The Dead Sea Scrolls

[JCA]

Just wasn't sure where to put this, but thought it worth mentioning for those int he Michigan area:

POWERFUL HISTORY SHOW: In west Michigan, a museum is to exhibit some Dead Sea Scrolls

February 15, 2003
BY FRANK PROVENZANO
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

GRAND RAPIDS -- To nonbelievers, it's a simple story about a boy, a lost goat and an epic coincidence.

To millions of Christians and Jews, however, it looks a lot like the hand of providence.

A boy chasing his stray goat into a cave led to one of the greatest archeological discoveries, the Dead Sea Scrolls, stored in ancient jars in the arid northwest region of the Dead Sea near the Israel-Jordan border. The scrolls were found in 1947, a few years after the Holocaust and around the time of the birth of modern-day Israel.

Fullt Story at: http://www.freep.com/news/mich/sea15_20030215.htm

If you want to go:
Sunday through June 1
Van Andel Museum Center, 272 Pearl St. NW, Grand Rapids
Tickets: $14; $13, seniors; $10.50 for children ages 3-17
Hours: 9 a.m.-9 p.m. Sunday through Tuesday; 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Wednesday- Saturday

616-456-3977 or www.grmuseum.org.

Love and Peace

JCA

[Jin-Roh]

Man I wish I could go. To far though.

[ItalianGold]

The Dead Sea Scrolls have always fascinated me. There has been so much secrecy and conjecture surrounding their discovery. I guess I'm not sure what, if any, final conclusions have been drawn from their study. I do know the Essenes sound like a very interesting group.

JCA - what have you learned that you'd care to share??

[Blake Reas]

What is interesting about the Essenes may be there possible contact with the early Christian movement. We know that the Essenes where in other places besides Qumran and that one of the places in Jerusalem in which they stayed was virtually next door to Christians. Josephus actually mentions the "gate of the Essenes" which is located at the southe west corner of the walls as they existed in Jerusalem at that time. (Jos. J.W. 5.145).

As Paul Barnett says in his book Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity:

The existence of a community of Essenes in Jerusalem at the time of the origin of the earliest church in the same city raises interesting questions abou possible relationships between the twp communities, especially since the two communities appear to have been located next to each other. The Essenes, like the first Jerusalem Christians, supported one another in the common access to material goods, unlike the Essenes, however, these first Christians did not seperate themselves from the temple.

I find this very interesting. The history of early Christianity is really fascinating.

In Christ,
Blake

[Pilgrim]

I've been to the exhibit when it was in Chicago. It was very cool. My wife loved it, she sat there translating for me!

Pilgrim

[Sera Sixwings]

[02-19-2003 @ 02:47 AM] - ItalianGold:

I guess I'm not sure what, if any, final conclusions have been drawn from their study. I do know the Essenes sound like a very interesting group.

JCA - what have you learned that you'd care to share?? Hi.

Actually, the DDS involve far more than Essene documents. There is, for example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, as well as many other OT manuscripts. Perhaps what is most interesting is what they tell scholars about the textual transmission of Jewish Scripture and related documents.

[Pilgrim]

But wasn't it the Essene community that scribed those texts?

[Sauron]

02-27-2003 @ 02:52 PM
Sera Sixwings:

Hi.

Actually, the DDS involve far more than Essene documents. There is, for example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, as well as many other OT manuscripts. Perhaps what is most interesting is what they tell scholars about the textual transmission of Jewish Scripture and related documents.

Here's what I find interesting about the DSS. From Britannica:

All the manuscripts were placed under the control of a small committee of scholars. Most of the longer, more complete scrolls were published soon after their discovery. The majority of the scrolls, however, consist of tiny, brittle fragments. These fragments were published at a pace considered by many to be excessively slow, and access to the unpublished documents was severely limited by the editorial committee. In September 1991 researchers at Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio, announced that they had created a computer program that used a previously published concordance to the scrolls to reconstruct one of the unpublished texts. Later that month, officials at the Huntington Library, San Marino, Calif., announced that they would allow researchers unrestricted access to the library's complete set of photographs of the scrolls. With their de facto monopoly of the scrolls broken, the official scholars of the Israeli Antiquities Authority agreed to lift their long-standing restrictions on the use of the scrolls.

Notice the attempt to control the publication of these documents. Not a good thing.

[Blake Reas]

[Ouote]Notice the attempt to control the publication of these documents. Not a good thing. [/QUOTE]

Sniff, Sniff, I am I smelling an appeal to conspiracy!:rofl:

It is a Joke don't take it the wrong way, I had to say it I have read to many of the theories of Theiring and Allegro!

In Christ,
Blake

[Pilgrim]

02-27-2003 @ 08:59 PM
Sauron:



Here's what I find interesting about the DSS. From Britannica:

All the manuscripts were placed under the control of a small committee of scholars. Most of the longer, more complete scrolls were published soon after their discovery. The majority of the scrolls, however, consist of tiny, brittle fragments. These fragments were published at a pace considered by many to be excessively slow, and access to the unpublished documents was severely limited by the editorial committee. In September 1991 researchers at Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio, announced that they had created a computer program that used a previously published concordance to the scrolls to reconstruct one of the unpublished texts. Later that month, officials at the Huntington Library, San Marino, Calif., announced that they would allow researchers unrestricted access to the library's complete set of photographs of the scrolls. With their de facto monopoly of the scrolls broken, the official scholars of the Israeli Antiquities Authority agreed to lift their long-standing restrictions on the use of the scrolls.

Notice the attempt to control the publication of these documents. Not a good thing.

Of course you have to remember that the reason the fragments are so boken up is largely becaue the Beduins saw a chance to make some money. They actually cut and ripped pieces up into smaller ones so they could make more sells over more time.

The Britannica left that out. And it is significant because the fact is, the scholars didn't have all the pieces out to publish or give out willy nilly.

[GrayPilgrim]

The restrictions over the scrolls ended about 1990, Brill/Eedrmans now has published all the non-Biblical texts in two seperate formats the first entiteled The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated edited by Garcia Martinez, and The Sea Scrolls Study Edition 2 vols. edited by Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar. I have both. The latter has the original language on one page and a translationon the opposite. There is supposed ot be one htat has all the Biblical texts forthcoming, but I don't know when it is supposed to be published.

GP

[NSMinistries]

I am going to go when they are in TN. I can't believe they are going to come to my little ol town (or next door really)

[Sauron]

03-01-2003 @ 08:08 AM
Pilgrim:



Of course you have to remember that the reason the fragments are so boken up is largely becaue the Beduins saw a chance to make some money. They actually cut and ripped pieces up into smaller ones so they could make more sells over more time.

The Britannica left that out.


Why does it matter *how* the parchments got fragmented? Whether by accident, or by design, I don't see how it matters.


And it is significant because the fact is, the scholars didn't have all the pieces out to publish or give out willy nilly.

Still doesn't follow. They might NEVER have all the fragments to give out; not all ancient documents are preserved in their entirety. Are you suggesting that we should never publish ancient documents if they're damaged or incomplete? There would be precious few documents published, if that were the standard.

No, there's no other reason for keeping these from the public, except that the religious establishment in Israel wanted to finish reviewing and evaluating them first, to see what their impact would be on Judaism.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0857697.html

Most of the originals of the scrolls are at the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem; the rest are at the Israel Museum's Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. The intact scrolls and other materials were published in the decades following their discovery, but many fragments remained unpublished and under the control of a small group of scholars, originally appointed by Jordanian officials, and their intellectual heirs. As a result of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, control of all the scrolls passed to the Israeli Antiquities Authority. International dissatisfaction with the limited access allowed to, and the slow rate of publication of, the scrolls that remained unpublished led the Huntington Library in San Marino, Calif., to allow (1991) scholars access to its set of master negatives of the scrolls despite the objections of the Israeli Antiquities Authority. Subsequently the authority removed its restrictions on the use of the unpublished scrolls.

[Pilgrim]

I'm not sure what you don't understand? The link seems obvious to me.

The criticisms is that the fragments were withheld and parceled out at a slow rate. The criticism fails because the fragments were not available at all at the rate the Britannica thinks they were.

It's not like all the fragments were discovered at once and then horded away. They were brought in piece-a-meal and evaluated one at a time. Some fragments were held onto until corresponding pieces could be secured and added. It makes sense to me that the process was slow. In other words there was no conspiracy of scholars to slow the process.

[Sera Sixwings]

Hi.

Conspiracy theories aside, I suspect that one consequence of the Dead Sea Scroll research might be to spawn more interest in the Septuagint and, perhaps, a slightly more cautious view of the Massoretic Text.

[Pilgrim]

In what ways do you see it getting people more interested in the Septuagint?

[Sera Sixwings]

I am not too sure that I understand what you are asking. Probably in ways similar to those pursued at places like the Centre for Septuagint Studies and Textual Criticism (http://www.theo.kuleuven.ac.be/en/centr_sept.htm) or The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/) I suppose.

[Sauron]

03-03-2003 @ 07:18 AM
Pilgrim:

I'm not sure what you don't understand? The link seems obvious to me.

The criticisms is that the fragments were withheld and parceled out at a slow rate. The criticism fails because the fragments were not available at all at the rate the Britannica thinks they were.

It's not like all the fragments were discovered at once and then horded away.


Yes, they were. That's precisely what the link I gave states:

The intact scrolls and other materials were published in the decades following their discovery, but many fragments remained unpublished and under the control of a small group of scholars, originally appointed by Jordanian officials, and their intellectual heirs.


The fragments were excluded from public viewing, for no good reason. You can't even say that they were trying to piece them together first, before displaying. As I said in my first response, that's a bogus standard. Fragments of text are all we have in many situations; and fragments do go on display.

[Pilgrim]

03-03-2003 @ 04:26 PM
Sauron:



Yes, they were. That's precisely what the link I gave states:

The intact scrolls and other materials were published in the decades following their discovery, but many fragments remained unpublished and under the control of a small group of scholars, originally appointed by Jordanian officials, and their intellectual heirs.


The fragments were excluded from public viewing, for no good reason. You can't even say that they were trying to piece them together first, before displaying. As I said in my first response, that's a bogus standard. Fragments of text are all we have in many situations; and fragments do go on display.

I hear what you are saying, but we are not talking about individual "fragments" per se. We are talking about manufactured fragments. That is, one whole piece being torn up into smaller ones at the time of discovery. Many of those pieces were not released as fragments because it was known that purchase of the remaining pieces was being negotiated.

[Sauron]

03-03-2003 @ 04:45 PM
Pilgrim:



I hear what you are saying, but we are not talking about individual "fragments" per se. We are talking about manufactured fragments. That is, one whole piece being torn up into smaller ones at the time of discovery. Many of those pieces were not released as fragments because it was known that purchase of the remaining pieces was being negotiated.

I still don't see where the distinction between "natural" and "manufactured" fragments comes in. Fragments are fragments.

Why couldn't the existing "manufactured" fragments have been released for public viewin? And then if the curators succeeded in purchasing the remaining fragments, release those to the public as well, at a later date?

And remember, we weren't even talking about the actual parchment pieces themselves; we're only talking about photographs of those pieces. Your concerns about maintaining the integrity of the various pieces could have been satisfied, while STILL releasing the photographs of the fragments for public viewing.

As far as I can see, there wasn't any reason to withhold information about these inscriptions, so as to be available to the general public.

[Pilgrim]

03-03-2003 @ 09:50 PM
Sauron:



I still don't see where the distinction between "natural" and "manufactured" fragments comes in. Fragments are fragments.

Why couldn't the existing "manufactured" fragments have been released for public viewin? And then if the curators succeeded in purchasing the remaining fragments, release those to the public as well, at a later date?

And remember, we weren't even talking about the actual parchment pieces themselves; we're only talking about photographs of those pieces. Your concerns about maintaining the integrity of the various pieces could have been satisfied, while STILL releasing the photographs of the fragments for public viewing.

As far as I can see, there wasn't any reason to withhold information about these inscriptions, so as to be available to the general public.

You make a very good point. Still, if the pieces are owned by any particular group and they wish to wait to make the piece complete so the meaning of them will be clear, well then I see that as more a question of methodology than of conspiracy or honesty.