maklelan Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 See here. Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit will visit the Leonardo in Salt Lake City in November. Twenty scrolls and hundreds of other artifacts will be on display.
Tacenda Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 It looks like two of us is excited to see this! I'm not naming anyone but it wasn't too long ago that some people didn't think they were all that significant. Looks like they are!
CASteinman Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 It looks like two of us is excited to see this! I'm not naming anyone but it wasn't too long ago that some people didn't think they were all that significant. Looks like they are! Came to this thread just to read your post. As you know.. I like your posts. But I am curious -- in what new way are they being considered significant? I confess -- I find them boring and wondered what the interest was.
volgadon Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 It looks like two of us is excited to see this! I'm not naming anyone but it wasn't too long ago that some people didn't think they were all that significant. Looks like they are! The DSS are hi9ghly significant, but they are not autographs of the Bible, as you seem to be saying.
volgadon Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 Vol and CA, to each their own.I understand the sentiment, but unless you want to claim that the Bible is a lot more recent than was thought, we are talking indisputable facts. The dating is pretty solid.BTW, I think you would like the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, it brings together in an English translation all the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran, and the prefaces make it easy to use and understand. The paperback isn't terribly expensive, either. 1
Ron Beron Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 I was able to see them when they came to SoCal. Everyone should see them. 1
MormonMason Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 And, the Dead Sea Scrolls makes crystal clear that at least a few passages in later manuscripts of the Bible have been modified for political and for theological reasons. Several passages get rid of the gods in Deuteronomy and change Gerizim to Ebal (think Jews vs. Samaritans and their competing claims). Jeremiah was once over 12% shorter than our current text, as the Dead Sea Scrolls also show. Some books of the Bible had a differing chapter order, too. In the case of the books of Samuel, the older texts were longer. They are most significant and should be studied by everyone who can. 3
Tacenda Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 I understand the sentiment, but unless you want to claim that the Bible is a lot more recent than was thought, we are talking indisputable facts. The dating is pretty solid.BTW, I think you would like the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, it brings together in an English translation all the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran, and the prefaces make it easy to use and understand. The paperback isn't terribly expensive, either.I'll check Amazon. Thank you! 1
sheilauk Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 I think it's great that they are exhibiting the DSS and I would go to see them if I was in Utah. It's not just the significance in relation to the OT/Hebrew Bible but the chance to see something so old and connect with the people who were alive then and wrote them and used them. The story of their survival and finding is also amazing. Imagine being the person that wrote them, or read them, or hid them. How did it feel? And they are so fragile, why/how did they survive? (I know the desert is dry but its still pretty incredible). That's the sort of thing I think about when I view old bits and pieces. It's a little bit of history that can be seen close up and personal. But then, I love visiting museums and looking at the artifacts etc and I love old books so I would love to see the artifacts as well. On top of that, they show how the Hebrew Bible was changing for centuries, plus an insight into how people lived and what they thought then - a bit like a glimpse at a fragmented news broadcast! They don't prove the Bible (they sort of help show that the Bible is not the infallible word of God), but that's interesting of itself. Definitely makes them worth studying and going to see - how could you not be excited to go see them! Hopefully, they will be on show one day at the British Museum and I will be able to make that trip! 1
Antoni Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 They are certainly an important find. The copper scroll is also important from LDS point of view - ancient Jews did engrave texts on metal The above mentioned finds are useful to know. I've not looked at them since my bible college days - will dust off my old paperback of them this weekend 1
theplains Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 And, the Dead Sea Scrolls makes crystal clear that at least a few passages in later manuscripts of the Bible have been modified for political and for theological reasons.One could say that if the Dead Sea Scrolls are more authoritative than what we have intoday's Bible.Jim
theplains Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 They don't prove the Bible (they sort of help show that the Bible is not the infallible word of God),See my comment #12 to MormonMason.Thanks,Jim
sethpayne Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 But I am curious -- in what new way are they being considered significant? I confess -- I find them boring and wondered what the interest was.IMO, the most interesting thing about the DSS is the Book of Isaiah. While differences exist between the DSS and the MT, the remarkable thing is how similar they are; being separated by nearly 1000 years.Also, insight into the Essene community *may* help us better understand John the Baptist. 2
volgadon Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 One could say that if the Dead Sea Scrolls are more authoritative than what we have intoday's Bible.JimEven if you hold that the current form is more authoritative, you still must explain why the change was made and by whom, if the earlier copies are different. 1
MormonMason Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) One could say that if the Dead Sea Scrolls are more authoritative than what we have intoday's Bible.JimWhen scholars studied the Septuagint, some often came to the conclusion that the wording of the Hebrew as translated into the Septuagint was modified by the translators. Others came to the conclusion that the Septuagint preserved older readings of the Bible texts. Then, they found the Dead Sea Scrolls and study of these texts changed things forever. It turned out that the Septuagint had the support of actual Hebrew texts found among the Scrolls in numerous places.So, yes, most biblical scholars now believe these older readings more authoritative. This is why more and more Bibles are now including readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls in the translations, such as is the case with several passages in the NRSV, the NAB (Catholic), and others. Yet more of these kinds of readings will be included in newer editions of these Bibles, and others, over time. Edited April 22, 2013 by MormonMason 1
MormonMason Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 IMO, the most interesting thing about the DSS is the Book of Isaiah. While differences exist between the DSS and the MT, the remarkable thing is how similar they are; being separated by nearly 1000 years....The differences are more frequent than some writers have let on to the public, and some lend themselves favorably to comparison to a few Book of Mormon readings in Isaiah. Of course, the vocabulary of the Book of Isaiah shows that the latter half of the text has been heavily tainted with post-exile vocabulary very early on, even before the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Post-exile vocabulary would have been an added feature over a hundred years after Isaiah originally penned the text.That said, there have been even more modifications and there are more substantive differences in other books of the Bible than is the case with Isaiah among the Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls have fragments of Jeremiah that match more closely to the Septuagint than to MT, which Septuagint version of Jeremiah is over 12% shorter than the current MT. Joshua had a different chapter order. Deuteronomy made mentions of gods commanded to worship God, as well as nations being divided according to the number of the gods with Yahweh receiving an allotted portion from the Most High, that the MT omits and modifies.The older Bible also laid claim to Gerizim as the mount on which Joshua built his altar. The MT changed that to Ebal. The Samuel fragments give evidence of a longer, more coherent text of Samuel than that now found in our current MT. 1
bananaboy Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 I wish to submit the following paper for your review. Its focus is on the Native American view of the Book of Mormon in how it relates to the LDS church beliefs and practices. It also contains some interesting information on the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly document 4Q266, known as MMT, and the reason the scrolls are creating a huge controversy today, so much so that the Catholic church suppressed them for decades.https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=0ade965d64fdb349&page=view&resid=ADE965D64FDB349%21115&parid=ADE965D64FDB349%21105&authkey=%21AtQLuMXoC8__NLo&Bpub=SDX.SkyDrive&Bsrc=Share
Garden Girl Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 About eight years ago, I was attending Education Week at BYU- Provo and was fortunate to be there at a time when they had a wonderful exhibit of the DSS and other artifacts in the Museum of Art... this was one of the first times Israel had allowed the DSS to "travel" and great precautions had been taken because there were several authentic fragments included in the exhibit (it was very unusual at that time and we were told about the agreement reached between the Church and the Israli Dept of Antiquities allowing them to come to BYU, based on the high regard for the Church's dealings in regard to Jerusalem Center and a recent Mo Tab Choir tour of Israel). The exhibit came to BYU from New York. The other pieces, including the 26' Isaiah scroll were copies made to be exact replicas of the original scrolls. I felt it was a privilege to see such a historical exhibit.GG 2
nosmelone Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 I wish to submit the following paper for your review. Its focus is on the Native American view of the Book of Mormon in how it relates to the LDS church beliefs and practices. It also contains some interesting information on the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly document 4Q266, known as MMT, and the reason the scrolls are creating a huge controversy today, so much so that the Catholic church suppressed them for decades.https://skydrive.liv...rive&Bsrc=ShareI couldn't get the link to work...any suggestions on how to obtain your document?
MormonMason Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 (edited) I wish to submit the following paper for your review. Its focus is on the Native American view of the Book of Mormon in how it relates to the LDS church beliefs and practices. It also contains some interesting information on the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly document 4Q266, known as MMT, and the reason the scrolls are creating a huge controversy today, so much so that the Catholic church suppressed them for decades.https://skydrive.liv...rive&Bsrc=ShareSeveral premises in the paper are faulty and mistaken. The Bible does not have the consistent view that you maintain that it does. The current Bible gets rid of passages that mention the Gods by means of scribes altering the text (demonstrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls) and translating them away in English translations. An example of translators translating away the gods can be seen in the Hebrew of Genesis 20:13. Notice the plural verb?Yet, even in various of the English Bibles, sometimes there are glimpses that often are missed by readers. For instance, see Hebrews 1. It contains a quote from a Psalm. It says "Thy throne, O God, is forever...." But, notice what it says not far afterward about that God. It states "Therefore God, even thy God, has anointed thee...." So, someone identified as "O God" is said to be anointed by his God.Jesus, who is identified in English translations as God in John 1:1 (the Greek of the passage does not actually identify anyone but describes the nature of the Logos--but that is another point for later discussion), several times states things about the name and temple of his God in the third chapter of the Book of Revelation, just as he did in the Gospel of John. Several passages in the Bible also speak of the Father being the God of the Lord Jesus Christ. It carries the same meaning to the phrase "the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."One must be careful when proof-texting from the Bible, particularly when there are other passages that are clear about the meaning of the word "one" in passages discussing multiple individuals.I suggest a careful re-read of the scriptures, consultation with the original language texts of the Bible (after learning how to read them), and a careful re-write of your paper.I also would suggest jettisoning Eisenman's gobbledygook on Paul and the New Testament in relation to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls he references have been carbon dated and also dated paleographically to before the time of Christ, and have zero reference to Christ, to Paul, or to the New Testament period. By the way, MMT is not an excommunication text of Paul, or of anyone else, but rather a listing of certain things that one must do under the Law of Moses to be saved. 4Q266 is also part of what is known as the Damascus Document. 4QMMT is the actual name of the document you falsely claim to reference, being comprised of 4Q394-399. Edited April 23, 2013 by MormonMason
CASteinman Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 IMO, the most interesting thing about the DSS is the Book of Isaiah. While differences exist between the DSS and the MT, the remarkable thing is how similar they are; being separated by nearly 1000 years.Also, insight into the Essene community *may* help us better understand John the Baptist.I don't think John the Baptist is Essene. And while it is important to biblical scholars to have the earlier text, the fact (which you describe) that the text so closely matches what we have from "later" sources simply means to me that we have not learned much new in terms of the Word of God. That is what I meant when I said that I don't really see how they are all that significant. I grant that they are important as a source text though.
volgadon Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 I don't think John the Baptist is Essene.http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-baptist-and-essenes.html 1
sethpayne Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 I don't think John the Baptist is Essene. Volgodon knows this subject much better than I could ever hope to so I'll defer to him.As a side note, I think the relatively recent discovery of the Mandean people/religion in Iraq is incredible. I hope that their diaspora, caused by the Iraq War, will not make them extinct. True descendants of those who never relinquished John the Baptist as prophet. Remarkable. 1
volgadon Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Volgodon knows this subject much better than I could ever hope to so I'll defer to him.As a side note, I think the relatively recent discovery of the Mandean people/religion in Iraq is incredible. I hope that their diaspora, caused by the Iraq War, will not make them extinct. True descendants of those who never relinquished John the Baptist as prophet. Remarkable.I don't think that he remained Essene, but he was obviously deeply influenced by their teachings and mode of life.Mandeans are fascinating, if you want, I'll find the link to the PDF of Lady Drower's classic work. 1
Recommended Posts