gjgaudia

Can someone suggest some objective sources, i. e., non-christian, of information about the Dead Sea Scrolls? I would like to know more about their authenticity in the eyes of scholars or scientists who are not committed to proving anything.

Toto

Check out Peter Kirby's 2nd and 3rd recommendations in this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=69769

spin

The vast bulk of the scholarship on the scrolls is done by either xian or Jewish scholars, which is understandable -- who else has the requisite scholarly background? The cost of this however, is that when dealing generally with the scrolls we get one of three approaches:

1) the international team who did all the text work and they believe that the scrolls were written by the Essenes who lived Qumran (wrong, but it makes sense);

2) the more hopeful xian approach which is more interested in relating the scrolls to Jesus and other xian foundational figures (Paul, John the B., James the Just -- this last is the idea of a Jewish scholar!);

3) the Jewish approach which reads the scrolls through the light of the rabbis and make the mistake of retrojecting Pharisaic ideas into what was mainstream at the time of the scrolls (without being able to show that it was appropriate), the upshot being that the scrolls are sectarian (ie not pharisaic norm) whatever the extra interpretation (either breakaway Sadducean or Essene or uncommitted).

There are no general books that are going to give it to you straight. The best you can do is get a few texts with diverse positions and try to steer a neutral course. Here are three positions:

1) James VanderKam, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Today", Eerdmans, lightweight and overzealous Essene interpretation;

2) Lawrence Schiffman, "Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls", Doubleday, reclaiming them for pharisaism;

3) Norman Golb, "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?", Scribners, shows the flaws in the mainstream position, has a view of his own that needs to be treated carefully, but not slavishly.

From a critical reading of these works you'll get a certain healthy skepticism for all of them and a fair bit of good background.

The best text of the scrolls is provided by Florentino Garcia Martinez. There are two versions, both published by Eerdmans/Brill,

1) The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated

2) The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 volumes, translated with Tigchelaar, with Hebrew text

Do not use Geza Vermes's translation of the scrolls. He is a strong user of the international team approach and it comes through in his translation and notes.

If you can't go with Martinez, get Wise, Abegg and Cook's translation, published by Harper, which may be the best for a beginner reader of the scrolls, although it does have a vast selection.

The scrolls require careful reading. They are not transparent unless you have a good knowledge of Hebrew bible and intertestamental literature.

Do not go for the nitwit fringe works of Barbara Thiering, nor the conspiracy theorists (name escapes me). The only conspiracy has been to cover up incompetence.

On the subject of authenticity, they are a body of documents from the era, ie the oldest by far biblical and non-biblical texts ever found. They are the greatest religious find of the 20th century, a century which also feature the Nag Hammadi texts and those found at Oxyrhynchus and Tebtunis.

They are of great significance.


spin

gjgaudia

Since I not only don't know anything about who wrote the dead sea scrolls, I also am not sure who graciously took the time to respond to my inquiry. But to Toto, DM and Spin, thank you so much for the plethora of information to my (almost) casual question. I had been reading Dennis Mckinsey's "Biblical Errancy" and wanted to know more about where these documants fit into the grand scheme of the present Bible. I will pursue some of your leads.
I wonder if you can appreciate how difficult it is for someone with little experience with computers, web sites, chat rooms and other methods of on line communication to negotiate these windows. The best I can do is to send an occasional email, and find stuff on "Google". I'm not even sure you'll receive this!
Thanks again,
Gil Gaudia
Hobe Sound, Florida

spin

Here's a good general introductory note on the Dead Sea Scrolls by a highly reputed scholar, Daniel Harrington.


spin

gjgaudia

I am attempting to reply to SPIN, but have litle faith in my ability to "click" on the right spot.

Spin, this is exactly what I was seeking--a sort of capsule discussion of a complex and controversial subject. Since Harrington is a New Testament scholar, does that mean his view could not be as objective as, let's say an archeologist or historian who was not connected to any religious tradition? Are there such experts? Compared to evolution vs. creationism as a controversy--are we dealing with the same difficulty of saying "He is not a real scientist" as we say of advocates of Intelligent Design" Are there atheist Bible scholars?

spin

Harrington's article seems to me to be an honest attempt to deal with the facts as best as he can with the data available. He does not commit himself to a particular position, indicating that it is too unclear. Nevertheless, he has written some good specialist material on the scrolls. He may be a nt scholar but his scrolls work seems to be Wisdom aspects. There are a number of xian scholars working on the scrolls who try to work first with the data and not a priori ideas. The major problem is that they don't usually publish basic works in the field.

Works aimed at a wide audience tend to reflect the most conservative or the most sensationalist aspects of the subject. The conservative approach is the set of opinions worked out over forty years ago by the international team of scholars who reconstructed the scrolls. Their goal beside unscrambling the scrolls was to do the work in "harmony" so as to be able to put forward ideas which were acceptible to all of them. Dissent was not a viable approach to the scrolls and the one major dissenting scholar was ostracized. Sensationalist approaches do the usual conspiracy thing or put forward dramatically weird ideas aiming for the wow response.

There are some good things being written about the scrolls in the specialist field, but unfortunately they are not readily available or accessible to the casual reader.


spin

gjgaudia

So, do you believe that the finding, study and analysis of the scrolls strengthens arguments for the biblicists' position that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

Doctor X

Welcome to the forums!

Mind the hounds. . . .

Spin gives a far better overview than I ever could--in fact, I will "steal" his references! However, on whether or not the Scrolls support "inerrancy" is really not relevant. The scrolls that have biblical texts can be used in textual criticism to support or reject variant readings. Fortress Press has guides to scholarship which are good--goeth to Amazon and searcheth. One of them, which is very technical but accessible, demonstrates this process.

However, it is all irrelevant because the biblical texts contradict on another, and the stories are mythic. A "best version" of a myth remains a myth!

--J.D.

gjgaudia

Hi J.D.
What you say about myths is true. My purpose in all of this talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible is that I have lost good friends and a few relatives over my militant atheism. They want to save me, and we have argued hotly over their beliefs and my lack of them. I am (even at my age of 74) unable to just walk away from the fight, especially after reading Dennison's "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy". I feel that I want to be more well-informed in order to "hoist them on their own petars." Hence my inquiry about the scholarly status of these alleged evidences of Christianity's validity.