By Årstein Justnes and Josephine Munch Rasmussen

 

Since 2002 more than 75 new “Dead Sea Scrolls” fragments surfaced on the antiquities market. The majority were bought for astronomical prices by wealthy collectors and, since 2009, by several American evangelical institutions. Most of the fragments seem to come from Bethlehem antiquities dealer William Kando, son of Khalil Iskander Shahin, or “Kando,” known among scholars and collectors as the first dealer in Dead Sea Scrolls and associated antiquities. But what are these post-2002 “Dead Sea Scrolls” fragments and where did they come from?

Cave 4Q at Qumran. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_cave_of_Qumran_place_of_the_dead_Sea_Scrolls.JPG)

 

Aerial view of the Qumran community. (http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/pictures/aerial3.jpg)

 

Living quarters at Qumran. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QumranLivingQuarters.jpg)

 

William Kando. (https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-08-07/american-evangelical-collectors-buy-dead-sea-scroll-fragments)

 

Martin Schøyen. (https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-ancient-writings/schoyen-collection-20000-ancient-manuscripts-134-countries-120-languages-020944)

 

In the wake of the recent exposure of forgeries in the Museum of the Bible collection, blame has been laid on “unscrupulous antiquities dealers […] preying on evangelicals.” This is, however, a dangerous simplification that fails to acknowledge the decisive role of prominent Dead Sea Scrolls scholars as a driving force behind this scandal. For over fifteen years the scientific community has effectively laundered over 70 new unprovenanced “Dead Sea Scrolls” fragments.

Museum of the Bible. Photo by Alex Joffe.

 

‘Dead Sea Scroll’ fragment from the Museum of the Bible. (https://theconversation.com/fake-scrolls-at-the-museum-of-the-bible-106012)

 

Why after 2002?

In November 2001 chief editor Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University announced the completion of the Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project. The following year the Schøyen Collection in Oslo was featured in the September-October issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. The enthusiastic editor, Hershel Shanks, reported: “If you have a Dead Sea Scroll for sale, you should get in touch with Martin Schøyen […] in Oslo. He is a prime prospect. He already owns several Dead Sea Scroll fragments—making him one of the few individuals in the world (I can think of only one other) who owns Dead Sea Scroll material.”

Towards the end of this interview, there was a sentence that today almost reads like a prophecy: “Schøyen cannot dismiss the idea that there may yet be some scrolls locked away in a vault, increasing in value each passing day.”

Already in September-October 2002 William Kando had contacted Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Emile Puech. Kando had several fragments that he wanted to show him. The latter allegedly wrote a one page report dated October 6 reviewing the fragments– and the rest is (a really complex) history. Kando sold his first fragments in 2003 to Martin Schøyen and (probably) to rare books dealer Craig Lampe in Arizona.

Curiously enough, when Schøyen had asked the elder Kando ten years earlier, the dealer dismissed the possibility of obtaining Dead Sea Scroll material:

On visiting Kando’s shop in Jerusalem in March 1993, I found Kando … sitting on a chair in the middle of the room facing the window, wearing his red Turkish fez, as he used to do…. When I asked whether there was any chance of acquiring Dead Sea Scroll fragments from him or anyone else, his answer was short and gruff: “Those days are gone!” That was his final word on the matter; he passed away a month later at the age of 83 (Gleanings from the Caves, 27).

Nonetheless, at the turn of the new millennium, Schøyen’s request was suddenly met.

 

New “Dead Sea Scrolls” Fragments for Sale!: From 0 to 150 fragments in 15 years

In 2004 Hanan and Esther Eshel introduced 12 new fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Three years later, in 2007 James H. Charlesworth reported that he had seen 35 fragments in Europe. In 2011 Weston W. Fields said there were now over 50 fragments. In 2013 the number of fragments further increased to 80, and somewhere between November 2016 and March 2017 the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation adjusted the number to 150.

By uncritically publishing the new fragments in the years from 2004 to 2016, the scientific community sent a strong signal to the antiquities market that it really did not care too much about provenance. This not only stimulated the market, it was an enormous encouragement to every looter under the (Judaean desert) sun.

 

Are they Fake – or Worse: Authentic and Unprovenanced?

A great majority of the post-2002 fragments are definitely fakes, or to be more precise: the writing on most of the fragments is not a product of ancient scribes, but of modern ones. Scientific testing performed by the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM) in 2015 made scholars working on the Schøyen collection conclude that nine Schøyen fragments were modern forgeries. Similar tests in 2017–18 led scholars at the Museum of the Bible to identify seven fragments as forgeries.

It should be emphasized that so far 100 % of the new fragments that have been “scientifically” tested for authenticity have turned out to be forgeries. And these are probably just the tip of the iceberg. We believe all the fragments that were published in Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection edited by Emanuel Tov, Kipp Davis, and Robert Duke in 2016 are fake. The same goes for the post-2002 fragments in the Schøyen Collection. With one or two possible exceptions, they are probably fakes as well.

Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection. (https://www.amazon.ca/Dead-Scrolls-Fragments-Museum-Collection/dp/9004321489)

 

Nonetheless, as long as neither the Museum of the Bible nor Martin Schøyen discloses the information each has about provenance, it is really of secondary importance whether the fragments are authentic or not. Physical testing does nothing to prove the legality and ethical soundness of current ownership.

The question of authenticity should not be treated as a simple dichotomy. An unprovenanced object that passes every test for authenticity can obviously still be of dubious legal status (looted, stolen, smuggled, or forged from genuine archaeological components, etc.). In the face of the complexity of fraudulent praxis within the field of the antiquities trade, physical testing is ultimately a cul de sac.

 

Due Diligence

Several features of these fragments should have raised suspicions. For one thing, they were coming out of nowhere, and they were also characterized by a clumsy and hesitant handwriting. In essence they did not look like Dead Sea Scrolls. They even had a curious distribution: Less than 25% of the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found between 1947 and 1956 are biblical, whereas the number is over 85% for the new fragments. We should ask ourselves why is that? It is probably because the market has a higher demand for biblical fragments. For American evangelicals especially, they are worth more.

Advertisement from the Wall Street Journal, June 1, 1954. (https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/discovery-and-publication?locale=en_US)

 

In their eagerness to publish the new fragments, scholars failed to perform due diligence regarding the fragments’ origin and ownership history. This means that even scholars who did not participate in actual forging of manuscripts facilitated and stimulated the market in dubious objects.

The most striking feature of the post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls scandal is the pervading negligence. The trade in unprovenanced manuscripts is dependent on actors authenticating, introducing, marketing, facilitating sales, brokering, legitimizing dubious acquisition, defending illicit trade, lending professional authority, publishing, composing provenance narratives, and pumping up prices. Without scholarly involvement in these endeavors, the market in the post-2002 fragments would be unimaginable.

 

The Need for New Scholarly Practices

Apparently, our education and training as scholars do not prevent dubious, unethical, or even illegal practices. Several fields of ancient history are currently at a crossroads. By continuing involvement with the antiquities trade, they are undermining their credibility as academic disciplines.

 

Årstein Justnes is Professor of Religion and Josephine Munch Rasmussen is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Agder.