The Code of Hammurabi survives in virtually complete form on a stele and pips the Dead Sea Scrolls by 1500 years or so. A reasonably complete version of the Epic of Gilgamesh is 1000 years or so older than the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So it's by no means the earliest essentially-complete collection of manuscripts found. That said, it is still in sparse company. As far as I can tell, the next major complete manuscript are a few copies of the Bible dating to mid-4th century. Complete versions of things like the Odyssey and the Iliad date only to around 1000.

Right - the DSS isn't the oldest document, but it is among the oldest surviving documents.

This is what the article claimed: the DSS are "some of the oldest surviving documents on earth."

You're mistaken. There is a sizable amount of extant Akkadian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, and Chinese literature from well before when the TaNaK was written. In fact of each of those languages have a sum of extant literature that surpasses, in volume, the largess of writing in the Bible.

You've misinterpreted what I'm saying.

Again, the article stated a simple truth: the DSS are "some of the oldest surviving documents on earth."

That is a factually true statement.

The parent commenter objected to this statement. I corrected him.

Now you are trying to correct me by saying there is a some surviving literature from before the Bible was written. I've made no claim otherwise.