Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls/Archive 1

Conspiracy Theory

From the article:

• Vatican conspiracy theory

Allegations that the Vatican suppressed the publication of the scrolls were published in the 1990s. Notably, Michael Baigent's and Richard Leigh's book The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception claim that several key scrolls were deliberately kept under wraps for decades to suppress unwelcome theories about the early history of Christianity; in particular, Eisenman's speculation that the life of Jesus was deliberately mythicized by Paul, possibly a Roman agent who faked his "conversion" from Saul in order to undermine the influence of anti-Roman messianic cults in the region. The complete publication and dissemination of translations and photographic records of the works in the late 1990s and early 2000s - particularly the publication of all of the "biblical" scrolls - has greatly increased the credibility of their argument among mainstream scholarship. Today most scholars, both secular and religious, feel the documents are distinctly Jewish in origin, connecting them to early Christianity.

Okay now, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are NOT scholars. These are the guys who wrote Holy Blood Holy Grail, the Jesus Papers and the Messianic Legacy, basically conspiracy theories which have since been exploded. I would think the publishing of the Dead Sea Scrolls would have WEAKENED (not "strengthened") their argument (that the Vatican was purposely hindering the DSS publication because the DSS contained information devastating to Christianity). The DSS don't seem to be about Christianity at all (they only "connection" being they are about 2nd Temple Judaism, out of which Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism would emerge). Barbara Theiring and Robert Eisennman (sp?) are considered fringe scholars now in their understanding (Theiring much more so). How to phrase that diplomatically without being misleading? If the documents are "distinctly Jewish in origin" how does that automatically connect them to early Christianity? The article is unclear.

"If the documents are "distinctly Jewish in origin" how does that automatically connect them to early Christianity?" This is a very simple question to answer... Christianity is a sect of the Jewish faith. the original Christians were Jewish people who believed Jesus was the Messiah spoken of by the early Jews. Jews and Christians read all the same religious text but Jews don't read about Jesus (the new testament). therefor anything to do with early Jewish religion or the "Jewish God of isriel" would mean it holds value to Christianity and speaks about the God they believe in and the people (Jews) they believe to be the chosen ones.~~Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.25.98 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume that this alleged suppression was to have occurred at some time since 1947, not 2,000 years ago. To argue that they were written 2,000 years ago, and yet had nothing at all to do with early Christianity is hard to believe, and as you point out in your first paragraph, "most scholars" don't. There can be little doubt that those who had early access to the scrolls were a small, privileged group who delayed, for whatever reason, not only their general publication, but also details about discoveries in progress. So the question is not whether there was conspiracy, but whether it was directed by "The Vatican", and not just noted or approved of by Roman Catholic influence from outside the group. But in your second paragraph, you argue the opposite, that they "don't seem to be about Christianity at all". Considering that they were certainly religious in nature, and roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, why don't they seem "connected" to you? Assuming Jesus was around, and an important religious personage, why would the writers of the scrolls, who, like Jesus, were Jewish and unconventional in their attitudes, have avoided writing anything at all about him? I find it more plausible that they did, but without using the name ("Jesus Christ") with which we are familiar today. Unfree (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

when is it thought the scrolls were written? what steps needed to be taken to prove they were not forged? Kingturtle 00:45 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

• One guy thought they were medieval when first published, but a combination of archaeology, palaeography, and carbon dating convinces most today that they were written, variously, between 200 BCE and 70 CE (the destruction of Jerusalem in the First Jewish War thought to be the end of the period during which scrolls were deposited there), with most of the carbon dated ones being BCE. This is from memory.--Peter Kirby 08:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

i checked all the journal articles on this guys and the few responses they made to him. i also checked out some documentaries about the dating of the manuscripts with all modern techniques. the bones found in the community that placed the scrolls there were dated to the middle ages, the jewelry in the bones was dated to the 12th AD. carbon testing was never applied on the scrolls, it was applied to the woolens within which, it was claimed by the Bedouin, the scrolls were wrapped. furthermore Mrs. Elizabeth crowfoot, in her introduction, discoveries in the Judean desert, wrote "a carbon 14 test was carried out by Dr. F.E. Zeuner on some of the woolens; unfortunately the date return, AD. 546-66 does not coincide with any known occupation". S. Zeitlin seems to have had better paleographical proof than his contestants because nobody really answered. he pointed out to certain anachronisms, including physical signs on the scrolls, parentheses, connecting lines between two words and ellipses indicating that a word or words had been omitted. he also pointed out to reference notes on the text, something that was not done till the middle ages. what i recommend is to add more information on the opinion of this scholar, we all know there was much interest to date the scrolls to antiquity because there was nothing like it. before these scrolls the older scrolls were medieval dating to the 9-11 AD. what most strikes me is that the findings comprised sections of some 800 books, a whole library in a few words. however, in antiquity there were only libraries in large cities, no libraries in small communities. libraries in small communities is something you would expect in the middle ages. so there is scientific proof, paleographic proof, and respected scholars that continuously published articles in the Jewish quarterly review. this opinion then should not be put under the carpet in an encyclopedia that as far as i know intends to be complete.

It certainly would make your writing a lot more "penetrable" if you'd conform to common standards of grammar and punctuation. ("on this guys and", "responses they made to him", "documentaries", "bones", "parentheses", "ellipses", "reference notes", "the 9-11 AD", "library in a few words" -?)

The scrolls have indeed been carbon dated, at least twice, and found to be roughly 2,000 years old. Your "research" must be flawed. Why you are complaining about the word "library" makes no sense. Call them a "collection", if you wish. It's irrelevant to what they are. Unfree (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Israel obtained 4 of the 7 Dead Sea scrolls on 13 February 1955. -- What does that mean? There are far more than 7 altogether. Someone who is familiar with this please fix it. -- zero 09:16, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• I have fixed this and much expanded the "Discovery" section. --Peter Kirby 08:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with this?

Is this going anywhere? This thread appears to be four years old. I can't tell from the text of the affected § whether it is referring to the original authors of the scrolls as conspirators, those involved in the restoration and/or translation or what. I think the *§ should just be removed unless something coherent can be said. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Things to fix and improve

Is there a typo in the WSJ ad? It reads "This would be and ideal gift to an educational or religious institution by an individual or group." Was that actually what was in the WSJ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glengyron (talk • contribs) 02:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

The first paragraph of the discovery section is plagiarised from http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/discovery.shtml

• This no longer appears to be the case. Tbarron 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I came upon this article looking for information on the Dead Sea scrolls. What a messy article! I really think that it needs to be re-organized and re-written.

71.2.34.46 (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Another Possible Issue

It seems that as with most of such ancient documents the date and time of the creation of these scrolls is still debateable. I've read sources that say the Scrolls could have been made up to 60 years after the life of Christ and another source that said that the scrolls were possibly created 60 years before Christ's life. I'm not the person to make such a correction but I think more research could be done on this topic before this page should be considered at least temporaly complete.

Both facts are quite accurate, based on carbon dating. No "correction" is required. Unfree (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

---

1. The article only mentions the Qumran cave but scrolls from the same time period have also been found at a number of other places in the Dead Sea area, such as at Masada.
2. The argument over whether the scrolls were written on-site or brought from somewhere else needs to be aired. A recent contribution to this argument is mentioned here: Archeologists claim Essenes never wrote Dead Sea Scrolls (Haaretz)

--Zero 07:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the Haaretz link is dead. Fortunately, I have books by Golb and others and may be able to shed some light on this subject. --Peter Kirby 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Although this article is overall quite good, I find some of these articles tend to be somewhat bland and brief. In a comparison between this article and that on the Book of Daniel, I find that there are several unsubstantiated, broad-ranging claims made. (Eg. Daniel derives from two separate sources around the 2nd-3rd centuries AD, etc.) The fact is among the Dead Sea scrolls were found fragments from the Book of Daniel, proving that it had wide distribution well before the 2nd BC, a major point supporting that book's authenticity and completely unreported upon in either the Daniel article or the Dead Sea Scrolls article. Could I get some feedback on these points? TTWSYF

• I don't see the "2nd-3rd centuries AD" claim in the Book of Daniel article. Was it cleaned up, or did you confuse the reference to centuries BC? The Dead Sea Scrolls prove (should that be "prove"? people are fussy about that word) that Daniel was written before AD 70 and provide evidence that Daniel was written in the centuries BC; however, they do not push the date of Daniel back before 200 BC. --Peter Kirby 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is somewhat out of date. The introduction to the 2004 edition of Geza Vermes' "complete" translation of the scrolls describes more recent developments and has a more complete account of how the scrolls came to be published. Maybe someone with a deeper interest than I have can check it out and update the article. The published edition of the scrolls (called "Discoveries in the Judean Desert") is now up to something like 36 volumes with a few more to go.

Don't confuse these two; Vermes edited (I think; perhaps authored) "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (3rd ed. containing the Temple Scroll) (London: Penguin, 1987)", ("DSSE") according to Thiering's bibliography in JM; Discoveries in the Judean Desert ("DJD") is a series produced by "the International Team" and published "mainly" (according to Eisenman and Wise, on page 5 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (New York, Barnes and Noble, 1994) by the Oxford University Press. E and W also write, loc. cit., "By controlling the unpublished manuscripts -- the pace of their publication, who was given a document to edit and who was not -- the International Team could, for one thing, create instant scholarly 'superstars'. For another, it controlled the interpretation of the texts. For example, instead of a John Allegro, a John Strugnell was given access; instead of a Robert Eisenman, a Frank Moore Cross; instead of a Michael Wise, an Emile Puech. Without competing analyses, these interpretations grew almost inevitably into a kind of 'official' scholarship." (Clearly, Eisenman and Wise felt slighted!) Unfree (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

"Geza Vermes, who had been involved from the start in the editing and publication of these materials, blamed the delay – and eventual failure – on de Vaux's selection of a team unsuited to the quality of work he had planned, as well as relying "on his personal, quasi-patriarchal authority" to ensure the work was promptly done." -- This contradicts itself. It was delayed or promptly done, not both. --Zero 07:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood; according to Vermes, it was de Vaux's reliance on the force of his own personality to speed up the work (as well as the unsuitability of the team he chose) which backfired. That's what led to the delay. In any case, the statement has been altered, and I intend to alter it again. Unfree (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

New issue: 22:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)22:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence of Para. 1.0, Dates and Contents, reads: " The so-called Copper Scroll (1952), which lists hidden caches of gold, scrolls, and weapons, is probably the most notorious. ". A popular definition of 'notorious' reads: "Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous: a notorious gangster; a district notorious for vice." Notorious also has several other negative conotations. I recommend that 'notorious' be replaced by 'controversial' to reduce POV. I propose the sentence be rewritten as follows: "The so-called Copper Scroll (1952), which lists hidden caches of gold, scrolls, and weapons, is probably one of the most controversial of the scrolls." Comments on this proposed change will be appreciated.

No, quite to the contrary, it isn't a matter of controversy, so much as amazement. What makes the scroll remarkable is the value of the treasure it inventories, over a billion dollars! (See the article, "Copper Scroll".) Perhaps notoriety (in the neutral sense) isn't the best word choice. While I've got the chance, I'd like to defend the non-derogatory usage of "notorious". If the world ceased to recognize words for what they mean, but for what it thought they might hint at, what a dismally misinformed world this would be! Unfree (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

<removed vandalism> dead sea scrolls

I deleted: " There was even a new finding that another of the scrolls has been found deep in the caves of Athens, Greece. This is consistent with knowledge that the Jewish religion actually reached Europe before Constantine." Even if an ancient scroll was found in Athens, it is not revelant to this article unless it has a Dead Sea connection. Anyway, there is no citation given and we need one. --Zero 13:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• There is now a mention of the treasure described in the Copper Scroll, but no substantive discussion. --Peter Kirby 01:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The planet Neptune "is consistent with" Chicago. Of course Judaism spread throughout the Eastern Hemisphere long before Constantine. Centuries before Constantine, and even longer before George Washington. Incidentally, I deleted two repetitions here of a paragraph below, and some vandalism. Unfree (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Treasure

Why isnt there any mention of the treasure that the scrolls spoke of? When they were first discovered the treasure was discredited as a hox but it was later revealed that archaeologists and researchers did this to prevent a treasure hunt. The treasure is supposedly that of the temple, saved before its destruction, if found it would be the greatest archaelogical find in human history. 68.252.132.13

That depends on whether it exists, and if it exists whether

• the treasure is from the temple
• the temple treasure was impressive
• the temple treasure is greater than the Rosetta stone, Terracotta army, Skara Brae

The treasure would undoubtedly be worth more than all of those combined.

Copper Scroll The first of the Dead Sea Scrolls was discovered in 1947, and the famed Copper Scroll - made of pure copper - was found at Qumran in 1952. The Copper Scroll is an inventory - written in Hebrew - of the holy treasures of Solomon's First Temple, treasures hidden before the destruction of that temple by the Babylonians and treasures which have not been seen since.

The Copper Scroll states that a silver [or alabaster?] chest, the vestments of the Cohen Gadol (Hebrew High Priest), gold and silver in great quantities, the Tabernacle of the Lord (the Mishkan) and many treasures were hidden in a desolate valley - under a hill - on its east side, forty stones deep. The Mishkan was a "portable" Temple for the Ark of the Covenant. The writings in the Copper Scroll were confirmed 40 years later in the 1990s through an ancient text found in the introduction to Emeq HaMelekh ("Valley of the King(s)") -- a book published in 1648 in Amsterdam, Holland, by Rabbi Naftali Hertz Ben Ya’acov Elchanon (Rabbi Hertz).

I challenge the assertion that the inventory referred to the treasure of the original, pre-Babylonian Temple, and the hint that it referred to a single cache. It locates and inventories many caches, including at least two among the caves at Qumran, and is most likely contemporaneous with the other scrolls, that is, around two millennia ago. Furthermore, the asserted great "depth" of the treasure was due to a misinterpretation, by Milik, I believe. It actually was a distance, not a depth. Unfree (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Significance

I find the "Significance" section of the page wholly inadequate. In a garbled sentence it says nothing and is very confusing. Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge to adequately alter it, and I believe it ought to be either removed or completely edited. I think a solid sentence like "Unlike many modern theories, the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Bible has not changed significantly from its original form" would stand in for the first part of the sentence. Also, I don't think that "though they do indicate that primitive Christianity was very different than Christianity as it is practiced today" fits in with the rest of the article, as "Interpretations" states that:

"Notably, Michael Baigent's and Richard Leigh's book The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception contains a popularized version of speculations by Robert Eisenman that some scrolls actually describe the early Christian community, characterized as more fundamentalist and rigid than the one portrayed by the New Testament, and that the life of Jesus was deliberately mythicized by Paul, possibly a Roman agent who faked his "conversion" from Saul in order to undermine the influence of anti-Roman messianic cults in the region."

As the theory was purely "speculations by Robert Eisenman" according to the article, could someone clarify and correct "Significance" to reflect whether these are still speculations? If they are, I believe this should be noted in this passage.

--whitti 8 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

• I have edited the "Signficiance" section in a way that should be provisionally acceptable. --Peter Kirby 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Popularized Theories

Exactly how was Robert Eisenman's theory popular? Exactly who besides those two half-scholars believed or even put credit to Eisenman's crazy theories. James Vanderkam, in the book entitled, " The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls", found so many flaws in these theories. To say it was a popularized theory would be arrogant. It in fact was one of the most denounced theories to be applied to the dead sea scrolls. I mean come on, James the brother of Jesus was the leader of the Essenes? It was the Saudacees who were the sect at Qumran? The Essenes being the sect living at Khirbet Qumran is a popularized theory, not the latter you described. I think you should probably not edit anymore of the writings on this topic, i've seen a couple things wrong with your "editing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addamohara (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Grrr...

Why is it that any articles having to do with the history of religion are the subject of so much controversy and edit wars? I find it very difficult to get any accurate information from Wikipedia on this subject, and frankly, it's getting annoying. You've got inappropriate stuff from fundamentalists on one hand and "minimalists" on the other- not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Maybe this should be left to professionals.

I mean, you don't see this kind of controversy in articles about citrus fruit.

I agree, let's go argue over Paris Hilton's tits instead. Edit war anyone? Yongke 06:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. Usually, people aren't moved to edit an article unless they have some sort of expertise. Religion is one of a handful of areas where non-experts cannot imagine that their personal biases are not borne out by scientific investigation, and so feel entitled to "correct" the misunderstandings of those sadly benighted archaeologists, historians and manuscript scholars who have spent entire careers at mainstream institutions who "have an unreasonable bias against my own intuitions". Most annoying is the resistance to first comprehending the positions of their opposition before deciding to state their case, and the only solution seems to be open abuse towards those who write without bothering to learn the facts of a debate. Honestly, there are people out there who think reading a Lee Strobel book makes them a world authority. 131.172.99.15 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

for what it's worth, at least wikipedia provides a venue for concentrated argument over disputed facts. IMO this is superior to isolated authors writing long-winded articles that are never truly forced to resolve conflicts. I can imagine the wiki conflict resolution process evolving into the definitive account of what constitutes consensus fact. As things stand, crackpots tend to find some author that supports their view and cease their investigation there, reassured that their position has expert support 131.172.99.15 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

To quote the Wiki FAQ: Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints).

What Peter Kirby is suggesting is to remove the "conflicting viewpoints" so that it appears more in line with his understanding of Christianity. I can't agree with that. Kungfucolin (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Its rather obvious: religion is something that a majority of the world is very passionate about. Leaving this to 'professionals' would undoubtedly be against the ethos of Wikipedia. On the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there really shouldn't be that much contention: they are concrete, historical documents.

--whitti 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Citrus fruit is science; anyone can grab a citrus fruit off a store shelf and weigh it, taste it, etc.; the Dead Sea Scrolls, while partly archaeological science because they were excavated and subject to carbon dating, are texts interpreted to get any useful info out of them, and so there will be disagreement. The most noteable disagreement, in the case of the Scrolls, is whether they were written by Essenes. But what it is it that you (poster above Whitti) are referring to in particular? If you brought attention to the particulars, it could be fixed. --Peter Kirby 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Many apologies, I am a novice, a complete novice, in everything. I read that the book of Isaiah foretold the destruction of Babylon by King Cyrus and the coming of Jesus, written in 732 B.C.E. I need to ask if the Dead Sea scroll was genuinely carbon dated and if the complete book or which small fragments of Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea scrolls. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Isaiah"

• At least two copies of Isaiah were found at Qumran, one fragmentary and another more complete. I don't know offhand if these particular ones were carbon dated. But, since the oldest scrolls are 2nd century BCE, the dates of the copies tell us nothing about whether Isaiah was "written in 732 B.C.E." (such precision!) or foretold the coming of Jesus (that's POV). --Peter Kirby 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Somebody just deleted a chunk of information regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls and their significance to the LDS church. That deletion is not discussed. Can the info be salvaged, where should it be put? --Peter Kirby 02:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Date and Contents

I found a link that I thought was very interesting and fills out some dating facts but I'm unsure of the accepted "wiki way" to reference it. Could someone in the know add it to this section please? The link is to the University of Arizona Physics Department [1] . SOPHIA 22:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for better understanding Jesus and the Gospels is a controversial topic. In this chapter, we have emphasized that there is no direct relationship between Jesus and the scrolls, and none of these ancient documents was written by or for Christians as far as we know. Attempts have been made to find direct connections, but in many cases these are speculative, sensational, or bizarre (e.g., John Allegro and the sacred mushroom, Barbara Thiering's peshar technique, and the scrolls and the New Age Jesus). - "The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity," by James VanderKam and Peter Flint (Hardcover - Dec 1, 2002).

Other theories

"There is also writing about the Nephilim related to the Book of Enoch." ... I think this paragraph should have a link to this, "Nephilim" and the Book of Enoch along with a brief description. Without that the reader is left wondering what significance this statement has.

...To be honest, I guess I'm talking about me as the reader...but there must be others.

---

--8r13n 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand this paragraph on "Other theories" (and I am a native speaker of English :-)). Here's what it currently says:

Because they are frequently described as important to the history of the Bible, the scrolls are surrounded by a wide range of conspiracy theories. There is also writing about the Nephilim related to the Book of Enoch. Theories with more support among scholars include Qumran as a military fortress or a winter resort; see above (Abegg et al 2002).

First, what does it mean to say that "the scrolls are surrounded by a wide range of conspiracy theories." That there have been conspiracy theories about their discovery, or about their origin? Modern day conspiracy theories, I assume?

Second, who wrote about the "Nephilim"? Is this supposed to be one of the conspiracy theories, or something else? And what is the relationship to the Book of Enoch: the conspiracy theories relate to that book, or that book talks about the Nephilim? (If I'm not mistaken, the Nephilim are also mentioned in Genesis.)

Finally, what is the relationship between the theories mentioned in the last sentence and the scrolls? Military fortesses and resorts have a need to store religious scrolls, or what? McSwell (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

How did the Masoretic text, come to be mentioned in this article? The oldest surviving version of Hebrew scripture, actually what Christians refer to as the 'Old Testament', is the Codex Vaticanus, circa 4th Cen. of the common era. The text of the Codex V. is sometimes referred to as 'the Septuagint'. The context of the dead sea scrolls, when translated, seems to be close to 'the Septuagint', more so than the Masoretic text of the 9th C.--CorvetteZ51 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus is Greek scripture not Hebrew scripture, however the text did call for a bit of clarification. Feel free to let me know what you think of the present version. Hemmingsen 06:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I read a NYT article from 2001 I think that said the New Jerusalem Bible would be updated with permission from the Vatican to include Dead Sea Scrolls material. I have not seen any recently published version of this bible. Does anybody know if this material has filtered into any of the published bibles of today, and how much of it, etc? Perhaps much of the material and it's meaning is still under debate. Thanks. 22 February 2006

---

THE CHINESE CONNECTION An article by Neil Altman with the above title was published in the Toronto Star (Canada) on 04 November 2006. The article can be found at this link. (For information, the URL embedded in the link is http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1162421410861) Perhaps someone with more experience contributing to Wikipedia would know whether this information should be added to the main article. Thanks 08 November 2006

• I edited the text to move the 'Chinese' connection to the section on Date, since its presence in the introduction seems to give it undo prominence, expecially since, according to my reading of the article, only one person currently is making that claim, and that is the writer of the article. I also removed the word 'significant' from 'significant recent findings' to make it NPOV. Personally I don't think much of the article, for two reasons: 1. It seems to be a minority viewpoint, perhaps an extreme minority one, and might not be appropriate for inclusion given the rules of Wikipedia, but I am an expert on neither the rules nor the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2. According to the account of his Chinese-Jewish contact, his family came to China circa 500 BCE, so I am not sure why the Scrolls having a Chinese connection would necessarily make them form around 500 CE, but, again, my reading of that would be OR, so I am leaving it in unless someone has a source that knows more about this.Felgerkarb 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with leaving Altman and his "Chinese connection" in the article. I made the mistake of citing that same news report, only to find Altman isn't considered academically qualified on the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact some real experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls are incensed at Altman for this article and others, saying the letters are Arabic. Why perpetuate Altman nonsense?--Chrisbak 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly seems like nonsene to me. I am not knowledgable enough to comment on it without approriate references to back me up. I guess it depends if you think it is either 'doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use tag to ask for source verification.' or 'doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.'

I personally have no problem removing it, but I was not ther person who originally added it. I will move it to the Talk section pending further debate.

It is here for reference and discussion:

However according to a 2006 news article by Neil Altman, a US writer who specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some recent findings suggest some of the Dead Sea Scrolls may have a Chinese connection and date after AD 500.[1] Altman writes that especially the Chinese symbol for God dating after Christ possibly explain the time frame of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their place of origin. Chinese Central Asia has been identified as the area from which the Chinese symbol for God in the scrolls came, and a scholar has identified other Chinese characters in the scrolls. This Chinese connection suggests a date for the Dead Sea Scrolls of no earlier than AD 100 and perhaps 700 years or more later.

24.126.72.104 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

I'm surprised someone hasn't mocked up a map of where these scrolls were found. Exactly how close to the Dead Sea were these caves? David Bergan 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Book of Nehemiah

According to the Date and contents section, the scrolls contain fragments from the Hebrew Bible, from all the books except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah. However according to 25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls it is all "except for the book of Esther". Library of Congress materials relating to the Qumran Library also has all "except Esther".

Does anyone know the status of the Book of Nehemiah? Hemmingsen 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Temple Scroll

The Spring 2006 issue of Christian History & Biography (Issue 90) has a snippet on page 9 saying that the Temple scroll is on view for the first time outside of Israel in the Cleveland, Ohio at the Maltz Museum through October 22, 2006. We don't have a separate article on this scroll, so I'm letting you all know here in case you want to do anything about it. GRBerry 02:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC) meow

Biblical Documents Written Before AD 100

I'm fairly certain the Septuagint was written before AD 100 and contains most of the Christian Old Testament so the opening paragraph is seemingly incorrect in saying that the DSS is "practically the only known surviving Biblical documents written before AD 100." It seems to put too much emphasis on the DSS. I think a mention of the Septuagint is relevant here.

Presumably the sentence is referring to extant manuscripts - there's no mss of the Septuagint earlier than the DSS. PiCo 07:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Essay-Entry Template

This article, though full of citations and good information, reads like an essay. Some cite templates, rewording of [[WP:OR|OR] sounding paragraphs, and copyediting would go a long way. /Blaxthos 00:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of documents

"Roughly 825-872" is a pretty strange number. Why so specific on the upper end? Why don't we know how many there are? --Masamage 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The scrolls were found as fragments and then pieced back together. Moreover, some are in private hands. --199.106.52.24 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a wording something like "estimates range from 825 to 872". Otherwise it makes more sense to say "roughly 850". 131.172.99.15 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

The Content of the Scrolls

To the editors: I won't pretend to be an expert on the topic, but the article contains barely any information about the actual content of the scrolls and how this differs from traditional religious and historical text. In fact none of it is written from a religious perspective. Perhaps that should be a new heading? At least a serious expansion to the "significance" section? There is a lot more to the scrolls than just which caves they were found in and who wrote them. Wikiuser7 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem Theory

To the editors: I have removed Thesultan's insertion of the word "small" before "group," and his remark to the effect that this group is "outside the mainstream." The language Thesultan has inserted is not neutral, but merely expresses his own wishful thinking, as no polls have been taken to determine how big or small this group is or whether it is or is not today in the "mainstream." Thesultan has previously inserted defamatory comments onto the wikipedia article on Norman Golb and has now been blocked from doing so. He clearly bears a grudge against Golb and others who hold the Jerusalem theory, and should be blocked from making offensive and misleading changes in this article as well.Critical Reader 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To the editors: I have written nothing defamatory in this article. I certainly have written nothing misleading! The truth is that I wrote nothing defamatory in the Golb article either. However, after my experience here in another discussion with Critical Reader, where he is able to hijack an entry with an agenda even as editors are watching, I have decided that my one week experiment on this site will come to an end. I simply cannot conclude that any entry on this site would be accurate or unbiased. Thanks for the experiment and goodbye.

Once again, sign your name so people can see where your statements end. If inserting an offensive tirade, entitled "Self-Promotion" and dealing with the presumed identities of internet bloggers, into a biography of a living person doesn't amount to defamation, then I need to learn the English language all over again. You will undoubtedly be back with a different pseudonym, and I hope others will help me to keep these entries relatively civil.Critical Reader 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Golb's son Raphael has been arrested[2] after a two-year investigation pointed to him as a suspect in a campaign of cyberbullying, impersonation and defamation of his father's academic critics. This information may warrant an evaluation of some of the editing history behind the "Jerusalem theory." Or not. DavidOaks (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Elior

The article currently has contradictory statements about Rachel Elior's view of the origins of the scrolls. The Jerusalem libraries section says she endorses Golb's theory, while the Temple section says she endorses the Temple theory (which Golb disagrees with). Does anyone know what her actual position is? Timotheos 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

She accepts Golb's rationale for rejecting the traditional theory and his view that the Scrolls came from Jerusalem. She does not deny that he may be right about a plurality of libraries, nor does she specifically argue against that conclusion, although she herself focuses on scrolls she believes came from the Temple. Her stance on the distinction is not 100% clear. Golb himself clearly admits that many of the Scrolls may have come from the Temple, although he thinks Rengstorf's theory cannot account for the multiplicity of doctrines found in the texts. The Temple theory is really a sub-class of the Jerusalem theory and in my view the article should be re-organized to reflect that, rather than giving the impression of a scattering of different, unrelated views. I suggest structuring the article into three portions: Qumran-sectarian theory [including both Essene view and Sadducee view]; Jerusalem theory [including both multiple-libraries view and Temple view]; other theories [Christian connections, conspiracies, etc.]. I have introduced this structure, aware of the risk that there might now be another edit war, because supporters of the Qumran-sectarian theory have been trying to emphasize the "disunity" of their opponents, despite the fact that the Qumran-sectarian theory itself has many variants (some of them believe it was a third, unidentified sect, some of them believe the sect lived all over the Dead Sea region, etc., issues that could all be dealt with in the Qumran-sectarian portion of the article). Critical Reader 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

P.s. I have also made some minor edits to the Jerusalem libraries and Temple sections to try and clarify the matter. Hopefully this will not lead to a massive edit war.Critical Reader 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the rearrangement Critical Reader has made to the Origins section is helpful, and Elior's position has been clarified. Thanks. Timotheos 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Museum material

I have deleted one paragraph which was obviously an advertisement for the exhibit pure and simple--a clear violation of wikipedia standards--and I have inserted basic information on the controversy concerning this exhibit. Either the exhibit material comes out entirely, or the controversy should be mentioned in an appropriately neutral fashion which can of course be discussed.Critical Reader 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the DSS wiki article?

It seems that this article has become the home to a personal 'edit war' between CRITICALREADER (and his/her IP aliases) and THESULTAN (and his/her IP aliases. I say, banish them both and then get Prof. Golb AND the SDNHM off the page. At least put them at the bottom, and not in the opening few paragraphs. Why is the SDNHM placing ads in the wiki article? And how is it that Prof. Golb is mentioned before de Vaux, Allegro, Milik, Cross, Sanders, Strugnell, etc., etc. The article is a disaster! Instead of mentioning why they are important, telling the history of the scrolls, and THEN the modern controversy, you two are cutting each other's throats at the top of the page. Lose the polemic, and let's get back to actual scholarship. Prof. Golb has his place, as does the SDNHM, but NEITHER of them belong at the top of the article! IsraelXKV8R 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you entirely, I don't think any of that material belonged there at all, but that guy plunked in the advertisement for the museum--what was I to do, let it stand? As you will see in my comment directly above, I stated that it should either come out or be neutral--I was hoping someone else would take it all out, and you have now done so--thank you.Critical Reader 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

Someone asked me to take a look at this article. I have no particular knowledge of the scrolls beyond that of the average editor, although I have always had a bit of an interest in archaeology, so I am neutral as far as the various theories are concerned. IsraelXKV8R raised a good point, so I have reorganized the article in a way that I believe makes it more useful and readable. The details of the scrolls and their discovery really should come first, not only because they give readers the bread and butter info on the subject, but also because I think those sections will be less controversial. I deleted the promotional reference to the current San Diego exhibit (which was incidentally added to the article by someone using the museum's computer system) because this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertisements or notices of limited duration. I tried to group together all of the various origin theories and controversies without changing them. I merged the bit on Golb from the article's lead into the existing section on his theory. Please help smooth out any rough transitions I have left behind. I am otherwise unconcerned with the content of the article; I'm just trying to make it more useful to the world. -- But|seriously|folks  02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you have done entirely (see my note directly above).Critical Reader 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this reorg is a good change. Timotheos 14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of document

At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–61 AD.

The document itself, or the parchment it was inscribed upon? Is there some fundamental reason why the parchment and its inscription are necessarily contemporaneous, or is this such a small quibble in the face of vastly larger quibbles that no qualified scholar brings it up? But still, it seems to me that carbon dating dates the materials of the document, not the document itself. Furthermore, at this point in the article, the term document is not yet properly defined. I'm still thinking in terms of crumbled and bleached fragments of parchment that might or might not jigsaw together (by physical means or textual means) into a cohesive narrative. What does document mean? Hide of a single sheep? Pen of a single hand? Telling of a single narrative arc? MaxEnt 07:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Carbon date of a document doesn't pretend to mean anything other than the number you get when you analyze a fragment of the material. If there is such a thing as a consensus date of composition, it probably involves additional (e.g. paleographic)analysis and rather a lot more argument and disagreement. A carbon date is at least a relatively neutral fact, even if it doesn't suit your purposes. 131.172.99.15 08:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

citing an authority or a consensus is not proof. if you cannot understand the contents of the documents you should not take what others say for granted before doing a lot of reading (a lot of reading is not just one book). carbon dating is not convincing, that is why it is calibrated with dendrochronology. but dendrochronological samples for that area are very scarce, and therefore the calibration can yield huge mistakes. to defend carbon dating with paleography is circular reasoning, read above what i have posted about the so called paleographic proof. (sorry for the grammar errors, i don't really care that much about that in this specific section).

Corrected Distances of Caves from the Site

I corrected distances of caves from site in the 'Discovery' section. Please crossreference Google Earth, as well as Yizhar Hirschfeld Qumran in Context p.17; Jodi Magness Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls p.1; and the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land entry on 'Qumran' p.1235 for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talk • contribs) 00:41, August 25, 2007 (UTC) IsraelXKV8R 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreement with Masoretic texts

The significance section states:

"Although some of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most do not."

I would like to see the list of manuscripts that differ significantly either listed here or detailed in another entry or referenced to a source that I can read about these differences.

ThomHehl 09:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to read about those too! Kungfucolin (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of The Forbidden Books

It is up for deletion as an article on the grounds that is is a blatant advert for a book.

As far as DSS scholarship goes, there have been no copies of gospels, canonical or otherwise, discovered at Qumran or among documents comprising the DSS. —Pre7ceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And is now deleted. IsraelXKV8R 17:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Doing NPOV tag cleanup. Insertion of an NPOV tag must be accompanied by a posting in the discussion page stating clearly and concisely what the editor feels is wrong and how it can be made better. I'm not involving myself in the editing of this topic - if the tag is returned with accompanying discussion allowing dispute and resolution from other editors, then fine. This is a drive-by tagging and I'm removing it. Direct discussion either to this page or my talk page. Jjdon (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy?

Most of this article is the same as: this site , who copied who? Tremello22 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I went back all the way back to December 2006 to compare the two article and I am certain due to the development of the "Caves" section and such things as Trevor instead of Trever and unaccessible instead of inaccessible that www.spiritrestoration.org plagiarized the Wikipedia article around March 2007 giving no credit to Wikipedia. Stealing by a "Christian" website which asks for donations is unchristian. There were years of work put into this article by many people, and they didn't even give Wikipedia as the source. Can anything be done about them not sourcing Wikipedia? I find this disgusting!!! I have only have two DSS books and was going to add what references I could until I saw the above question. Now that I have found who stole from whom, I'll start adding references. I guess they didn't read the Ten Commandments (i.e. Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal"). Can anything be done about this lack of a stated source of their use of this content without referencing Wikipedia?

And why do very few people source their additions? They have the books, so why not site them. It's not hard.Jason3777 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

CE vs. AD

just so we're all clear, ust so we're all clearthe standard academic and scientific notation for references to years is ce (common era) and bce (before common era). ad and bc are not standard scientific references. the use of bce and ce is not a slight against jesus, christianity, or any form of faith, it is simply the scientific way of referring a year. ad/bc implies a christian perspective, and then opens the door for a muslim to argue that we should date things according to the islamic calendar (which makes today the 12th of rajab, ah 1429) or a jew to date the article according to the jewish calendar (which makes today the 13th of tamuz, 5768).

ce and bce are the standard, neutral designations, and should be employed in articles. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

btw - the WP:ERAS says nothing about which should be used, only that articles with an overtly christian/theological theme can take bc/ad. since the dss are both jewish and xn, and there are two religious ways to signify them, we should stick to the scientific norm. these are archaeological artifacts, studied by archaeologists. if you want to discuss the dss in a class at church, make the conversion to bc/ad. the math is fairly simple. ;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this page after editing. I am new to editing Wikipedia and apologize for any mistakes made on editing or commenting. I would like to bring up a few points on this.

1.) The AD / BC naming convention has been around for millennia. As such is widely understood and used in many, many more pieces of literature than CE/BCE.

2.) regardless of changing the name from AD / BC to CE / BCE the time frame is still revolving around the same person. The only difference is that now it just doesn't make sense as to what started or constitutes the "Comment Era". If the definition of CE is the start of Christianity then why even remove AD and BC to start with?

3.) The Wikipedia community seems to have decided on this already as AD and BC. BCE-CE_Debate

Tehombre (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) TehOmbre

I got into this a few weeks ago. Basically, Wikipedia says that each is acceptable. The only issue here is comprehension and consistency. If a page uses one system, don't add another. And there's no need to fight. Whatever it is, leave it. Since both are understandable, it's a non-issue.Tim (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

tehombre, a couple of things.

1) kings james english has been around much longer than modern english as well, but we don't use that system anymore. Just as with bc/ad, science no longer uses these designations, opting for bc/ce instead.

2) the problem with bc/ad is that it also does not accurately refer to jesus. jesus was born during the reign of herod the great, who died in 4 bce. plus, the pope forgot to count the year zero. so jesus was born at least 5 bc/bce historically. one reason for ditching the bc/ad designation is that it did not accurately reflect dating of jesus. so, rather than re-date everything, science used the same system and changed the designation to 'before common era' and 'common era'. this way, jesus can be born somewhere between 7-5 bce, and we don't have to change all of the numbers.

3) read the wiki article again. it chooses neither, and says that bce/ce is the preferred scientific standard.

teclontz,

the purpose of changing it to bce/ce is to make scientific pages uniform. we can't just leave it. we're trying to make things on wiki uniform, like a respected encyclopedia...IsraelXKV8R (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel, oh I'm all for consistency, but I got my hand smacked on another article standardizing to ce/bce, and was shown the eras page. The gist is, pick one and use it, but don't fight about it.Tim (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel, The transition from King James English to modern English was the evolution of language, not a switch. The way I understand CE and BCE is that they have the same value so your point confuses me on #2. It still doesn't change the basis of the calendars creation. And on the last point you say the article doesn't chose a standard but chooses one ?? I was referring to the poll where people voted.

Tim, I agree no one should be fighting about it but I think it's worth the discussion. Maybe as a compromise, list both?

Thanks for both of your input. --Tehombre (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my PERSONAL preference is context. In a Christian only article, ad and bc are far more appropriate. In a trans-religion subject like the Dead Sea Scrolls, ce and bce are far more appropriate. I wouldn't list both. If I had to pick one, I would definitely pick ce and bce HERE, as a means of reducing potential conflict. But that's just my personal preference.Tim (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel, The BC/AD system is the standard system applied to the Gregorian calendar the fact that the references are Christian do not in itself make it religious. They are signatures of historical context and by changing to BCE/CE and still using the Gregorian calendar you are in effect obscuring historical reference. Now with regard to Wikipedia policy, you are not to change the dating system of an article unless there is substantive reason. You have in no way shown such reason and it has been brought to my attention by a friend that indeed many articles on Wikipedia have had their dating systems changed for no substantive reason. Please leave your personal preferences out of Wikipedia when it comes to making edits. That is to say if you originate an article then by all means use the BCE/CE system and you will be supported by the honest application of Wikipedia policy. However when you change dating systems you are in the wrong and any honest application of policy will see that your edits are reverted.

Gerard Vance...24.46.201.135 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"gerard,"

you are gaming the system.

the dss article is a scientific article that should follow scientific labels. but of course, that's been said.

sweet job on your formatting.

please sign your posts.

IsraelXKV8R (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel it is not Gaming the system to ensure that dating system changes are not Surreptitiously made with disregard to the original author. The way you choose to define gaming the system (and I read the policy) there would be no way to correct an errant dating system change that is in violation of policy. The policy is what it is for a reason, and that reason is that a great many people do not agree with you. The policy of not changing the dating system (as was done to this article) is a fair one. An articles original dating system should be followed throughout future edits. You for some reason choose to disregard this policy. You claim that this is the system accepted by science as though the notion is a concept. There are many religiously non-affiliated scientists who do not subscribe to this CE/BCE bastardization of the Gregorian calendar. I for one have never been affiliated with a religion but as a historical purest I do not like the idea of making changes to a working accepted system. However my personal view is not supported by Wikipedia policy and nor is yours. The fairest way to deal with this was for Wikipedia to show no bias and to accept both sets of dating nomenclature, which they have. Now in order to ensure that systems are not changed by those who champion one over the other we have a policy that makes it a violation to change the dating nomenclature of an article for no substantive reason. Now if some people ignore this policy and still change this system any fair and reasonable person would agree that the article should be placed back to the original system in the interest of fairness and enforcement of policy. Otherwise the issue is left to the activists and activists only work for their cause and not the cause of the general population.

i shake my head IsraelXKV8R (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition if you look above, under "CE vs. AD", you start by saying, "just so we're all clear" in an attempt to gain consensus. Looking further down you will find that you never gained consensus regarding this article, but you don’t care! Wikipedia is forum that is guided by consensus, when consensus cannot be reached policies are employed in order to be fair and unbiased. You with regard to the dating system have not been fair and un-biased; to the contrary your bias is clear. GV 24.46.201.135 (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

see below. i'll let someone else. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

thanx. peace. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel to Display the Dead Sea Scrolls on the Internet

FWIW, the beginning date of the process to display the scrolls on the internet: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/middleeast/27scrolls.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel, The BC/AD system is the standard system applied to the Gregorian calendar the fact that the references are Christian do not in itself make it religious. They are signatures of historical context and by changing to BCE/CE and still using the Gregorian calendar you are in effect obscuring historical reference. Now with regard to Wikipedia policy, you are not to change the dating system of an article unless there is substantive reason. You have in no way shown such reason and it has been brought to my attention by a friend that indeed many articles on Wikipedia have had their dating systems changed for no substantive reason. Please leave your personal preferences out of Wikipedia when it comes to making edits. That is to say if you originate an article then by all means use the BCE/CE system and you will be supported by the honest application of Wikipedia policy. However when you change dating systems you are in the wrong and any honest application of policy will see that your edits are reverted.

Gerard Vance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.201.135 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(P.B.U.H.)

I think the line right under 1.6 raises some interesting issues. It's the line that states: "Also Israel had placed sanction on the scrolls which are believed to mention prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H)."

The obvious things are first. The line, if included at all, should appear in the "Controversies" section, and not randomly under "Cave 11." A citation is needed, as are a few grammar corrections (including a period after the "H" in "P.B.U.H."). I would also like to see some links to articles referencing that specific controversy or broader related topics.

Despite the information itself seeming relatively pertinent (assuming it can be cited), the line seems a bit non-sequider given the overt continuity of the article, and would need some explanation to substantiate it as a standing issue. I would say this applies to relation of the Dead Sea scrolls to any ethnic or religious group outside of a Hebrew or Judaic context (i.e. Christian; Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints). That said, I think the element could be a viable topical issue surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as a noteworthy contention within Muslim apologetics.

In terms of principle, I would discourage overhead deletion of the line, if it can be referenced. Given the current socio-politcal atmosphere, open scholarly or even theological debate between Muslim and Non-Muslim groups is increasingly difficult. This results in limited understanding in the academic world into the rationale of Islamic thinking, as well disempowering the individual in Muslim society, due to both ingroup and outgroup biases. Especially since a key anthropological contingent within Muslim apologetics is the intentional and natural corruption of Abrahamic scriptures before the time of Muhammad, this deserves some attention as one aspect of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Finally, some academic issues.

I'm really curious to hear your opinions on the "P.B.U.H." (Peace Be Upon Him) used at the mention of the Prophet Muhammed. Using this line as an exemplar, I am interested as to the precedence and propriety of language that is exclusive to the qualification, belief, or universal view of an individual, religion, or ethnicity. Would "P.B.U.H." be deemed as biased terminology? A non-standardized title? Or could it qualify as an accepted title or moniker for the man within context? Ought use of such language affect legitimacy of an article among scholars? Rather, would the dismissal of such language emphasize established academia as exclusive to a Western or Judeo/Christian-derived mindset, thus limiting Muslim or other individuals from participating in scholarly dialogue in good faith? 武福希 (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)武福希.

I think it is vandalism (wikipedia article are vulnerable to such vandalisms). I have removed it. Regardless, according to wikipedia rules, one can not use P.B.U.H. --AAA765 (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, is there any foundation to the claim? or is it simply urban legend or propaganda? Also, in terms of academic writing, what are the standards of similarly exclusive terminology that doesn't carry the stigma that P.B.U.H. does? 武福希 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)武福希

I find it unlikely that there is a foundation to the claim; it is possibly a legend or propaganda. And there is no way to know since we can't find the person who added it. The guidelines of Wikipedia tells us that when you see something that looks suspicious and is not sourced, just remove it.

I'd like to clarify a few things: Wikipedia is not an academic encyclopedia like other encyclopedias. It is not written by experts, even though experts can (and sometimes do) contribute to it as anonymous editors, there is no guarantee that every one who edits Wikipedia is an expert. There are always both vandals & knowledgeable people of good faith. If a sentence is not sourced, it can be false or not entirely accurate. It is exactly like asking a friend (who seems to know certain stuff) about an issue; it can be a good start but it is not a good place to ultimately rely on. Even when a sentence is sourced; in case it is rephrased, there is always a chance that it is accidentally or deliberative misrepresented. Not that it always happens, it doesn't but it can happen because wikipedia articles are not seriously peer-reviewed. The idea is that if something is wrong, someone else will correct it in the future.

Regarding your last question, I don't know if I understand it correctly, but academic books do use terms like "Prophet Muhammad" or "Jesus Christ"; we don't use either in wikipedia. "P.B.U.H" is neither used by academics nor by wikipedians. Not sure if I have answered your question...--AAA765 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You basically answered my questions. I understand the mechanics you described about Wikipedia. My basic perspective of Wikipedia is as a grassroots movement that can potentially affect scholarly dialogue- one idealist's road to social change, I suppose. That's why I'm so interested in addressing issues of scholarship within Wiki: move the Wikis, move the scholars, move the world. 武福希 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)武福希

Capitalize "scrolls"

"Dead Sea Scrolls" is a proper noun, as it refers to a certain set of scrolls. Consider this. If you took a piece of paper, rolled it up, tied it with a string, and took it to, or tossed it into, the Dead Sea, you could create a Dead Sea scroll (common noun), but not a Dead Sea Scroll (proper noun), so for "Dead Sea Scroll" to redirect to "Dead Sea scroll" is backwards. Unfree (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

lol. agreed. i am in no position to comment on the use of capitalization. lol IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I had the exact same thought upon being redirected. Agree. /Ninly (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

Can anyone confirm the Wall Street Journal quotation, or "The Torah According to the Essenes"? Unfree (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Caves Sections #2 & #3

These sections seem difficult to read. I started the processes of making collapsable lists of the scrolls, for section number 3, and thought that when this is completed these two sections could be merged to make the article easier to browse. Also, these sections need citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagletennis (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Bold Headings instead of regular Section Headings

I think this question may be more for you, EagleTennis... Is there a reason for creating section headings using Bold markup rather than Heading markup? I think this violates WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections, and also makes the TOC less useful (because they are not true subsections, as far as the WP backend is concerned, the TOC becomes incomplete). An anon IP seems to have reformatted a few into true subsections, but there are many more in the article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I am still working on some of the more researched based sections of the article, and was going to wait until I was done, so was just temporary, but feel free to change any subsections that you feel necessary. But, I will make the change now, it np. Feel free to contribute any subsection title changes that you feel best fit the article or any that you would like to see, etc. Thanks! Cheers Eagletennis (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is temporary, then I don't see any problem, especially with the additional information which you have added. I haven't yet had the time to reread the article, yet, but I have made a few snapshot glances at it (normal quick glaces to make sure someone isn't replacing an article with a tin-hat theory of aliens, lead by SpongeBob, are taking over the government). :) What I have glanced at has looked good. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Scroll Lists

The Scroll lists in this article are from a source from 1998. They seem to be out of date and incomplete. I do not personally have the time for the full update, but would like to see someone help out on the task, especially if someone knows of a good source for a complete list of scrolls with corresponding verses/references. Eagletennis (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, should this section be another article entitled "List of Dead Sea Scroll documents"? Would like to hear everyone's input. Eagletennis (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

Most writings on the DSS say they are mostly dated between 150 BCE and 70 CE. I see the section on radiocarbon dating here mostly falls in that general line (that is also used at the start of this article). I see that one radiocarbon dating cited here says they fall between 385 BCE to 82 CE with "68%" reliability (not sure of the correct term used for this part of the dating). Does anyone know a lot about these dating methods? I'm guessing since the 150 BCE to 70 CE is the usual range always given, the 385 BCE is an outlier (as I've never heard any number going back beyond 200 BCE in anything I've read) not sure how this relates to the 68% number provided on that as well. Just wondered if anyone had any background info on that as it can be seen as contradictory (with the usual 150 BCE- 70 CE dating given everywhere else).Historylover4 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Historylover4. Per the intro: "These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE, although carbon dating indicates this range extends to the third century BCE." So the date range is approximate. A 68% (1 Sigma on a bell curve) means that there is a 68% chance from those test results that the pieces of those fragments tested fall within the 385 BCE to 82 CE range. It also means that there is a 32% chance that these pieces can be dated beyond this range. Depending on what you are testing, 1 sigma is considered the lowest acceptable standard in academics to compare data results. Usually 2-sigma, known as a 95% confidence level rather than a 68% confidence level, is usually considered more academically acceptable. I did not make any changes to the intro because it was vague enough to be acceptable in my mind. But, even with 2 sigma tests the ranges for some of the documents extend from 408 BCE to 318 CE, a rather broad range - see the drop down table in the age section. This could be because of contaminents on the pieces tested or because the documments were in fact written over a long period. It might be a good idea to change the into dates to be more consistant and b/c I feel like the sources in the age section are more sound. Eagletennis (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I made the changes to the date range as well as updated the languages and materials in the intro for consistency with cited sources in body of the article. Cheers. Eagletennis (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I was wondering if any supplementary data obtained by another independent dating method were available. This could help to narrow (or widen?) the date range. For example, is something like genetic age testing available and accurate enough? I mean the DNA analysis of parchment or papyrus samples. According to the description of Qumran Caves, they are located in limestone cliffs, and limestone is mainly composed of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). The carbon in limestone looks much "older" then the atmospheric carbon in a radiocarbon test. If a goat or sheep whose hide is used to make parchment eats plants that grow on "old carbon"-rich fertilizers, a parchmnet sample could theoretically look much older than it really is. On the other hand, DNA testing could be less carbon-isotope dependent. It should be possible to tell the difference between a XXth century goat hide sample, a goat hide from the 10th century CE and a sample from 200 BCE.

I have never heard of any research in this field in reference to the Dead Sea scrolls and the Qumran area. Is there any evidence of this kind available that could be included into the article?--C. Trifle (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There is this link [3]. It only says that some attempts have been made to test the DNA on the parchment but no attempt is reported to compare the results with radiocarbon testing.--C. Trifle (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

K. Richardson, H. Griffiths, M.L. Reed, J.A. Raven and N.M. Griffiths, Oecologia (Berlin) (1984) 61:115-121 [4]] studied inorganic carbon assimilation in some plants where CO2 was incorporated by their roots and shoots. In one of them , Lobelia dortmanna, 99.9% of carbon was taken up through the roots. The CO2 in this research included mainly the C14 carbon, and the water came from a Scotish loch. However, I suppose that there could be situations, caused by natural or artificial factors, where the CO2 dissolved in the water contains mainly the C12 carbon (I mean more than the ratio C14/C12 in the atmosphere, which has also varied over centuries [5]). For example, a CO2 source or a natural gas deposit under the bottom of a lake or pond could produce this effect. Now everything depends on a goat's diet. And these animals eat strange things, especially during the drought. As a result, it could appear much older than its ancestors in a radiocarbon test! If one supplies a greenhouse with a CO2 from a gas bottle, the ratio of C14/C12 could be made different inside than in the atmosphere and people or animals who eat mainly plants produced in such a glasshouse could become really "ancient" in the sense of the C14 carbon test. I thoroughly accept the statistical explanation of the 68% etc. above by Eagletennis, but there could be some reasons underlying the statistics. Cheers.--C. Trifle (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the Scrolls

Christian Origin Theory, to include Eisenman's theories here is ludicrous. He believes the Scrolls were authored by a Jewish nationalist group led by James the Just (brother of Jesus). To describe these as 'early Christians' is to distort his work totally. Suggest moving the reference to a new section "Jewish nationalist sectarian group origin theory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.9 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC) == To quote Gleason Archer's A Survey of Old Testament Introduction:== These bring us very close in all essentials to the original autographs themselves, and furnish us with an authentic record of God's revelation.

A recent article by John Collins

For the Los Angeles Times, visible at http://www.adn.com/2013/03/14/2824754/the-eternal-disputes-of-the-dead.html --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So called "division" of finds

This 4th & last ¶ of initial section has two problems. 1:  % = what? Number of fragments? Number of scrolls (i.e. documents) represented? Number of lines of text? Bible is also a bit inflated, given great Isaiah Scrolls, which may be a big chunk of this. 2: Canonical, 2nd temple, and sectarian. This may be an ok division, but the description needs work. Tobit & Sirach are part of LXX canon -- do we know whether Qumranites thought them canonical? And other 2nd Temple doc's were never candidates for canonization. This middle category needs some work -- or simply called other 2nd temple not in Masoretic Text canon.

Too busy now to attend to. Good luck. ABS (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

All the numbers are out dated, since much of the material is fragmented or aggregated together and is slowly being teased apart. During the period of time that the scrolls were being collected and written there was no "official" canon compiled into one work, this concept is a later development and only has bearing to the different faith groups that use those books now. A number of the works that are not now see as canonical to Jews, were looked on as inspirational and nearly equivalent to or on par to the biblical works, but this is of coarse dependent on which group, and for what purpose, they had use for them - and we just do not have enough information to make that determination, (the problem of who the scrolls belong to, and what the Essene community believed, has not even been settled yet). Hardyplants (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I should add that there is good evidence that the Biblical works found among the scrolls may represent a third textual history in the development of the Jewish religious texts that became the Jewish and Christian bible ( the other were the greek translation, and the texts that became the Masoretic canon.Hardyplants (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls be merged BACK into Dead Sea Scrolls. I think that the content in the article can easily be explained in the context of the Dead Sea Scroll article at large, and the DSS article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of CD the DSS will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Please note that this is the SECOND time this merger proposal has been posted by myself and that user Ihutchesson reversed the original merger. Please see the third talk archives. Thanks! Eagletennis (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am ok with a merged article or with these being separate articles. I can see the value in having a separate article as the CD article is mostly (useful to a small few) data, and the current DSS article is quite hefty as it is. In fact, I would be OK with having the "Fragment and scrolls list" become a third article leaving a much shorter and more superficial section in its place in the DSS article. Just IMHO. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Probably leave as is - the carbon dating article is pretty long, and I would also think al-Shimoni's suggestion that "Fragment and scrolls list" become a third article is good - except I thought there already was one somewhere? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, there is probably a need for a separate "List of the Dead Sea Scrolls" article or something similar. Eagletennis (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dever

It is not clear whether Dever's theories refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls at all. Whoever put in the original reference says things like "Read his books". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.7.129 (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The reference to William Dever has vanished now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.7.129 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ink and Parchment

There is a picture in the ink and parchment section that is wrong. It says Iron(II) Oxide (bottom left) but that clearly isn't an oxide. It looks translucent like a salt. It is perhaps iron(II) chloride or iron(II) sulfate. Vmelkon (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My first thought was sulfate as well, and in fact it looks as if the picture in that montage may have been taken from the same image used here. Removing it for now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Recreating list of DSS From Scratch

I am currently working to recreate the list of available Dead Sea Scrolls from scratch, using Vermes' 6th edition (I don't have access to the 7th, and final, edition) and online sites as sources. I've already found several questionable or unclear items in the existing entries. When I'm done, I hope to revamp this section of the DSS article and merge the separate "List of DSS" articles into it. Is anyone else trying to do the same? I don't want to duplicate work if so. Additionally, I would like to add a page which allows one to start from a Biblical passage, and determine which DSSs, if any, pertain to that passage. I'll be sure to include Apocryphal or any texts considered canon by at least one major Judeochristian branch. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Origin theories coverage

The implication of this section as written is the the Essene theory was the consensus view until the 1990s, when it started to fall apart and now a substantial number of scholars consider the scrolls to have originated with "Christians" of "Sadducees".

We should probably specify, rather, that the Christian origin theory is a ridiculous fringe claim rejected by virtually all scholars, that in Schiffman's own words saying "the Sadducees wrote the scrolls" is a gross misrepresentation of his view.

Oh, and that virtually all scholars still take it as practically a given that the Essenes were the sect in question.

182.249.240.18 (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

DS Scrolls

@JudeccaXIII

Hi. I just saw you deleted most of my amendments and corrections to the DS Scrolls. - Wikipedia is for the general public, 99% of users want a quick, relevant, visually clear information. At least in the intro part.

 Some read before going to the site, and expect concrete info on how things LOOK LIKE IN REALITY, what can be seen today. It's not all academic discussion.

- As it was - and is, again, thanks to your reversal - the article leaves the curious non-specialist with the WRONG BASIC information. - There is no space and time for ego trips. Endless discussions are not the purpose (it's not a seminary or a chatroom on FB), nor the way of doing this properly. - There are a few AUTHORITATIVE sources, and I only used 2 of those: the DSS Digital Library, and the dedicated DSS website of the Israel Museum who OWNS the best pieces. - I have climbed, on foot, to half of the caves at Qumran, including the very hard-to-reach Cave 1, have went in and taken pictures, some were published in specialty books.

 How do you reference that kind of knowledge?

- The Dead Sea waterline has been fast retreating for several decades, it is silly to insist on the caves being 1 mile or 2 km or whatever from the shore.

 Since the discovery the waterline has moved by a good 1 km! Even if it's not written in Prof. X or Y's book, because they don't deal with that.

- The dating given in the intro is contradicted by the very paragraph on "Age" further down and the sources given there.

 The DSS Digital Library, that is: the people HOLDING THE MSS AND DOING RESEARCH ON THEM, give a date - 3rd c. BCE to 1st c. CE. Enough!
 Write a sub-paragraph, NOT in the intro, about different opinions, but leave the intro clear & mainstream for 99% of the users.
 Besides, the very distinction made by the Digital Library and introduced by me (and deleted by you), of "Qumran Caves Scrolls" versus "additional scrolls", plays a part here, since the oldest piece (M 17) is from Wadi Murabba'at, not the 11 Qumran caves. 

- Nabatean was not a language. In the period we're talking about they wrote in their own dialect of Aramaic, using in their own alphabet, true, but still in Aramaic.

Did you visit Petra, Khirbet Tannur, the Spice Road, etc.? I did, studied and wrote about their culture and was thorough - and paid for that.

- Please show some respect for other contributors' work, erase the bits that are totally wrong or opposed to your knowledge, but not whole chunks of info.

 Inviting to "discussions" isn't always the appropriate way.

Regards

PS: There are A FEW Wik. pages "owned" by some single-minded "contributors", who only accept "their way or the highway". If you feel that way about the DSS, pls. tell me, I have a life & no time to waste on re-reversing ad nauseam. Arminden (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Arminden, most of the information you removed was sourced as yours was not. Most of the information you added was based on your own experience as you said, I have climbed, on foot, to half of the caves at Qumran, including the very hard-to-reach Cave 1, have went in and taken pictures, some were published in specialty books involving the article's main subject violation of WP:OR as in here: [6] & here [7]. The article probably or is out of date, so it will have to be updated. As for owning articles, that is simply not allowed: WP:OWN. If your going to update an article, do it the correct way. And when you're doing such large edits, try asking for consensus, especially on controversial subjects per WP:CON. See also: WP:LR -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Great resource

Eugene Ulrich's The Biblical Qumran Scrolls (2010) is online at the Internet Archive. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dead Sea Scrolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/1108scrolls.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203083624/http://www.jpost.com/EditionFrancaise/Home.aspxservlet/Satellite?cid=1178708654713&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://www.jpost.com/EditionFrancaise/Home.aspxservlet/Satellite?cid=1178708654713&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The aaas.org archive is good. The JPOST archive was dead. replaced the link to the dead JPOST ref with a working link as well as an archiveurl. Mojoworker (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Publication controversy contradiction

Compare, "Physical publication and controversy Some of the fragments and scrolls were published early. Most of the longer, more complete scrolls were published soon after their discovery." with, "Controversy Publication of the scrolls has taken many decades, and delays have been a source of academic controversy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.135.11 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Number of texts

The lead section states 981 texts, while other parts of the article state 972 texts. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dead Sea Scrolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130520075115/https://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/HIGH/OIM_A30303_72dpi.html to https://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/HIGH/OIM_A30303_72dpi.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121115114307/http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04/13/3882403/fort-worth-seminary-unveils-newly.html to http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04/13/3882403/fort-worth-seminary-unveils-newly.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Era BCE/CE or CE/AD

The article currently has mixed usage, so we need to choose one and go with it. Since this article is not primarily about a Christian subject, I believe BCE/CE would be better. Editor2020 (talk)

Thanks for catching the drive–by WP:ERA change by 76.23.128.42. There were also era changes made yesterday by 82.122.51.65 and an earlier one by another IP which I've reverted. Consensus was previously reached in discussions in the archive. The article should be consistent now with the exception of the sole instance of A.D. which is in the direct quote in this section and so should remain as it is. Mojoworker (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No reason for BCE/CE use. The gregorian calendar is in use, and the more common usage by far for this calendar is BC/AD. Being a Christian subject or not should have no reason in deterring BCE/CE usage. The support for BCE/CE is scanty at best for historical context.--MarlinespikeMate (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERA makes it clear that either BCE/CE or BC/AD can be used in an article, but that a personal or categorical preference is not a basis for changing an article. Consensus is the rule. I support the previous discussion and consensus on the basis that this article is not about a Christian subject. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I fully concur with MarlinespikeMate. So if we want to go based on 'consensus,' that my vote should count for something. And as this topic is relatively short, and there is no overall 'consensus,' then the dates need to be split ala BC/E and AD/CE. Thanks!24.92.129.73 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERA does not say that dates have to be split between those. Anyway, BC/AC smacks of cultural appropriation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. But this is a dead thread, started over 3 years ago. The article is all BCE now, and we should never double up. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

BCE/BC, same scale, with the same 'event' dividing this gregorian based calendar to CE/AD... It can be called whatever, but won't change the dividing event unless we go to a different calendar basis.. Should the weightier argument win? Which has more validity? The fact that BC/AD has a far more widespread and historical use than BCE/CE could ever hope of having in the gregorian calendar, or "cultural appropriation? MarlinespikeMate (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Examining the cited sources shows overwhelming use of BCE/CE there, and, as already noted, this is an article which is distinctively about ancient Jewish culture. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The first of these is dubiously true, and not a relevant argument at all. But this matter seems settled. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is not true that the cited sources use BCE/CE? And, why is this irrelevant? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The cited sources here are usually a random selection, and what particular groups of sources use is not relevant - US sources are more likely to use BCE, European ones BC, and so on. WP:ERA does not mention checking what the sources used do. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. And Israeli sources usually use BCE? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Since this is distinctively Jewish, should we use the Hebrew Calendar, with a conversion to Dionysian per WP:ERA? The second argument presented is that BCE/CE is used more in the cited sources than BC/AD. I'm currently going through all sources using the search function, and will present the statistics if this is a valid argument. MarlinespikeMate (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Let us know what you find. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to count links all you want for your own edification, but you should also read MOS:ERA and how WP:CONLIMITED applies to it (and that is if you can establish that existing consensus here has changed). Mojoworker (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@MarlinespikeMate: "Dionysian"? I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean the Gregorian calendar? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As cited by WP:ERA and In reference to Dionysius Exiguous, the "inventor" of the Anno Domini (AD) Western Dionysian era system. This is a year numbering system also known as the Western Christian era incorporating both the Julain and Gregorian calendar. ″Dates before 15 October 1582 (when the Gregorian calendar was first adopted in some places) are normally given in the Julian calendar.MarlinespikeMate (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I've heard of Dionysius Exiguus. I've just never heard the term surprisingly, and so it never would have occurred to me to think of his name as the source. Thank you for the clarification, and your patience. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dead Sea Scrolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130326110448/http://www.imj.org.il:80/shrine_center/shrinemap.asp?bss=13765&bscp=12940 to http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/shrinemap.asp?bss=13765&bscp=12940
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504093641/http://lluker.faculty.ltss.edu:80/SOB-STM.htm to http://lluker.faculty.ltss.edu/SOB-STM.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113085922/http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1725431/jewish/What-Are-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.htm to http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1725431/jewish/What-Are-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Dead Sea Scrolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706065646/https://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/dead-sea-scrolls-12.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/dead-sea-scrolls-12.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111014825/http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/how-one-photographer-helped-google-digitize-the-dead-sea-scrolls.php to http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/how-one-photographer-helped-google-digitize-the-dead-sea-scrolls.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wls.wels.net/files/Georgson.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521141932/https://naturalsciences.org/exhibits/special-exhibits/past-special-exhibits to http://naturalsciences.org/exhibits/special-exhibits/past-special-exhibits
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609120411/http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/deadseafeature to http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/deadseafeature
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111208062145/http://www.rom.on.ca:80/exhibitions/special/deadseascrolls.php to http://www.rom.on.ca/exhibitions/special/deadseascrolls.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527172618/http://www.smm.org/scrolls/lists to http://www.smm.org/scrolls/lists
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.transactionpub.com/cgi-bin/transactionpublishers.storefront/en/Product/1-4128-0703-4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325152230/http://www.apu.edu:80/deadseascrolls/ to http://www.apu.edu/deadseascrolls/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921041119/http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/SCR/Scrolls.html to http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/SCR/Scrolls.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

About the contents of the scrolls

I guess it would make sense to dedicate a section in this article to the contents of the scrolls. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

The non-biblical texts section of the article should probably be expanded. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why don't sub-chapters show up in the table of content?

Arminden (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone set the TOC limit to 2 – probably because it became too massive. That might have been trimming it too much. I've changed it to 3 levels deep. Hopefully that's a better balance. Mojoworker (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dead Sea Scrolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/sbf/Books/LA52/LA52247Hirschfeld_Qumran.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531102302/http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/dead-sea-scrolls-04.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/dead-sea-scrolls-04.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527084809/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/35946/1/93-1675.pdf to http://www.trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/35946/1/93-1675.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726031448/http://website.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m13s100&AId=56661 to http://website.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m13s100&AId=56661
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rom.on.ca/exhibitions/special/deadseascrolls.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apu.edu/deadseascrolls/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dead Sea Scrolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160615144741/http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/_The.Dead.Sea.Scrolls.Study.Edition_Martinez-Tigchelaar.pdf to http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/_The.Dead.Sea.Scrolls.Study.Edition_Martinez-Tigchelaar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dead Sea Scrolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202224004/http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Saving_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_for_the_Next_2000_Years%2C_Dodo_Joseph_Shenhav%2C_Biblical_Archaeology_Review%2C_Jul/Aug_1981 to http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Saving_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_for_the_Next_2000_Years%2C_Dodo_Joseph_Shenhav%2C_Biblical_Archaeology_Review%2C_Jul/Aug_1981
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724082745/http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/1993/93-010.html to http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/1993/93-010.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160810201940/http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/DeadSeaRolls_eisenman%26wise.pdf to http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/DeadSeaRolls_eisenman%26wise.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Cave 11 manuscript list

The list of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 is linked to the Qumran Cave 11 section. JohnThorne (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Segal

The link to Michael Segal is to a scholar of computer science, and not to the Dead Sea scrolls scholar from Hebrew University: https://en.bible.huji.ac.il/people/michael-segal 87.70.101.39 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. JohnThorne (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hoax

The dead sea scrolls are considered a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.14.251 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Not even remotely. Such an extraordinary claim would need extraordinary reliable sources, which I doubt you can produce. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Dating the Greek texts?

The Papyrus Rylands 458 entry (papyrus dated 2nd century BCE) states that until the Dead Sea Scrolls, this was the oldest known manuscript of the Greek Bible. This entry dates various texts from Wadi Qumran Cave 7 as primarily being from the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. I'm already not sure how that places 458 later than any of these given that the Hasmonean period is also 2nd century BCE. However, my primary issue is with the Scholarly examination section. Here, we are informed that the scrolls found in the caves that were in Greek represent 3% of the overall volume and that they were written in uncial script, only used much later. How does that match up with the Cave 7 section?

Following that idea still further, how is it particularly useful to include a column in the table called "Centuries of known use"? Surely we have more precise dating than that, and for most readers, this is the information we want relative to the summary provided in the Scholarly Examination table.

Finally, I note that the Nabataean 'language' issue already discussed remains unresolved. Thanks, JohnJbjbjbjbjb (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I’ll note that while being an archaeologist, I’m not as well-read as I would like on this subject. But per WP, I think I can address a few things. I too was a bit taken aback by the mention of uncial, though it’s important to note that the script has existed since the second century, though it was only (widely) adopted a few centuries later. I can’t speak to the veracity of the statement, but I’ll look into it. I haven’t yet looked over the sourcing in that section, or mentioning the dating, but I will. What I can comment on per (relative) expertise is that ancient literature, especially something that’s copied, is always more conservative and slow-changing than the shifts we see in modern day languages. There is a trend in Greek (and Latin) for the literary language to reflect older forms more often than not, due to cultural preferences and ideas about “proper” speech. This is why, in Latin, the Satyricon is so crucial so understanding common speech compared to literary output. Otherwise, we mostly get examples in plays of the common speech versus the literary output of the general elite. That’s Latin, but it hold true even for Koine Greek. TL;DR: we can only estimate the period in which it was composed due to overly conservative influences on the language. You bring up many excellent points, by the way. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

All 16 of the purported Dead Sea Scroll fragments at the Museum of the Bible are forgeries

Fakes: All 16 of the purported Dead Sea Scroll fragments at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., have turned out to be forgeries, Nat Geo’s Michael Greshko reports. Independent researchers funded by the museum announced the conclusion Friday, acknowledging that the museum’s founder, outside collectors and some of the world’s leading biblical scholars had been duped. The findings don’t cast doubt on the 100,000 real Dead Sea Scroll fragments, most of which are in the Israel Museum. https://www.newsweek.com/entire-dead-sea-scroll-fragment-collection-washington-dc-museum-bible-fake-1492470 Peter K Burian (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The fragments which have been proven to be forgeries were, unsuspectingly, published in the book, Ulrich, E.; Davis, Kipp; Duke, Robert, eds. (2016). Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-32148-9.. The following article discusses this incident: Dead Sea Scrolls at the Museum of the Bible. ---Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

On 1 April 2020, the Israel Antiquities Authority published the following announcement in its newsletter, in addition to a link given of a lecture on this important topic:

Old Leather, New Ink: Forgery and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Starting in 2002, a group of some 70 fragments of biblical texts, known as the “post-2002” Dead Sea Scroll fragments, entered the antiquities market and were quickly acquired by collectors around the world. A recent in-depth scientific investigation commissioned by the Museum of the Bible (Washington, DC), revealed that none of the museum’s 16 Dead Sea Scroll fragments are authentic.

---Davidbena (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Biblical significance

I noticed in this section "The conclusion, then, is that..." I have not looked at the history yet, but this looks added to present a conclusion using older sources than the rest of the section uses. —PaleoNeonate – 01:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur. I'm removing the section because it doesn't add anything to the article; in fact it confuses and muddies it. Gleason Archer was a Biblical inerrantist and his conclusion was idiosyncratic even in 1964; now it is is absolutely contrary to the current consensus. Joe in Australia (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Category

There has been an edit war over whether the category [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine]] should be included in the article. The Dead Sea Scrolls are included in the Category, so it is a legitimate addition to the article. The category has been removed with the vague edit summary that it is "political vandalism". I assume (and I could be wrong) that the objection is the location "Palestine" rather than "Israel." The scrolls were discovered between 1946 and 1956. The West Bank came come under Israeli control in 1967, so it is historically correct to say that the scrolls were discovered in Palestine. Whether or not this is politically correct or not I do not know. In any event, I am starting a discussion here hoping to reach a consensus to prevent any further edit warring. – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Epinoia. The tag should stay. That said, I caution about conflating "State of Palestine" (a nation) with "Palestine" (a region). Not only does the tg make sense in the historical context, the United Nations has recognized the State of Palestine in an "observer" status. This does not mean the UN recognizes it as a nation with the same status and relations as Israel, as it is de jure but not de facto, but does indicate the UN considers it to exist. That, and the fact Israel considers the territories claimed by State of Palestine "disputed" (i.e. not formally annexed to Israel), carries more weight than any of our personal opinions on the subject. (To that point: like the US and the 29% of countries that don't recognize Palestine, I hope for peace but do not consider it a sovereign nation at this time.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion the tag needs to go. Not a single reference work on the Dead Sea Scrolls states that they were found in a "State of Palestine". Palestine is used in a purely geographic sense in such works and never in a political one. Tellingly, not even a minimalist like Philip R. Davies, whose work is cited on this page, makes such a claim. The article already does a fair job describing the Palestinian Authority's claim of ownership, adding this tag would be a classic example of WP:UNDUE, one that relies on no reliable source to begin with. Furthermore I think the category page as a whole should be nominated for deletion, we are talking about a page that was created just two weeks ago with the sole intent of buttressing and supporting that claim, notice how the category page comprises Dead Sea Scroll-related pages only, if this category cannot exist without ancient Jewish texts then it might as well be deleted as this is a blatant case of WP:Propaganda. After all, the people making this claim are also those who routinely deny Jewish history in Palestine (see Temple Denial for instance) and never miss an opportunity to accuse Israel of "cultural appropriation" whenever an Israeli restaurant serves hummus of falafel.

Finally, you speak of Palestine's observer status at the UN to justify the inclusion of the article within this disingenuous category, but let me remind you that until 1968 the PLO (which established and rules the Palestinian Authority as a single-party democracy) rescinded any claims to the West Bank, the Palestinian National Covenant even stated this explicitely in 1964, that is to say long after the initial discovery of the scrolls, here's the relevant passage in Arabic (article 24):

لا تمارس هذه المنظمة أية سيادة إقليمية على الضفة الغربية في المملكة الأردنية الهاشمية

Long story short, the inclusion of the article within this suspicious category is entirely designed to give the impression that these scrolls are the rightful property of the Palestinian Authority, to deligitimise Israel's ownership of the scrolls and generally serves to reduce the article's overall quality. Katafada (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Politicisation

Since my post above has been roundly ignored, I have added [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in Israel]] and [[Category:Archaeology of Israel]] with the intention of supporting the article's WP:NPOV stance. Epinoia has reverted my edit invoking the fact that Israel did not control the area at the time the scrolls were discovered and asking us not to politicise the article. First off, you will notice that the former category includes the [[Category:Dead Sea Scrolls]] category, the same is true of the recent [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine]] category (which again, was created this month). Secondly, I'll remind you that while Israel indeed did not control the area where the scrolls were discovered at the time, neither did the Palestinian Arabs, as I stated above they basically relinquished any claims of sovereignty over the WB until 1968 (Article 24 of the 1964 Palestinian National Covenant: "This organisation does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan"), for that matter the term "West Bank" itself is a Jordanian invention designed to legitimise the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (an illegal move recognised only by the fellow Hashemite monarchy in Iraq, UK and Pakistan). Finally, I am not here to play politics, I just have a low tolerance threshold for propaganda, I have zero problems with all categories referring to either Israel or the "State of Palestine" being removed, leaving one or the other however is completely unacceptable and a blatant breach of WP:NPOV. Katafada (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s only been four days since your previous post. Give it a little time. I for one have been working almost nonstop since then. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Subcategories

Per Wikipedia:Categorization: "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C."

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Israel is a subcategory of Category:Archaeology of Israel and should not be listed alongside its parent. Dimadick (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate

Presently, the text from Cave 1, Cave 2, Cave 3, etc., is also here in this article, why?

Why can we not just have a {{main|List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 1|Cave 1}} etc under each section-heading, then remove the duplicate?

Presently, if anyone want to update the content in one of the caves, they have to update twice -> prone to errors. Also, if we could shorten the article, it would make it more readable.

Presently, we could delete all the "List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave x"-articles, and their content would still be in the article. Why do we have the "List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave x"-articles, then? Hey, I am not suggesting we AfD them; I am suggesting we rm the duplication here, Huldra (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Insertion of Category:Archaeological discoveries in Israel

Sir Joseph, what do you mean by "still about archeology in Israel." ?... the category is "Archaeological discoveries in Israel" and the archaeological discoveries were not in Israel, they were in the West Bank. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sir Joseph is absolutely right. The 'West Bank" as you call it was under Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967, the term itself was invented by Jordan to justify its illegal annexation, you might want to check my post above (which has been very conveniently ignored). Furthermore not all of the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in that area, which is above the point either way as the majority of the scrolls are in Israel. If the category [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in Israel]] is removed, then the [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine]] category must be removed as well, after all the later was created about a month ago with the sole intention of legitimising the PLO-led Palestinian Authority's spurious ownership claim. The article is being targeted by anti-Israel editors, in its current form it is a perfect example of WP:Propaganda and a clear breach of WP:NPOV. Katafada (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

In Israel is fairly clear, and not even Israel claims that any part of the West Bank excluding East Jerusalem is in Israel. Wikipedia cannot be more expansionist Zionist than the state of Israel. As far as the claim that because some of the scrolls currently are in Israel, that would merit inclusion of a category like Category:Collections of the Israel Museum, which is a sub-cat of Category:Collections of museums in Israel. Oh wait, its already there. The discovery however did not occur in Israel and pretending that it did is a straightforward error of fact and a NPOV violation. As well as an ARBPIA violation of the clauses against tendentious editing. Please dont continue doing such things. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 00:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It also didn't occur in the State of Palestine. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I dont know if youre making an anachronism argument, but it occurred in the territory of the place known today as the State of Palestine. nableezy - 03:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Not only did the discovery not occur in a "State of Palestine", the PLO (which heads the Palestinian National Authority as a single-party democracy) relinquished any claims on the area in 1964:

لا تمارس هذه المنظمة أية سيادة إقليمية على الضفة الغربية في المملكة الأردنية الهاشمية

"This organisation does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".

-Palestinian National Covenant, Article 24

This was changed only in 1968, in other words long after the Dead Sea Scrolls' discovery. Once more, if the "Archaeological discoveries in Israel" category has to go, then the same should count for the "Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine" category (which was created in February 2021). Katafada (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the top map on WP's own West Bank article, the caves were all in locations occupied by Israel that are NOT currently claimed by Palestine as part of their territory. That is, all the caves were in the pink section of the map, not the red or green sections. While I previously was in favor of using the "State of Palestine" label due to the caves' general position in the West Bank, this convinces me that Israel is more appropriate. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your understanding of the map is incorrect. All of the colored areas are claimed by Palestine. Moreover, only the blue area (East Jerusalem) is claimed by Israel to be sovereign Israeli territory. Zero^talk 03:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

As Zero says, your understanding of the coloring of that map is incorrect, but maybe that caption needs work. All of the West Bank is both claimed and widely recognized as Palestinian territory. And not claimed whatsoever by Israel (excepting East Jerusalem). nableezy - 03:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, I misread the caption: "claimed" vs "controlled". Important distinction and goes to show why I should not edit when I am exhausted. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

As for Katafada's claims, 1968 was after the discovery of most of the scrolls but so was 1964. The argument, such as it was, thus vanishes. Zero^talk 03:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It occurred in the territory of the State of Palestine. Whatever, will include West Bank category, a sub-cat of State of Palestine. Game playing isnt going to work here. nableezy - 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably for the best. It is unlikely this will be resolved here any more effectively than claims of the West Bank itself will. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Cave of Horror

Someone just added stuff found in the Cave of Horror; that does not belong among the Qumran Caves Scrolls (=not part of the Qumran Caves). IMO; that should go into the Cave of Horror-article. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If the sources are including it with the Dead Sea Scrolls then I think its fine here. And if it is included I think the category is fine then. nableezy - 21:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Though the new first line is incorrect, will fix that. The line now pretends that the Qumran caves straddle a boundary and they do not. nableezy - 21:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph is now ungrammatical - I don't have high enough access to fix it, but perhaps it should now be something like "The Dead Sea Scrolls are ancient Jewish religious manuscripts that were found near the western shore of the Dead Sea. The original group of Dead Sea Scolls were found in the Qumran Caves in the Judaean Desert, near Ein Feshkha in the West Bank; two more ancient scrolls were recently discovered in the Cave of Horror in Israel."

I changed "Jewish and Hebrew" to "Jewish", because the scrolls are in at least three languages and (as far as I know) none of their possible authors would have described themselves as "Hebrews", but I don't want to stir up any controversy: as long as the grammar gets fixed I'll be happy.

Joe in Australia (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

Throughout this page there are several time errors, by which they have been "modernized" by the same line of thinking that has become popular in museums and classroom settings. Using the term "Before Common Era" and "Common Era" may fit the desires of some who do not wish to affiliate themselves with Christianity, however this article (and several like it) are explicitly talking about the Bible, it's origins, and all of the historical connections to it. Using the proper time references "B.C." and "A.D." are not offensive in the slightest, and yet someone decided they are and as a result society pushes the genuineness of referring to Christ as he was a man on this planet. This article, if nothing else, is a place where people should be given the proper and informative timeline as it lines up to the Bible, and the "main character" of its collection, one might say. Restore "B.C." and "A.D." to the timelines expressed on this page, and let us realize that no one can be offended by history as it has always been written, unless they choose to be. For that notion, the rest of us should not be forced to be distracted or hindered on our comparisons to the Bible with Jesus Christ as a timeline guide, by some who would choose to remove mention of his existence with time altogether. Larry2TheSilent (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"....they include the second-oldest known surviving manuscript...."

It would be most helpful in this mention of the SECOND OLDEST to add some reference to the OLDEST GrahamPCunningham (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@GrahamPCunningham: I agree. Pinging @Arminden who originally added it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

See here, although perhaps they are the third oldest.... Rather more important, imo, is emphasizing how extremely short are the surviving texts from the BCE era, with the exception of the Isaiah Scroll, which has effectively the whole of that book, & is pretty much agreed to be dated before 100 BCE. Most others are both far shorter and later. What does the reference (Lyons) actually say? Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

[ after getting stuck in "edit conflict" :) ] Agree with Johnbod in principle, although I didn't check how many of the larger Qumran fragments are BCE. What I meant is Barkay's discovery of the Ketef Hinnom scrolls, dated to the 7th/6th c. BCE. They contain a variation of the Priestly Blessing from Numbers 6:24–26 and further biblical parallels. Not smaller than many of the Qumran fragments. I will add this to "see also", thanks for pointing it out. Arminden (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Can someone revert these edits please?

Finnusertop made a bunch of incorrect edits on [21 October 2021], mostly to do with capitalisation. These changes are inconsistent with general and academic practice.

The Second Temple Period is properly capitalised as such and not as the “Second Temple period”: it’s the name of a particular era, much as the Bronze Age receives two capital letters.

In contrast, the word “text” in the phrase “Son of God text” should not be capitalised: its name is not “Son of God Text” but “4Q246” (the identifier of the fragmentary scroll) or “the Aramaic Apocryphon of Daniel” (one name used for the hypothetical original document). The phrase “Son of God text” is a reference to its use of the phrase “Son of God”: it’s descriptive, not nominative.

The phrase “Isaiah scroll” is better than the doubly capitalised version “Isaiah Scroll” because there are four scrolls containing Isaiah that come from Qumran. The most famous is the largest and best preserved, 1QIsaᵃ, the “Great Isaiah Scroll”, but it makes no sense to just call it “the Isaiah Scroll”.

So on and so forth; I don’t see anything worth keeping in those edits but I can’t revert them myself. Joe in Australia (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, Isaiah Scroll is the name of our article. Very likely that should be renamed, adding "Great". Johnbod (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That would make sense, yes.Joe in Australia (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joe in Australia: thank you, as a subject matter expert, for scrutinizing my edits. I first and foremost tried to enforce coherency within this article. Terms like "the Isiah S/scroll" were inconsistent capitalized throughout. Reading through the article, as something of a non-expert reader (so the exact target group of this and any other Wikipedia article), I came to assume that "the Isiah S/scroll" is shorthand for the Great Isiah Scroll. And as Johnbod points out, in our article titled Isaiah Scroll, it is. All article titles in Category:Dead Sea Scrolls follow title case capitalization of Scroll so I assumed it is correct, except for Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll which I moved.

"Second Temple period" is capitalized thusly in its own article, so I assumed that would be correct.

"Son of God Text" is capitalized so in the article 4Q246 so likewise I assumed that it is a proper name synonym. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to remove comma

There is an unnecessary comma in the sentence "Later analyses in 2004 and 2018, have lent credence to O'Callaghan's original assertion." It's in the "Christian origin theory" section. Somebody please take it out, it's been driving me mad. Momominsky9 (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Seems reasonable. I also deleted "have" while I was in there. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request to remove repetition

In the third paragraph of the introduction, the phrase "Scholarly consensus dates the Qumran Caves Scrolls from the last three centuries BCE to the first century CE.[1]" appears twice (albeit without "Qumran Caves" the first time). One of these instances should be deleted, probably the second. Rowrowrow64 (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Not sure how this escaped attention for so long. Good catch. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

The Dead Sea scrolls have been proven to be fake. This wiki makes no mention of the findings by the scientific community. Every Dead Sea scroll has been proven to be a forgery.

https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/history/article/museum-of-the-bible-dead-sea-scrolls-forgeries 168.182.42.34 (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The new findings don’t cast doubt on the 100,000 real Dead Sea Scroll fragments, most of which lie in the Shrine of the Book, part of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Book of Esther

Here is an article about (fractions of) Book of Esther allegedly found: https://www.thetorah.com/article/newly-deciphered-qumran-scroll-revealed-to-be-megillat-esther

I don't know much about this research, may helps others investigating further. -- Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.241.27.223 (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

For the benefit of others: the article Andreas links is a joke article, related to the tradition where people compose fictitious works based on the Book of Esther. Joe in Australia (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

History of ownership

@Jtrevor99: there are some factual errors in your edit regarding the ownership history of the majority of the scrolls. The facts are as follows:

• The scrolls were discovered partly during the British Palestine period and partly during the Jordanian West Bank period. At no point during the discoveries did Israel have jurisdiction over Qumran
• Most scrolls were held in a museum in Jordanian East Jerusalem, which was taken over by Israel in 1967. This takeover is not accepted by the international community, exactly as the world views Russia’s occupation and annexation of parts of Ukraine.
• In 1988 Jordan passed all its claims over the West Bank to the State of Palestine

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I was following RSs on the subject. I will add the relevant citation. Meanwhile please provide citations for your claims. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Also:

• Please reread the edits. The edits do not claim that Israel had jurisdiction at any time during discovery. Instead, the edits talk about POST-discovery ownership of the Qumran Caves.
• I am aware of that. However, Jordan was able to take the scrolls to the museum in Jordanian East Jerusalem to start with, only because it conquered part of Israel during the 1948 conflict. This was entirely omitted in the previous writeup which is a glaring omission.
• The current rendition could do a better job of discussing the 1988 claim-passing, but I was trying to avoid verbosity.
• Feel free to edit to better clarify the first point; the current rendition does not actually state the claim you think it does, so if that needs made more apparent, feel free to. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jtrevor99: thank you. I have added a citation below for clarity per your request. The most problematic wording is repeated in your comment above "[Jordan] conquered part of Israel during the 1948 conflict". The area most certainly was not part of Israel, and never has been. And “conquered” was not exactly what happened (FYI Jordan’s army was British-led, and this part of Palestine had been allotted to become an Arab State by the UN). It is this language which needs fixing. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to correct as you see fit then. I chose that phrasing based on the history I have read of the area, but it is possible I have chosen the wrong sources. From what I've read, this area was intended to be part of the 1947 Palestinian State that never came into fruition, and when that did not occur, Israel occupied it - then Jordan. If that is wrong then please correct since you appear sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to do so. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have attempted to improve/clean up based on your feedback and concerns. Hopefully I've done so. If not, feel free to revert back to the version prior to when I started making edits, or somewhere in between. Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Citation as requested: The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English: A BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF FIFTY YEARS OF DEAD SEA SCROLLS RESEARCH "The original chance find by a young Bedouin shepherd, Muhammad edh-Dhib, occurred during the last months of the British mandate in Palestine in the spring or summer of 1947, unless it was slightly eariier, in the winter of 1946. In 1949, the cave where the scrolls lay hidden was Identified, thanks to the efforts of a bored Belgian army officer of the United Nations Armistice Observer Corps, Captain Philippe Lippens, assisted by a unit of Jordan's Arab Legion, commanded by Major-General Lash. It was investigated by G. Lankester Harding, the English Director of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, and the French Dominican archaeologist and biblical scholar, Father Roland de Vaux. They retrieved hundreds of leather fragments, some large but most of them minute, in addition to the seven scrolls found In the same cave…. Between 1951 and 1956, ten further caves were discovered, most of them by Bedouin in the first instance…. With the occupation of East Jerusalem in the Six Day War, all the scroll fragments housed in the Palestine Archaeological Museum came under the control of the Israel Department of Antiquities. Only the Copper Scroll and a few other fragments exhibited in Amman remained in Jordanian hands.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

From what I recall partisan fights about terminology are the original reason this article was extended-confirmed-protected. When you say "allotted to become an Arab State by the UN" it glosses over things like: the UN certainly did not intend the area to become part of Transjordan; it wasn't actually allotted, just assigned in one of several partition plans that were not in fact adopted; earlier plans had the whole area assigned to a future Jewish homeland; the whole issue was irredeemably colonialist in that it was based on the wishes of colonial powers rather than the inhabitants. There's just no way to do all this justice here, all we can do is say the area was part of the British Mandate for Palestine; was captured by Transjordan; and was subsequently conquered by Israel. One could argue that Israel stole the scrolls from Jordan when it captured Jerusalem, but one could also argue that Jordan never had an ownership right to the scrolls to begin with and breached its duty by removing scrolls to Amman. Let's stick to history, not legal hypotheses. Joe in Australia (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to edit as needed then. The current language was an attempt to capture the most relevant portions of that history, based on RSs, and was a response to other edits of the same passage that did not appear adequately NPV. If you find the current rendering too problematic, it may be best to revert to the long-standing version which existed prior to all recent edits of that passage. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't find the present version problematic. I don't think we can do better than state that the ownership of the scrolls (particularly which ones) is disputed and give each party's position. We are certainly not able to establish the parties' legal rights; that would be up to a court. The facts on which ownership would rest are also disputed, so I don't think we should get into those either except by reference to each party's position. That is, Onceinawhile was correct to say that Jordan did not "conquer part of Israel" in 1948, but arguably not correct to describe the area as "Jordanian East Jerusalem", given that its occupation was not generally recognised. That's the sort of thing we should avoid. Joe in Australia (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2023

Update permanently broken link for <ref name=Georgson> to http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/111/SeniorThesis2012Georgson.pdf. Apparebit (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Amendment required

The article is locked, so I cannot amend it.
Regarding the text "Archaeologists have long associated the scrolls with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, although some recent interpretations have challenged this connection and argue that priests in Jerusalem, or Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups wrote the scrolls."
Suggest amendment to "Some archaeologists have associated the scrolls with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, although some recent interpretations by Rachel Elior and Norman Golb have challenged this connection and argue that priests in Jerusalem, or Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups wrote the scrolls."
The Golb reference is now found here.
I would appreciate an editor making these more accurate changes, please. 14.2.198.12 (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)