
New 'Dead Sea Scrolls' Revealed - kungfudoi
http://www.livescience.com/56428-25-new-dead-sea-scrolls-revealed.html
======
baldfat
I majored in Theology in Undergrad and Graduate School.

This is a common thing that comes up since most of these manuscripts were
gathered by private "archaeologist." If not seen in the light of manuscripts
we have for other ancient text it is easy to forget how significant these
were/are. We don't have any ancient manuscripts with anything close to these.

its awesome just to see them online.

[http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il?locale=en_US](http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il?locale=en_US)

~~~
shot_o_goof
I'm probably reading too much into this, but it looks like the story has been
refined since these were written. The Leviticus claims could be proven false
easily by a small tribe. Everyone does everything right, and you get a 2 year
drought. Is this common, that the orriginal texts were refined to make them
less flimsy?

Or was that the point of Nicene, to create a coherent narrative with that was
a tad more believable at the time?

~~~
teilo
I'm not sure what your point is.

The Qumran scrolls have nothing whatsoever to do with Nicaea. The OT canon was
well established before the Christian era.

As far as canonical issues, the council of Nicaea had nothing to do with
establishing the canon of Scripture as accepted by the 4th century church.
They did publish a list of those books which were already widely recognized in
the church, however, no votes were taken as to what books were or were not to
be counted as part of the NT canon. No decisions regarding the canon, whether
of the Old or the New Testament were made. This is not speculation. We have
the proceedings of the council.

~~~
shot_o_goof
I forgot these were part of the old testament. So who took the hundreads of
accounts and compiled it into a book?

~~~
teilo
There are not "hundreds of accounts" to deal with in the first place.

Regarding the OT: There are specific works, and not that many in all, that
were universally recognized in Judaism as the works of recognized prophets. We
have no records or evidence of any formal process of canonizing these books.
By the time of the inter-testamental period, there was unanimity regarding the
canonicity of these books. Likewise there was unanimity regarding the status
of the Apocrypha: works that were useful for history or piety, but were not
considered to be scripture.

Regarding the NT, the situation is pretty much the same. Works which could
reliably be attributed to an apostle, or one of the close associates of the
apostles, were widely recognized by the early church as scripture.

A few books that were "spoken against," meaning there was not unanimity
regarding their apostolic provenance. These are known as the "antilegomena,"
and were placed into a separate category. They were subordinate to the other
books, and were not used as the primary sources for any particular doctrine,
but were still highly regarded. For the record, the antilegomena are: Hebrews,
2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation.

There are several lists of NT books extant which are largely consistent with
one another, but with some differences. See the Muratorian Fragment for one
such example.

A third category of books were also recognized: books which did not have
apostolic authority, and thus were not considered to be scripture, but were
useful theological treatises and widely disseminated. The "Shepherd of Hermas"
was one such work. The Didache is also often considered to be such a work.

Outside of this, there were many late works which were never considered to be
part of the recognized canon. These are often, and inaccurately, referred to
by modern authors as "lost books of the Bible." However, they were never
"lost", and were known by the early church fathers to be works of late
authorship, and thus lacked apostolic provenance. In other words, they
recognized them as forgeries, and the church never took them seriously.

Regarding any "official" canonization of the books of the Bible, we have no
extant official pronouncements until the Council of Trent in the late 1540s.
Some suspect that the Synod of Hippo Regius made a determination regarding the
canon, but as those proceedings have been lost, it is an open question.
Regardless, all extant evidence demonstrates that the NT canon as we know it
was settled by the mid 2nd century.

~~~
emodendroket
> Likewise there was unanimity regarding the status of the Apocrypha: works
> that were useful for history or piety, but were not considered to be
> scripture.

Was there? I thought this didn't really become a question in Christianity
until Luther.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, it's been an issue since at least Jerome (and certainly before, really),
but it's an issue on which there is disagreement between the Protestant,
Catholic, and Orthodox traditions (and not one on which there were necessarily
definitive authoritative positions, much less unanimity, as early as described
upthread.)

~~~
emodendroket
Well, if nothing else, it certainly seemed anachronistic to have everybody
agreeing on Martin Luther's theology that far back. Thanks for setting me
straight.

~~~
teilo
There is a misconception at work here regarding Luther and the apocrypha. The
question of the apocrypha's canonicity was not a significant point of
discussion during the Reformation, likely because his position was a common
one in the Roman church itself (Occam, for example, was of the same opinion as
Luther on this point). Luther's German Bible included the apocrypha in a
separate section between the Old and New Testaments, describing them as books
that, while not Scripture, were profitable to read. This is very nearly a
translation from the _Glossa ordinaria_ in which Luther was schooled. In fact,
Luther and his fellows regularly quoted from the apocrypha and even preached
from it, without controversy. In this regard, Luther's understanding of the
apocrypha represented the theological training he received prior to his period
as a reformer.

It was not until the Council of Trent that any controversy arose regarding the
apocrypha between the Lutherans and Rome, when Rome formally declared the
apocrypha to be inspired and canonical. For more on this topic, see the
Examination of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent by Martin
Chemnitz.

~~~
dragonwriter
"The apocrypha" has no universally accepted bounds. The works for which your
description is approximately correct are those that the Catholic Church deemed
deuterocanonical, not those it considered apocryphal if useful in the sense
you discuss (e.g., the Clementine apocrypha); both sets of those are within
the ambit of what those following Luther's position consider "apocrypha".

As to the relation to the Jewish canon of the intertestamental period, there
is some ambiguity as to where some "apocrypha" works lie (in which the Dead
Sea Scrolls themselves play a role.) The position you've put forward is common
and goes back to at least Jerome, and holds that the works which were accepted
as the Jewish canon, in the Hebrew form they were found in, at much later
dates than the intertestamental period, accurately reflect the canon of the
earlier period. Which isn't an implausible assumption, and for a long time
there wasn't a concrete reason to suspect any particular variance though there
was very little reason to assume no variance, either.

~~~
teilo
I am not arguing that the apocrypha has a universally accepted bounds. There
is certainly variance regarding what was considered apocryphal, no question.

However, regarding whether the Tanakh in the inter-testamental period, namely
those books that were "laid up" in the temple at Palestine: We have no
evidence or reason to suspect that the canon preserved by the Masoretes, was
in some part different from the Tanakh.

We know of the dispute between Jerome and Augustine, which appears to be due
to ignorance on Augustine's part, who thought the Jews counted the apocryphal
books as part of the Tanakh. He was obviously wrong.

Jerome's opinion was shared by Gregory the Great, and even, somewhat
ironically, by Cardinal Cajetan in Luther's day. Luther simply followed the
best scholarship of his day.

------
buovjaga
The Green collection staff have been criticized for their methods of handling
papyri:
[https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/destroying-m...](https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/destroying-
mummy-masks-since-we-own-its-ok-maybe-not/) They used soap and water to
dissolve mummy masks.

Another interesting story, about FBI investigating Greens:
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/26/exclusive-f...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/26/exclusive-
feds-investigate-hobby-lobby-boss-for-illicit-artifacts.html)

------
SoapSeller
Israeli here, forget what they tell you about the so called "startup nation",
the most amazing (and frankly, the only) thing about being Israeli is that I'm
able to read the text in the images. (And "thanks" to mandatory bible studies
I could more-or-less place them without reading the english description)

~~~
danarmak
What do you mean, what's unique about that? Lots of people can read 2000-year-
old Latin and Greek inscriptions, too. Biblical Hebrew is probably more
similar to modern Hebrew than late-classical Latin is to modern Italian, but
it's not _that_ similar. I don't know about Greek, but someone on Quora says
that "a speaker of modern Greek can usually get the gist of an ancient text,
although trying to translate may often lead to tragic misinterpretations".

I'm an Israeli too, and I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't taken those mandatory
classes, and encountered Biblical Hebrew today for the first time, I wouldn't
really understand it. Back in highschool, we had to use a
commentary/thesaurus/teacher all the time.

~~~
jimmytucson
What is so remarkable about that is the Israelites' language and culture
remains in tact despite repeated conquering and the death of their state over
2500 years ago. Normally, when a state is conquered, they relinquish their
gods and language for their conquerors' but this didn't happen to the
Israelites. In fact, quite the opposite - their culture still thrives and
remains the most influential by far of any other small, ancient near-Eastern
tribe. (Very unfair comparison to a humongous military and financial empire
like Rome or Greece.)

~~~
toyg
"Greece" was never a "humongous military and financial empire". There were
alliances between city-states of various sizes and what, from a distance, can
look like a relatively homogenous culture -- which, in fact, was anything but.

~~~
emodendroket
Isn't that a reasonable description of the Hellenistic states succeeding
Alexander?

------
insulanian
Are these scripts important because of their age or because of the
(disruptive?) content?

~~~
emodendroket
They're important because we only have copies and scholars spend a lot of
energy trying to work from multiple, fragmentary copies of the text and
figuring out exactly what the original said. Any copies, but especially
particularly old ones, are invaluable here, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are older
than the (more complete, and oldest known before they were found) Masorectic
text.

That said, when I say differences it's generally a matter of a few words, not
huge, distinct plots or something.

Sometimes these finds can also include lost, non-canonical texts, but it looks
like not in this case.

~~~
hacknat
The Dead Sea scrolls have versions of Daniel that are significantly different
and rearranged than the Masoretic text. Also there are some very interesting
and pivotal discrepancies in some of the Kings texts.

~~~
emodendroket
I didn't know that. Is there some description of the differences I could read?

~~~
drewcrawford
Most of the textual differences are ironed out in the source language which
are not especially accessible. English bibles are not translated directly from
manuscripts but from one or more "critical texts" which are scholarly
reconstructions of the underlying manuscripts. A common one is Nestle-Aland
[0], you can read it online. The smaller text appearing there are variant
readings that have some degree of manuscript support.

The vast majority of them are terribly boring, by way of example, the very
first one on the page:

> τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου
> λέγοντος ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, [καλέσουσιν τὸ
> ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ] ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον [μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός.]

> All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
> Behold, the virgin in the womb will conceive, and will bear a son, and [they
> will call the name of him Immanuel], which is translated, '[with us God]'

The [bracketed] parts are omitted in some manuscripts. These omissions may
feel significant, but since this is a quotation of well-known saying, the
shorter readings are probably some scribe trying to scrimp on paper who thinks
you should go buy that book if you wanted to know what's in it. This can be
annoying in cases where the book in question didn't make it out to modern
scholarship, and all the scribes scrimped on paper that day, which does
happen.

Less commonly (although not infrequently), a textual problem is significant
enough to bleed all the way through to the end user. This typically happens
when there is no agreement about how to resolve the conflicts or the
possibilities are so strange as to be nonsensical. One amusing example is 1
sam 6:19 [1]. There is overwhelming manuscript support for a reading like
this:

> But the Lord struck down some of the people of Beth Shemesh because they had
> looked into the ark of the Lord; he struck down 50,070 of the men. [NET]

However, in addition to there being a glaring grammar error in the manuscript,
this reading presents a number of obvious problems: logistical (how exactly do
you get 50,070 people to all look into a box?), numerical (this is a
surprisingly exact figure to collect during wartime in enemy territory),
internal (elsewhere in the same book Beth Shemesh is a tiny rural village),
archeological (it really was a tiny rural village).

This problem has lead to various wildly different resolutions over the years,
a small sampler:

> But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy
> of them to death because they looked into the ark of the LORD. The people
> mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them. [NIV]

> God struck down the men of Beth-shemesh because they looked inside the ark
> of the LORD. He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men. The people mourned
> because the LORD struck them with a great slaughter. [HCSB]

> Then God smote those of Bethshemesh because they had looked at the ark of
> the LORD; he smote fifty thousand of the people and seventy principal men.
> And the people lamented because the LORD had smitten the people with such a
> great slaughter. [Jubilee]

> And He smiteth among the men of Beth-Shemesh, for they looked into the ark
> of Jehovah, yea, He smiteth among the people seventy men -- fifty chief men;
> and the people mourn, because Jehovah smote among the people -- a great
> smiting. [YLT]

> Perhaps the text should be understood to read the LORD killed 70 men and 50
> oxen. [NKJ footnote]

[0] [http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/](http://www.nestle-
aland.com/en/read-na28-online/)

[1]
[http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/6-19.htm](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/6-19.htm)

~~~
terabit
Have you considered maybe a few people looked into the ark and the whole
nation was punished as a result? or at least 50,070 of the nation? you are
assuming everyone that was killed looked into the ark. Have you considered
that maybe the fact that the ark symbolized the covenant between God and the
Israelites meant that any disrespect or mistreatment of this ark by any
Israeli would cause disaster on all of Israel?

~~~
furyg3
The point of the grandparent wasn't to outline all possible things that may
have happened (Hell, the whole thing could have been made up). The point is
that original texts may have differed, omitting certain aspects for logistical
or other reasons, that newer versions try to rectify.

------
Shivetya
So there are many sets out there and this few fragments, 13 in all, are
actually going to be tested for authenticity. That is a very good outcome and
one benefit of those who can and desire to collect such artifacts has,
especially when they are willing to turn them over to groups that can properly
discern authenticity.

As to some claiming its merely dealing in stolen artifacts, most of this
concern only arises when profit is to be made or the group claiming ownership
has a strong voice. When does it stop? We argue day in and day out here about
the absurdity of copyright and patents yet rush to defend states declaring
ownership over stuff they know not existed? (its even sillier with sunken
treasures)

~~~
g00gler
Isn't the argument against copyrights very similar, if not the same, to the
argument for the state to own historic artifacts?

I'd argue that the state should own historic artifacts so that they can be
held in common. That way no one individual can claim ownership, retain the
right to destroy it if they wish, and prevent others from viewing/studying it.

Of course the state isn't going to let me or you handle it, but they'll
obviously give access to research institutions and whatnot who will publish
their findings. Hobby Lobby dude might not do the same and as a private owner,
he retains the right not to.

~~~
chc
A state also might not do the same. You might live in a place where the
government would be likely to be generous with its property and encourage
intellectual pursuits, but that isn't inherently any more true of government
officials than it is of "the Hobby Lobby dude."

~~~
g00gler
Good point. I don't think many countries have Freedom of Information Act
requests and whatnot.

------
justinator
_Between 2009 and 2014, Steve Green, the owner of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts
and crafts stores, purchased 13 of the fragments, which he has donated, along
with thousands of other artifacts, to the Museum of the Bible. Green is
helping to fund construction of the museum, scheduled to open in Washington,
D.C., next fall. (A fly-through of the museum can be seen on YouTube)._

I'm more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this,
"museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts
from an individual, to a private company held by that individual.

Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed
its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of
the religious beliefs of the owners.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-
suprem...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-
court-contraception.html?_r=0)

~~~
chinese_dan
"'m more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this,
"museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts
from an individual, to a private company held by that individual."

More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no idea
what I'm talking about"

"Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed
its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of
the religious beliefs of the owners."

Ahhh, so you demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs.

One has nothing to do with the other. You just wanted to post your displeasure
with Hobby Lobby.

~~~
Jedd
> More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no
> idea what I'm talking about"

While I normally side with Orwell's dislike of this kind of linguistic
indirection, it does sound like you're over-reacting to justinator's verbiage.

> "Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that
> disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth
> control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners." > > Ahhh, so you
> demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs.

Cute use of the word demonise there. :)

Is it legal in the USA (where I'm assuming you, and indeed this Hobby Lobby
company are located) to discriminate for health benefits based on religious
views? (Preemptive apologies - not all of us are based in the same place as
other people assume we are, and I'm really not sure what the legislative
arrangement there is.)

~~~
mhurron
> Is it legal in the USA (where I'm assuming you, and indeed this Hobby Lobby
> company are located) to discriminate for health benefits based on religious
> views?

Yes, a privately held company can offer plans that do not meet ACA standards
if the owners object on religious grounds to those options.

