According to Elgvin and Langlois, two additional chapters publish material of questionable authenticity: XVI: “MS 5233/1. XQSam,” by Elgvin; XIX: “MS 4612/1. Ḥev(?)Joel,” by Elgvin. If the matter cannot be resolved easily and quickly, these two chapters should at least be marked as questionable, pending additional review. The Forward as well merits retraction—or correction.

[32] See https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/gleanings-from-the-caves-9780567113009/, accessed May 19, 2025.

[33] H. Eshel, “The Fate.”

[34] H. Eshel, “The Fate,” 33 n. 1, which points readers back to (H.) Eshel, “Gleaning.”

[35] E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “A New Fragment,” “New Fragments,” and “Preliminary Report.”

[36] E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “New Fragment,” 174; ET: “New Fragments,” 146.

[37] Justnes and Kjeldsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” 230–31, 247.

[38] See Davis et al., “Nine Dubious,” 216–20; Justnes and Elgvin, “A Private Part of Enoch.”

[39] Further details on each of these fragments can now most easily be found in the online Database of Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments (maintained by Kjeldsberg, Justnes, and Stomnås; part of the “Lying Pen of the Scribes” project). See https://lyingpen.uia.no/databases/. For the fragment identified by the Eshels as coming from 4QGenf, see https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/gen-3319-342/ (= No. 1 in database spreadsheet). For the fragments identified as coming from 4QIsab, see https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/isa-2416-17/ (= No. 64 in database spreadsheet) and https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/isa-2619-271/ (= No. 65 in database spreadsheet). For the fragment identified as coming from 4Q226, see https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/words-from-genesis-22/ (= No. 2 in database spreadsheet). For the fragment identified as coming from 8QGen, see https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/gen-131-3/ (= frag 1 in database spreadsheet). For the fragment identified as XQpapEnoch, see https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/1-en-84-93/ (= No. 85 in database spreadsheet).

[40] E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “New Fragments,” 134.

[41] E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “New Fragments, 134–35, n. 3. Trying to discern precisely which fragments were displayed in the various iterations of these exhibits, my head spins. For an online accounting, see https://lyingpen.com/2019/11/05/exhibitions-post2002/ (accessed October 31, 2024). On the collaboration and disputes between Biondi and Noah, see Justnes and Kjeldsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” 227, esp. n. 20. Once they went their separate ways, they each continued to display fragments available to them. See Noah, Ink & Blood, esp. 15–16 (for images of the two Isaiah fragments and the fragment identified by Eshel as 4Q226).

[42] E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “New Fragments,” 146–157; » E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “A New Fragment.”

[43] See Davis et al., “Nine Dubious,” 216–20; Justnes and Elgvin, “A Private Part of Enoch.”

[44] E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “New Fragments,” 135.

[45] See Tigchelaar, “Notes on the Three,” esp. 209–14 and Tigchelaar, “Provisional List.”

[46] Compare, for instance Yadin’s 1969 use of XQ Phyl 1–4 for the phylacteries discussed in Tefillin from Qumran; H. Eshel acknowledges Yadin’s decision in “The Fate,” 38 (= H. Eshel, “Gleaning,” 59–60).

[47] See Tov’s comments in this regard in Tov, Davis, and Duke, Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments [Retracted], 10.

[48] E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “New Fragments,” 135.

[49] See E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “New Fragments,” e.g., 137, 141, 144.

[50] Justnes, “Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments.”

[51] See Kjeldsberg and Justnes, “Much Clean Paper,” and the data for each fragment in the Online Database of Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments (n. 39 above).

[52] E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “Preliminary Report,” 271–72.

[53] For the fragments identified as coming from 4QExodc, see https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/exod-313-15/ (= No. 9 in database spreadsheet) and https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/exod-59-14/ (= No. 10 in database spreadsheet); for the fragment identified as coming from 4QDeutf, see https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/deut-1913-15-eshel-and-eshel-2007deut-233-4-puech-charlesworth/ (= No. 37 in database spreadsheet); for the fragments identified as coming from 11QPsc, see https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/ps-111-4/ (= No. 57 in database spreadsheet; this fragment eventually made its way to Museum of the Bible) and https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/ps-111-3/ (= No. 58 in database spreadsheet; this fragment eventually made its way to Ashland Theological Seminary); on the fragment identified as coming from 4QInstruction, see https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/4q418-ii-4-5/ (= No. 87 in database spreadsheet).

[54] Justnes and Kjeldsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” 224–27, 246.

[55] On the sales, see Justnes and Kjeldsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” 231, 250; on the fragments, see Tov, Davis, and Duke, Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments [Retracted], 190–99 (“Psalm 11:1–4,” by Lisa M. Wolfe et al.) and 222–36 (“Fragment of Instruction,” by Michael Brooks Johnson). On the latter see also Johnson, “Case Study.” This fragment made its way into Elisha Qimron’s Hebrew edition of the scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls 2:174), an error that merits a formal correction.

[56] See Art Fraud Insights, Final Report, esp. 33–37 (Psalms), 43–45 (Instruction).

[57] Justnes, “Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments.” For an image of the unpublished Jeremiah fragment (printed upside down!) see Noah, Ink & Blood, 16; see Biondi, From the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4 and 16 (for images of the Psalms fragments).

[58] H. Eshel, “A Second Fragment.”

[59] E. Eshel, H. Eshel, and Broshi, “A New Fragment of XJudges.”

[60] H. Eshel, Baruchi, and Porat. “Fragments.” H. Eshel was briefly arrested in October 2005 for his role in this matter; see Shanks, “Scholarship and Authority in Israel,” and Justnes and Kjeldsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” 227–28.

[61] Charlesworth, “XJoshua” (DJD 38), 231; Charlesworth, “XJudges” (DJD 28), 231.

[62] See the volume’s Table of Contents in Elgvin, Davis, and Langlois, Gleanings, 11; see also Davis, “High Quality Scrolls” (in Gleanings), 137; and E. Eshel, H. Eshel, and Justnes, “XJudg with MS 2861 (Judg. 4.5–6)” (in Gleanings), 200–201.

[63] See Justnes and Kjeldsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” esp. (but not exclusively), 228–29, 237–38, 242–44.

[64] Yarchin, Treasures of the Bible, 14–15.

[65] See Hoff, “Discovery and Scholarship,” 13.

[66] See Davis et al., “Nine Dubious,” 191 n. 4, and Davis, “Caves of Dispute,” 233 n. 8, which both reference the (never published) volume: “Biblical Manuscripts at Azusa Pacific University and The Institute for Judaism and Christian Origins, ed. James H. Charlesworth and William Yarchin. PTSDSSP Suppl. Vol. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, forthcoming).” See also White, “Publication.”

[67] For more on APU 4, see the Lying Pen Database: https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/deut-274-6/ (= No. 38 in database spreadsheet); for an enlarged an enhanced image, see Biondi, From the Dead Sea Scrolls, inside front cover.

[68] Charlesworth, “What is a Variant?” 205. We should note, for the record, that H. Eshel doubted the Qumran provenance (and possibly even the authenticity) of APU 4; see “The Fate,” 48. Elgvin himself seems less skeptical in his own discussion of the (forged) Schøyen Deuteronomy fragment (MS 5214/1; F. 109); see Elgvin, Davis, and Langlois, Gleanings, p. 174 n. 2.

[69] Charlesworth, “What is a Variant?” 205.

[70] Charlesworth, “What is a Variant?” 204.

[71] Charlesworth, “What is a Variant?” 209–10 (quote from 209).

[72] Charlesworth, “Unknown Dead Sea Scroll.”

[73] See, in particular, Ulrich, Developmental Composition, 57–59.

[74] For details on the sale, see Justnes and Kjeldsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” 233–34, 252.

[75] Tov, “New Fragments of Amos,” with an online publication date of February 20, 2014. On the relatively close timing of purchase and publication, see Justnes and Kjeldsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” 242.

[76] Tov, “New Fragment of Amos,” 3.

[77] See Lanier Theological Library, “Original Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment,” and “Exhibition Update” (source of quotation). And see Govier, “Dead Sea Frauds,” 14, quoting Mark Lanier: “We did due diligence and were assured of the provenance.”

[78] For more on the Lanier Amos, see the Lying Pen Database: https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/amos-717-81-3-frgs/ (= No. 78 in database spreadsheet).

[79] For examples and details, see Tov, “New Fragment of Amos,” 6–9 (esp., e.g., 6 n. 11).

[80] Tov, “New Fragment of Amos,” 4–5 (quote from 5).

[81] This phrase, or something quite like it, appears in the paleographic assessments attributed to Yardeni throughout the volume. See Tov, Davis, and Duke, Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments [Retracted], 78, 112, 131, 142, 160, 169, 178, 192, 202, 212, 225; and see the chart in Davis’s own essay (“Paleographical and Physical Features”) in Tov, Davis, and Duke, Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments [Retracted], 27.

[82] Yardeni, personal correspondence with E. Tov, dated November 23, 2013; quoted in Tov, “New Fragment of Amos,” 4–5 (quote from 5).

[83] Davis et al., “Nine Dubious,” 220–21. Interestingly, compare H. Eshel, “Gleaning,” 75 (which mentions the Tobit Schøyen fragment) with H. Eshel, “The Fate,” 44 (which does not mention the fragment).

[84] Hallermayer and Elgvin, “Schøyen ms. 5234.” For more on this fragment see the Lying Pen Database: https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/tob-143-4/ (= No. 83 in database spreadsheet). For sales information, see Justnes and Kjeledsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” 226, 246.

[85] The Tobit papyrus was apparently among the fragments that the Kando family claimed to have sold to an anonymous American priest in the 1970s and subsequently purchased back from his Swiss-based heirs. Compare Hallermayer and Elgvin, “Schøyen ms. 5234,” 452 with Schøyen’s personal account (concerning other fragments) in Elgvin, Davis, and Langlois, Gleanings, 29.

[86] Davis et al., “Nine Dubious,” 209–13. For more on this fragment see the Lying Pen Database: https://lyingpen.uia.no/post-2002frgs/1-en-71-5/ (= No. 84 in database spreadsheet). For sales information, see Justnes and Kjeledsberg, “Much Clean Paper,” 230, 249.

[87] Langlois, “Un manuscrit araméen,” 101.

[88] Davis et al., “Nine Dubious,” 213.

[89] King, “Jesus said to them.”

[90] For a full account of the saga, see Sabar, Veritas.

[91] Indeed, doubt was widespread, immediate, and well-publicized; see Sabar, Veritas, 86–126.

[92] King, “Jesus said to them,” 131, 154–58.

[93] Depuydt, “The Alleged Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.”

[94] See Davis et al., “Nine Dubious,” 191–92 and Justnes, “Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments.”

Share