|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Dead Sea Scrolls | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Boston Inactive Member |
Will someone please explain to me the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls, including their significance and original date they were written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Just like the "Big Bang...How Did it Happen?" topic, this is the sort of topic/question where responders are justified in refering you to books or websites.
I haven't followed that "Big Bang..." topic very closely, but I suspect that it ISN'T the topic to model this one after (but I might be wrong). Anyway, if you want a discussion, you're going to have to come up with some more specific comments and/or questions. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hi Boston,
As one of our venerable leaders (above) has mentioned, it is difficult to provide comprehensive answers to such open-ended questions. The information you have requested here can and has filled volumes. However, very briefly , (and this is just off the top of my head, so I hope other posters will correct any errors), the dead sea scrolls were found (IIRC, back around the 1940's) in a place called Qhirbet Qumran, it is located east of Jerusalem near (big surprise) the dead sea. The scrolls were hidden or stored away in various caves throughout this area. It was originally thought that they were placed there by a religious sect called the Essenes (who from various descriptions in other writings, Josephus etc.) were thought to have a settlement in this area. This contention has since been brought into dispute and it is still uncertain just who the scroll authors were. IIRC, the majority of the scrolls were written on parchment (cured & cleaned animal hides) and are thought to have been written over a period of time ranging from roughly , the early 1st century B.C. to c. 50 A.D. With the exception of a very few more complete pieces (the Isaiah scroll, for instance), the majority of the scrolls exist in small pieces (fragments) and it has been a long and painstaking process to reassemble these pieces into their component parts in order to reproduce any large portions of the original writings. Most of these writings are in some form of the Hebrew language, but there are a few fragments written in Greek. Fragments of virtually all of the books of the Hebrew bible (IIRC, the book of Esther and perhaps one other, Ruth?, are not included) have been found in these caves, though in many cases there are only a few fragments so that we only have a few lines out of the entire book. Of the biblical books that we have been able to more completely assemble, some are extremely similar to the text of the HB (Hebrew bible) that we have today. Others have parts and verses that are not found in our modern bible or, conversely, lack certain phrases and verses that only appear in our later texts. Some agree (in wording) more closely with a Greek translation of the bible called the septuagint(LXX), which, (while we don't have any of the first copies), is thought to have been translated around 300 - 250 B.C. Note: this date is actually only assigned to the first 5 books of the bible (called the pentateuch or torah) while the remaining books are thought to have been translated over later periods. In addition to the books of the bible, many of the scroll writings are extra-biblical writings which resemble (or, in some cases, are attributed to) biblical personages; these are called "pseudo-" writings (for instance a writing which resembled or was attributed to Isaiah, but is not found in the modern bible (canon) would be called "pseudo-Isaiah". Further, some of the scrolls are "commentaries" on the biblical books. In some cases these commentaries interpret the passages of the HB in such a way as to see them as prophetic references and instructions pertaining to the very time and circumstances in which the scroll authors lived (this type of interpretation is called either "exegesis" {reading out of} of eisegesis {reading into}). Further still, many of the scrolls are writings completely different than any of the books of the bible. They are extremely interesting to read and reveal to us that the authors of these texts referred to themselves as the "sons of light" and that they were convinced that they were in a struggle against the "sons of darkness" and that they would soon be involved in an eschatological (or end times) war in which, with divine assistance, they would be victorious. The significance of the scrolls covers many areas. For one, they provide us with insight into the type and style of writing that was contemporary to the period (paleography). For another, they are the earliest actual existing (or extant) writings of the bible. As such they provide us with a great deal of information regarding any changes that may have been made to these books over time. They also provide us with a great deal of insight into the cultural, political and religious (especially messianic) situation and expectations affecting the Jewish people in the period immediately preceding the alleged events recorded in the NT (new testament). Also, if it wasn't made clear earlier, there are (as far as we know) no NT writings found in the scroll collection. It has been asserted that a small fragment catalogued as "7Q5" is a piece of the gospel of Mark. There are only about 20 letters (at most) on this fragment and only about 10 of them are positively indentifiable. These 10 exist in 4 or 5 portions of preserved lines (with a few letters in each line). I have looked fairly closely at facsimiles of this fragment and have read the arguments from both sides and my (less than expert) opinion is that this contention is a long way from conclusive. If this fragment is indeed a small piece from the Markan gospel, then this would mean that Mark could have been written as early as 50 A.D. However, as this dating is not exact, it could also simply mean that Mark was written in, say, the 60's A.D., a date which would not necessarily be highly disputed for some original form of Mark already. One of the major obstacles to this being a fragment of Mark (to my thinking) is that the overall doctrine (interpretation and exegesis of the bible books) in the other scrolls found in the caves around Qumran is completely at odds with the doctrine presented in Mark (or any of the NT writings for that matter). As mentioned, this is simply a brief overview (and straight off the cuff, so I hope other posters will correct any errors). Still, I hope that it provides you with some of the information you were looking for. As was also suggested to you, if you do a google search, you will not only find quite a bit of information on the web, but even better, you will be informed about available books and publications that deal with the subject in a more indepth and scholarly manner. Namaste' Amlodhi [This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 03-14-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Raha Inactive Member |
Hi, I was not here for some time - other things kept me busy - but I did not forgot :-)
Well, yes - according to my knowledge, it is not confirmed that those people were Essenes - the name is not mentioned anywhere in the scrolls. Also there is some discrepancy between Josephus' and Philo's description of Essenes and what we know about the "Dead sea sect".For instance Philo writes that Essenes lived in every major city, while "Dead sea sect" appear to be rather closed, monastery-like community. According to Philo, Essenes where healers and did not make or buy any arms. If I have proper information, there where arms found in Qumran. It is true, that the prevalent theory is that those people were Essenes, but I've also read one that they were Zealots. [This message has been edited by Raha, 03-27-2004] [This message has been edited by Raha, 03-27-2004] Life has no meaning but itself. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You've gotten some good stuff already.
I had a link to an online site with jpegs of all the fragments but have lost it. This one: Exhibit at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC may get you started. This is a travelling exhibit that I got to see in Michigan (Grand Rapids I think) that had a lot of information. Enjoy the quest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6264 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Amlodhi summarized the situation rather well. I would add the following ...
First, I think the date range should be extended back a bit. e.g.,
quote: Secondly, I would (re)emphasize that the DSS are not Qumran documents per say. The Biblical texts reflect no sectarian tendencies but, rather, a pluriformity of variants. Perhaps one of he more important conclusions derived from DSS study involves the legitimacy of the LXX vorlage (i.e., the hypotheitical Hebrew source of the Greek LXX) as a well attested variant. [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 03-27-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Specter Inactive Member |
Is there any way I can get an online copy of the Hebrew Bible with translations into perfect English?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sono stato generato Inactive Member |
Why do you want one, Robin? You are starting to get on my nerves. I suggest you quit it. Avoid me at all costs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Your post added nothing to the discussions. If you and Spector bring your little feud here you will both be banished.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sono stato generato Inactive Member |
I know this. And I will try not to let this get in the way again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4019 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Contrary to Roland de Vaux`s elaborate supposition (scriptorium,refectory,purifying cisterns,etc.) I think the consensus now is that the settlement of Khirbet Qumran bears no relationship to the caves and contents. Wise, Abegg, Cook (The Dead Sea Scrolls) do a good summary of present thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Is there any way I can get an online copy of the Hebrew Bible glad to oblige. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm that's the masoretic text, side by side with the 1917 jps translation into english. please note that this is NOT the original hebrew text, or even the version that was translated into the septuagint. it's about 500 years NEWER, dating to 200-300 ad. however, it includes vowels, spaces, line breaks, and numbering not in the originals, and is in (i think) modern hebrew. it's also fairly faithful to the dead sea scrolls, and the septuagint, with only slight modifications.
with translations into perfect English? no such thing. it's all subjective. english is a constantly changing language. and there are several very fundamental questions. do we correctly translate the ideas of the text, idiomatically? or do we render it word-for-word literally, which can lead to confusion over outdated figures of speech from another language? personally, i prefer the newer jps renderings (1944 or so). it's an idiomatic text, and very, very easy to read. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 06-02-2005 12:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6264 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
quote:Nor, I would guess, is the problem solely one of selecting a correct rendering of a perfectly understood 'original'. Where do we find experts on 7th century BCE idiom and vernacular?quote:no such thing. it's all subjective. english is a constantly changing language. and there are several very fundamental questions. do we correctly translate the ideas of the text, idiomatically? or do we render it word-for-word literally, which can lead to confusion over outdated figures of speech from another language? What, for example, is meant be the last sentence of Exodus 12:11 ... And this is how you are to eat itdressed to travel, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. You are to eat it in haste. It is the Passover of the Lord. Those at bible.org, whose translation is shown above, note:
quote:Unless, of course, it's not. Perhaps it refers to YHWH hovering over (protecting) the faithful as per Isaiah. This is, in fact, the connotation preferred by Friedman. Then, of course, there is my less than erudite preference ... It is the harvest of the Lord. bringing to mind an image of the Grim Reaper harvesting the firstborn. We don't have access to 'the source', and we can, at best, make educated guesses as to the culture that evolved one. There is no "perfect english" translation because, in part, there can be no perfect understanding of an oral tradition which has been refined by repeated redaction and harmonization. This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 06-02-2005 10:39 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
also very true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024