What's the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

[Underseer]

According to the Wikipedia article, the Dead Sea Scrolls could have dates ranging from 400BCE to 300CE, yet most Bible scholars seem to peg it as a second century document. Is there a reason to take the second century number more seriously than any of the other claims?

 

[Minimalist]

I wouldn't make Wiki my first choice for info.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html

Today scholarly opinion regarding the time span and background of the Dead Sea Scrolls is anchored in historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, corroborated firmly by carbon 14-datings. Some manuscripts were written and copied in the third century B.C.E., but the bulk of the material, particularly the texts that reflect on a sectarian community, are originals or copies from the first century B.C.E.; a number of texts date from as late as the years preceding the destruction of the site in 68 C.E. at the hands of the Roman legions.

 

[Underseer]

I wouldn't make Wiki my first choice for info.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html

Today scholarly opinion regarding the time span and background of the Dead Sea Scrolls is anchored in historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, corroborated firmly by carbon 14-datings. Some manuscripts were written and copied in the third century B.C.E., but the bulk of the material, particularly the texts that reflect on a sectarian community, are originals or copies from the first century B.C.E.; a number of texts date from as late as the years preceding the destruction of the site in 68 C.E. at the hands of the Roman legions.

I'm more than willing to accept that Wikipedia is a bad source, but you want me to take "Jewish Virtual Library" over Wikipedia?

 

[outhouse]

According to the Wikipedia article, the Dead Sea Scrolls could have dates ranging from 400BCE to 300CE,

Did you read the whole article?

Analysis of letter forms, or palaeography, was applied to the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls by a variety of scholars in the field. Major linguistic analysis by Cross and Avigad dates fragments from 225 BCE to 50 CE

The same fragments were later analyzed using radiocarbon dating and were dated to an estimated range of 385 BCE to 82 CE with a 68% accuracy rate

yet most Bible scholars seem to peg it as a second century document

Sources please.

. Is there a reason to take the second century number more seriously than any of the other claims?

NO.

Wiki covers it pretty well and gives an unbiased opinion covers all areas.

Some of these scripts are early and some are late.

 

[Underseer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The above seems to directly contradict this part:

The same fragments were later analyzed using radiocarbon dating and were dated to an estimated range of 385 BCE to 82 CE with a 68% accuracy rate

So the first set of dates conflicts with the Wikipedia article on carbon dating, while the second set of dates comes from two particular scholars. Is their work representative of the consensus opinion?

 

[outhouse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The above seems to directly contradict this part:

The same fragments were later analyzed using radiocarbon dating and were dated to an estimated range of 385 BCE to 82 CE with a 68% accuracy rate

So the first set of dates conflicts with the Wikipedia article on carbon dating, while the second set of dates comes from two particular scholars. Is their work representative of the consensus opinion?

I understand the top part is vague, and really it should be changed.



You have to read it in context, and make your judegement after finishing.


Lower in the article it gives the dates attributed to the many different books.

 

[Minimalist]

I'm more than willing to accept that Wikipedia is a bad source, but you want me to take "Jewish Virtual Library" over Wikipedia?

Yeah. I particularly love it when jesus freaks take jewish writings and tell jews how to interpret them.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm more than willing to accept that Wikipedia is a bad source, but you want me to take "Jewish Virtual Library" over Wikipedia?

Yeah. I particularly love it when jesus freaks take jewish writings and tell jews how to interpret them.

Well, why shouldn't they? If they're using publically available information to make their interpretations, why would being Christian, Muslim, atheist, Shinto or anything else lead to somehow a worse interpretation of Jewish writings than a Jewish person would be able to give?

 

[Minimalist]

Because they deliberately screw it up.

Call it a "vested interest."

http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53JP.pdf

The only exception is the Fourth Servant Song , commonly referred to as " Isaiah 53 ", where the Sages all agree that the servant is the righteous remnant of Israel, and henceforth referred to as
Israel . Consequently, from the perspective of Judaism, " Isaiah 53" is not a passage about מָ שִׁ יחַ (maSHI'ah), the promised King/Messiah , of Judaism, in its plain reading ( PSHAT).

By contrast, most Christians, including the Christian missionaries, consider the Fourth Servant Song to be one of the most important so-called “proof texts” in the Christian messianic vision. With its many references to "Isaiah 53", the New Testament provides for believing Christians a record of the fulfillment of the prophecy of a suffering and dying Messiah and his eventual return, triumph, and glory.

 

[Underseer]

I'm not familiar with the Bible. Out of that long list of books, which are NT, and which are OT?

 

[Sarpedon]

There's no reason to think that the deliberate Christian misinterpretations are any less correct than the deliberate Jewish misinterpretations. The fact is that not even the most 'conservative' of sects practice their religion in the same way as was done thousands of years ago. Current practice, 'orthodox' or not, are all modern responses to modern conditions. Misinterpretation is absolutely essential to religion.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Misinterpretation is absolutely essential to religion.

For the first time in a decade my Christian family members finally roped me into attending one of their old time 'Revival Meetings' this last week.
That ranting and raving sweating Pentecostal preacher did manage to get at least one thing right, and gave me a quiet chuckle;

"They change the words ahh!!! And I tell you brothers and sisters, when they change the words it changes the meanings ahh!!!"

I about became a 'Holy Roller', rolling around on the floor myself, upon hearing that one from that source, as being intimately familiar with the actual Hebrew texts, I am very aware of how many 'words' and verses Christian "interpreters" and "translators" themselves changed to create their HELLenized rip-off religion, ....as well as the ridiculous spin doctoring "translating" of ancient Hebrew terms presently employed by these YEC cultists.
Que sera, sera, but will never make into right what is wrong, or truth out of their religious errors and lies.

Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

 

[Minimalist]

Misinterpretation is absolutely essential to religion.

Temple judaism ended when the temple burned to the ground. They have reinvented themselves out of necessity but there is no reason to think that the cherry-picking activities of xtians are in any way superior to jewish scholarship on their own books.

 

[spin]

As a good indicator for the date of the Dead Sea Scrolls, working from the C14 datings and eliminating one text which was tested twice and gave different datings (obviously contaminated), only one scroll needed to be dated after the turn of the era, the Psalms Pesher (4Q171) from cave 4. This text was edited by John Allegro, who reported cleaning his scrolls, back before carbondating took off, with castor oil, a contaminant containing new carbon which would have forced dates later than uncontaminated samples. The locus of the scrolls is before the turn of the era and we can see 4Q171 as not only an outlier, but also a probable contaminated source.

This was a real piss off for Robert Eisenman who so wanted James to be the righteous teacher. Too bad. Crash goes his theory.

C14 datings can be found in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, ed VanderKam & Flint, volume 1, Brill 1998, 468-471.

 

[Dutch_labrat]

I'm more than willing to accept that Wikipedia is a bad source, but you want me to take "Jewish Virtual Library" over Wikipedia?

Yeah. I particularly love it when jesus freaks take jewish writings and tell jews how to interpret them.

[YOUTUBE]http://youtu.be/LGrlWOhtj3g[/YOUTUBE] "There are Jews that walk among you."

 

[Sarpedon]

Temple judaism ended when the temple burned to the ground. They have reinvented themselves out of necessity but there is no reason to think that the cherry-picking activities of xtians are in any way superior to jewish scholarship on their own books.

I think the belief that an ancient set of books belongs to a certain group is faulty. Modern Jews are every bit as remote from the origins of these books as modern Christians. Both are interpreting the books according to their preconceptions. That Christian belief has diverged more notably from the source than the Jewish doesn't necessarily mean that it is 'wrong' or that it is not equally a successor to the originals.

The alternative belief is to think that someone is magically more competent to understand certain concepts because of their lineage. That is both silly and racist, and I will have none of it.

These books, as well as others, form the foundation of the western cultural tradition. Who can say where the influence of one set of books stops and starts? Who can say that one group is influenced by another, while return influence is not felt? There can be no true distinctions, except arbitrary ones.

 

[Underseer]

Temple judaism ended when the temple burned to the ground. They have reinvented themselves out of necessity but there is no reason to think that the cherry-picking activities of xtians are in any way superior to jewish scholarship on their own books.

I think the belief that an ancient set of books belongs to a certain group is faulty. Modern Jews are every bit as remote from the origins of these books as modern Christians. Both are interpreting the books according to their preconceptions. That Christian belief has diverged more notably from the source than the Jewish doesn't necessarily mean that it is 'wrong' or that it is not equally a successor to the originals.

The alternative belief is to think that someone is magically more competent to understand certain concepts because of their lineage. That is both silly and racist, and I will have none of it.

These books, as well as others, form the foundation of the western cultural tradition. Who can say where the influence of one set of books stops and starts? Who can say that one group is influenced by another, while return influence is not felt? There can be no true distinctions, except arbitrary ones.

Yes, but as was pointed out before, Christians have a vested interest in misrepresenting or even lying about the contents of those texts. Obviously, the Jews also have motive, but they're not hindered by certain bizarre conclusions that have to be produced by the interpretation.

 

[BH]

In what ways do the Jews deceive with erroneous translations? I would say that even with a English translation you can see half of the supposed proof texts from the "Old Testament" proving Jesus a Messiah will fall apart once you see the correct context.

I suspect there is a lot of covering up and bad translating of Genesis 1 for instance, whether by Jews of Christians, to cover up the erroneous cosmology.

 

[Minimalist]

I love Lewis Black, Dutch!

 

[Sarpedon]

Obviously, the Jews also have motive, but they're not hindered by certain bizarre conclusions that have to be produced by the interpretation.

Oh? Just think about your statement.

Anyone who bothers to come up with an interpretation of a holy book has a conclusion they want to produce. Whether that conclusion is pre-dictated by dogma or something they are making up to get in the pants of the sweet thing in the middle pew is neither here nor there.