Talk:Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Book cover

I just noted that the book cover depicts one of the scrolls up side down. I got that cover image from Amazon, maybe a printer's mistake? If anyone has a correct version of the cover, please scan and re-upload. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A summary of the review by the Washington Post, which I have not been able to locate, may be also a helpful addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Casually glancing at what you've done, it's amusing to see how you have left out such laudatory reviews as Armstrong's in Church History, and how you feature a giant photo of the jacket with the upside-down photo which obviously resulted from a printer's error, instead of the hardback edition with the elegant cover.

The reiterated language about "going against the consensus" (written, of course, long before Hirschfeld, Magen and Peleg) violates NPOV, gives undue weight to the perspective of traditional scroll scholars and will have to be dropped. You can easily cite these reviews without it, but you are clearly blinded by your desire to make this point.

Note what I am saying: the reiterated language. Your article was clearly written with that reiteration as your goal. You need to make clear that the reviews in question were written before other scholars threw their support to his theory.Critical Reader (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than critique my work, you are welcome to add more material to the article; that is what collaborative editing means. As for the book cover, that is the only one I found. If you have access to a corrected one, please upload it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is such wide support for his theories, there should be no problem in finding copious material to support that statement. As you are more familiar with the subject than I ever would be, please expand the article by adding such material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rather than critique my work, you are welcome to add more material to the article; that is what collaborative editing means." How do you square this statement with what you have done to my work on the San Diego Natural History Museum page? Please answer the question whether you are going to use your authority to continually delete my work there, instead of expanding on it in a collaborative fashion.Critical Reader (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BRD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I've pulled one review out from my files. (Please add the dates to your reviews, incidentally.) As a courtesy to you, I'm submitting here the main portion of the text I plan to quote from it. If you have any comments, please make them and we can discuss:

Reviewing the British edition of the work, Daniel O'Hara stated that Golb "gives us much more than just a fresh and convincing interpretation of the origin and significance of the Qumran Scrolls. His book is also -- among other things -- a fascinating case-study of how an idee fixe, for which there is no real historical justification, has for over 40 years dominated an elite coterie of scholars controlling the Scrolls, who have not only sought to restrict access to those who are prepared to toe their party-line, but have abused and rubbished those 'heretics' who have attempted to place a different interpretation on them.... The unfortunate stranglehold of the 'Essene-hypothesis' has been maintained in official circles, and promulgated in important international exhibitions, right into the present decade.... This most welcome, lucid and passionate book will no doubt come to be seen as a watershed in the process of liberating the scrolls from the Procrustean bed which has restricted their availability and hindered their proper evaluation for almost half a century. For all it tells us about the Scrolls themselves, the general reader will perhaps find it even more gripping for its detailed and fascinating dissection of some particularly disgraceful episodes in academic politics. As such, it both deserves and will receive a much wider readership than those primarily interested in the Qumran library." Cite to New Humanist, Vol. III, No. 2 (June, 1996), pp. 22-23.

Perhaps you will now begin to see what I meant when I said "open a can of worms" when you insisted on bringing Magness' unfortunate efforts into the Qumran article... I'm happy to go through this process, but the very thing that traditional scrolls scholars have been struggling to silence for the past ten years is going to end up being exposed for all to view right here on wikipedia, and a lot of people are going to be very angry about it.Critical Reader (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one, Jossi (again, as a courtesy gesture to you):

Writing in Church History, Gregory T. Armstrong stated: "This book is “must reading” for every historian regardless of her or his period of specialization. It demonstrates how a particular interpretation of an ancient site and particular readings of ancient documents became a straitjacket for subsequent discussion of what is arguably the most widely publicized set of discoveries in the history of biblical archaeology. I find Golb's argument that the site has all the characteristics of a military fort compelling.... Numerous considerations point to the First Jewish War or Revolt, probably the months just prior to the siege of Jerusalem, as the occasion for the hiding of the Scrolls. He connects, rightly in my opinion, the reports [by medieval chroniclers] of the discovery of Hebrew manuscripts in the vicinity of Jericho ... in the third century and ... around 790 with the hiding of scrolls in the late 60s C.E. There was a widespread effort to preserve the Jews’ religious and intellectual heritage ­ and we are the unintended beneficiaries... If Golb has an agenda, it is his concern that many of the scholars associated with the Dead Sea scrolls from the outset and until quite recently held or were influenced by “the entrenched belief that the culture of the Jews mattered relatively little, and that urban civilization was a force inimical to it” (p. 171). These scholars could not accept or possibly even conceive the extent of the literature associated with Jerusalem before the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans. Golb goes on to lay out in commendable detail the controversies surrounding the scrolls and their publication as well as their interpretation. Especially interesting is the account of events related to the exhibition of scroll fragments in the United States in 1993-1994. What is most distressing here is the reluctance of so many parties to the scrolls controversy ­-- by then widely publicized -- to engage in a full and free discus­sion of the many questions which had arisen." Cite to Church History: Vol. 64, No. 4 (1995), pp. 635-636.

Ring any bells, Jossi? Remember when you threw oil on the flames a couple of days ago--are you perhaps beginning to see that there's a very real institutional problem here?Critical Reader (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

New material

Please summarize Daniel O'Hara and Amstronmg long quotes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And while you are at it, you may consider summarizing also Vanderkam's The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (p.95) in which Golb's hypotheses are analyzed, as well as Joseph Fitzmyer's Scroll origins: an exchange on the Qumran hypothesis (Christian Century, March 24, 1993) that contains a critique of Golb's hypotheses as well as a response from him. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The exchange you refer to appears to have been published two years before the book that is the subject of this article, and the book by Vanderkam one year before. Therefore these sources are obviously irrelevant. The topic is not "Golb's hypotheses" as discussed in 1993 and 1994 (long before any of the research developments of the past decade), but Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm astonished that you would suggest we include such material.Critical Reader (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why will you be astonished? Is it not the case that this book is a book written by Golb on his hypotheses and viewpoints on Qumran and the scrolls? I have not read the book, but from what I can gather, the book expresses the same concepts and hypotheses made by Golb prior to its publication. Am I incorrect? If I am, we could include these in the Qumran article instead. In any case, please summarize Daniel O'Hara and Amstronmg long quotes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This book was published on June 1, 1995 [1], so we can assume that the book was written in that year. Are you arguing that between 1993 (or between 1994 in the case of VanderKam) and 1995 there have been new research developments that will render these sources irrelevant? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps at this point I'm not astonished by anything, but surely it must have occurred to you that the arguments developed in a major 446-page book, by their sheer detail, complexity and quantity, are considerably more imposing than the ones developed in a number of shorter essays. The book itself was obviously a new research development, and as a matter of basic scientific integrity, it's improper to quote sources from before the publication of the 446-page book that is the subject of this article. (I'd be surprised if you could show me other articles about books where that is done -- but if it is, the authors of those articles should be ashamed of themselves).

No doubt you will find some way to get this out-of-date material into the article on Qumran, but there too it will have to be clear that the exchange and statements occurred before Golb weighed in with his book; before the archaeological developments of the past decade (Hirschfeld, Magen, Peleg, Bar-Nathan, etc.); and, of course, long before Rachel Elior came out with her book dealing with a corpus of around 100 scrolls which, according to her, were clearly written by Temple priests. Why haven't Vanderkam and Fitzmyer come out with any attempt to answer all of this research by key Israeli scholars? I'm happy to deal with that on the Qumran page, but I thought I would point this out here in case you would prefer to spare yourself and me the time we will end up wasting on it.Critical Reader (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You speak of "archaeological developments of the past decade", but here we are describing views which have been made public in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Surely these archaeological developments are included in the book as well as t Vanderkam and Fitzmyer's books and articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jossi, I plan to respond to your reinsertion of the offensive photograph by inserting photographs of all of the foreign editions of the book. If you would like to remove the offensive photo, I will abstain from doing that.

Furthermore, you have reinserted the irrelevant portion of the sentence listing names of people who support the Qumran-sectarian hypothesis and not mentioning Magen, Peleg, Hirschfeld, Elior, et al. I will be forced to respond to this by deleting it again, or else by inserting references to those people, etc. It has nothing to do with the "reception" of Golb's book, so you should put it somewhere else.Critical Reader (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that photo of a "foreign edition"? I do not think so, as it is presented in Amazon.com as the current version of the book. As for Fiensy's cite of the book, it places it smack on the context of the dispute, citing the diverse views on the subject. It should not go into a "reviews" section, but in a new section that I will start right away. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And then we will end up lifting everything from the Qumran article and putting it in here. Fiensy's comment misleadingly omits the scholars who support Golb's view, and therefore they will all need to be introduced, otherwise you will again be violating NPOV and undue weight. Readers will be able to conclude that Fiensy himself is part of the academic scandal discussed in some of the reviews.

There is no rule against inserting photos of foreign editions, is there? Therefore, I plan to insert them all, unless you agree to eliminate the paperback photo that, as everyone knows, resulted from a last-minute printer's error. Here again, your "opinions" are getting in the way and preventing an amicable resolution of this dispute. Also, I don't think you have answered my question about foreign reviews. This book had an enormous impact around the world, so that will all have to come in.Critical Reader (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign editions?, Foreign reviews? Could you clarify? Again: Please summarize Daniel O'Hara and Amstronmg long quotes; unless you would be amicable that I do so.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also note that VanderKam and Flint refer to the book as well, saying that "Golb's views are more easily accessible in his book "Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls?" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Whose Historical Jesus? by William Edward Arnal, Michel Robert Desjardins, who also refer to this dispute when talking about David Flusser's Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (p.190) (my highlight):

"Qumranites" refers to those who sponsored the Dead Sea Scrolls and where responsible for placing them in the caves near the Dead Sea. Not all manuscripts Not all manuscripts found in caves 1 ro 11 where of Qumranite origin. There is enough unity among the manuscripts, however to represent a "Qumran library" (i.e., "Qumran scrolls") and a Qumranite view of things. See Charlesworth , ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday, 1992) for a list of common features of the scrolls that reflect international and critical scholarly consensus. This study will work from the position that Qumranites represent a group closely parallel to the Essenes described by Josephus, Philo and Pliny the Elder. I do not equate the sponsors of the Qumran scroll with the Essenes; the descriptions In Philo, Piny and Josephus warrant caution in assuming thet are the same group. Many others scholars (See Charlesworth, Jesus and the Dead Scrolls, 203), judge that the Qumranites were one of the Essenes groups; for example see Hartmut Stegemann. "Qumran und das Judentum zur Zeit Jesu" 84 (1994): 175-94, who bases his support of the Essene hypothesis of factors of hierarch, initiation rites, community of goods, ritual baths, a common meal and views on marriage as well as calendar. Alternatively, Norman Golb estimates that the scrolls came from Jerusalem to a fortress in Qumran during the siege of Jerusalem around 70 CE., see Norman Golb Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search For The Secret Of Qumran (New Your, Scribner (1995)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is with this long citation about an irrelevant topic, containing a brief sentence about Golb at the end. This article is about Golb's book, not about what someone else thinks about the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, in the article about Cargill's film, I'm not going to try and introduce a lengthy paragraph on what Norman Golb thinks about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the only thing that's relevant is what he says about Cargill's film. The sentence here beginning with the word "alternatively," merely summarizes Golb's theory in a very vague and partial way (it says nothing about the plurality of Jerusalem libraries, the plurality of groups who authored the scrolls, etc.). It also cites a bunch of books written before Golb's book came out, and says nothing about the research that has taken place since then (Hirschfeld, Magen, Peleg, etc.). So what is your point?

You ask for "clarifications" on foreign editions and reviews. Here again I don't understand what you are saying. To the best of my knowledge, there are six foreign editions, five of which are translations into other languages (British, German, Dutch, French, Brazilian, Japanese). I plan to find photographs of each of those editions and insert them into this article, unless you remove the redundant photograph of the paperback American edition. There are also various foreign reviews (Haaretz, Der Zeit, etc.) of which I have a few clippings sent to me by some of my colleagues abroad who have also been following this controversy. Most of them are in foreign languages--does wikipedia have a policy concerning summaries and citations of such reviews?Critical Reader (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation is relevant, and will be added to the article in the "Cites" section. If you have other books that cite this book, we should also include these. As for your other questions, yes, you are welcome to add reviews from newspapers or other sources in other languages. I speak fluent Hebrew and Spanish, so I could help translate these if needed. If there are in other languages we can ask some Wikipedians to translate. On the subject of book covers, you can other covers if you wish, but I will be surprised if these will remain (I will not delete them, but I am sure others will do when submitted to Wikipedia:Peer review later on . The current covers are of the English editions the first hardcover (1995) and the second softcover (1996). The fact that is shows a scroll upside down is in itself a notable feature, as as the book is in circulation with that cover and available in Amazon.com with that cover, it seems to be most appropriate to display in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

First, the citation is obviously irrelevant, and I plan to delete all of it except the sentence on Golb's book if you post it. If you dispute that, I will then begin to incorporate all of the info from the Qumran article which shows that Golb is not an isolated figure, contrary to the sleazy implication of the citation (which of course is why you like it so much). Second, I don't need your help with Hebrew, and I know of no articles in Spanish. And finally, I will make sure that the foreign covers are notable, by inserting brief descriptions of the foreign editions in a new portion towards the top on publishing history, which those covers will illustrate. The upside-down photo is only "notable" for people interested in sneering at Golb.Critical Reader (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sleazy? I think you are crossing a line you should not. Please assume good faith and do not delete material that is relevant. This is not about "sneering: anyone. I am asking this: are you related to Mr. Golb in any way or manner? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather that deleting my edits, you should consider writing the summary section of the article, given that you seem to be familiar with the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am not related to "Mr." Golb (a disrespectful, sneering way of referring to a professor); I have merely decided that I am not going to let you or anyone else publish subtly defamatory articles about any of the scholars who support the Jerusalem theory of scroll origins on wikipedia. Your quotation is irrelevant for the reasons stated and therefore must be deleted. You might try summarizing them in some way that shows why, according to you, they are relevant.Critical Reader (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would referring to the author of this book as Mr. Golb be disrespectful? I think you need to really cool off. I am growing tired of these comments and if you persist, I will need to report your combative attitude to one of the noticeboard so that you can receive some much needed feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but scholars with degrees are ordinarily referred to as "Dr." or "Prof.," not as "Mr." For example, I am careful to refer to William Schniedewind as "Dr. Schniedewind," not "Mr. Schniedewind." Robert Cargill does not have a degree, so he is properly referred to as "Mr. Cargill." This is just the common politesse normally extended to academic figures, and I hope you will respect it in the future.Critical Reader (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case in formal conversations and in academic debate. In Wikipedia talk pages, we usually refer to people with their last name and without titles, including royals, presidents, doctors, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to "referring to people with their last name and without titles." The problem is that "Mr." is a title that you chose to use, and one that everyone knows is offensive when used in such a context. Here again, you have thrown oil on the flames by hinting in an offensive manner at your personal opinions about the Dead Sea Scrolls and Dr. Golb, and now again you feign innocence by referring to wikipedia rules or customs that have nothing to do with the issue.Critical Reader (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I thik you are overly exaggerating. I have not addressed anyone offensively, and I do not have any negative opinions of Golb, his ideas, or his book. If fact, I find the dispute, and the manner in which it is being conducted, quite fascinating. That is the only reason why I am editing these articles. You may be too sensitive to the issue, a thing that is quite evident from your comments, and there is no much I can do about it; most certainly I will not walk on eggshells just because you are personally sensitive about this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

I noticed ≈ jossi ≈ added back one of the book cover images. I don't really mind two iamges, but the way it was before with the 5+ FU images was an NFCC issue. Mbisanz (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Book cover(s)

I wish to request that the photograph inserted into the "reviews" section of this article be deleted as redundant.

Please note: there have been a series of heated exchanged about Norman Golb, the author of the book that is the subject of this article, on several talk pages. The editor who keeps inserting this photo has explicitly admitted to having "opinions" about Golb, and to "throwing oil on the flames" with one of his comments in that regard. He has also implied that he wishes to include this photo because it reveals something negative about the book in question.

Unfortunately, we have discussed this without reaching an agreement.

Since I believe the intent of singling out this photo and including it in this section of the article is defamatory, the photo should either be removed until we can reach an agreement, or it should be included along with other photos to illustrate the "History of Publication" section of the article, as I had done before until another editor, Eric, removed (in my view appropriately) all of the photos (see history).Critical Reader (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will only say that the second book cover does not meet the criteria for fair use. There needs to be critical commentary of that item -- not its content, but the image itself. Since the page is fully protected, I would advise both of you to review dispute resolution. I came here through WT:NFC, and I've left a note at that talk page for other editors to come here and address the second book cover. Hopefully by that time, matters between the editors here will be resolved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely that it does not meet the criteria for fair use. In addition, such critical commentary, of this book cover, would naturally have to be sourced.Critical Reader (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the FU issue, but the argument is that the cover of the softcover edition is notable. I will see if there is any information published about that cover. If I do not find any, one image will suffice. In regard of Critical Reader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I have opinions on the subject, it should be noted that this user is an single purpose account that most definitively has very strong opinions on the subject editing exclusively on subjects related to the author of this book. Having opinions is not an issue, as we all do have opinions. Having too strong opinions that compromise NPOV by putting our POVs ahead of the aims of the project, most certainly is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How is the second book cover notable? The critical commentary needs to be directed at the cover itself, not the content. Are you saying that there is information out there about the particular design of the book cover? If the content of this book is relevant but not the cover itself, then the cover does not help the reader significantly per #8 of WP:NFC#Policy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Because being a book about the Dead Scrolls, it depicts a scroll upside down. This may have been the book designer's mistake, but it does not seem to have been pulled out of circulation. As said before, if we cannot find a source that describes this, we should only have one book cover in the article as per WP:NFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Find me a source that says the photograph on the book cover is upside down or anything else you just said. There are seven or eight editions of the book, and out of all of them you seem to be suggesting that you want to use precisely this one, because you think it's more "notable" than the others? In what does anything you just said make it more "notable" than the first edition? I don't see how you can explain this without implying a defamatory intent.

As for your comments about me only writing on subjects "related to the author of this book," I have contributed to various articles dealing with the Dead Sea Scrolls, mentioning not only this author but other authors as well such as Magen, Peleg, Hirschfeld, Elior, and Bar-Nathan; I have contributed to the Schniedewind article as well, with information concerning him that has nothing whatsoever to do with Golb. Virtually anything dealing with the Dead Sea Scrolls will be "related" to Golb, so this argument of yours is not convincing. I have not maligned anyone or distorted the current state of research in this field, and I will resist attempts of others to do so to further an agenda based on their personal opinions about "who is right." My aim all along has been neutrality, and what is happening here with this photo is a perfect example of how personal opinions end up producing articles that violate neutrality.Critical Reader (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I will resist attempts of others to do so to further an agenda based on their personal opinions about "who is right." Resisting attempts says it all, as you fail to see that it is you that have a strong opinion on the subject, and that is obvious from your edits and your comments. As for the book cover being notable or not, as I said, I will check if there are any comments about the mistake in the cover. If there aren't any, we should delete it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we need to delete it now, and then if you find some source perhaps we can put it back in at an appropriate spot, if you can get such a source in without violating the NPOV and undue weight principles. My "strong opinion" is that the subject should be presented in a neutral manner on wikipedia Your opinion is of a different class, as your own admissions ("pouring oil on the fire") show.Critical Reader (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can explain this without implying a defamatory intent. How can a book cover of a book that is in wide circulation be defamatory? If it is, go and file a complaint at http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Dead-Sea-Scrolls/dp/0684806924 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. There is no false claim, implied or factual. There is such a book cover as depicted in the article, and is the book cover that all purchasers of that book will see when they order that book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is defamatory, because what you wish to "imply to be factual" is that the author of the book, a well-known scholar of Judaica who has written books and articles in Hebrew, was somehow involved in what appears to be a printer's error that resulted in a photograph of a Hebrew manuscript appearing upside down on the cover of an edition of one of his books. This is what various bloggers, clearly animated by hatred of this scholar, have said here and there on the internet. By featuring the photo here, you clearly further their defamatory goals. Explain to me otherwise how a printer's error meets wikipedia's criterion of "notability."Critical Reader (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not furthering any such goals. I am taking these articles off my whatchlist for a week or so. I had enough of your silly accusations, your demeanor in these pages and your overall attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what people have been saying, and that's what you imply by saying that this photograph is somehow "notable." How is it notable? Here is your own explanation: "This may have been the book designer's mistake, but it does not seem to have been pulled out of circulation." Why is this notable? What are you implying? Clearly your goal is to subtly defame the author of the book. Why else would you stick the photograph in the "reviews" section of the article? Why else would you "pour oil on the fire" with expressions of disdain for this author as you explicitly admitted doing the other day?Critical Reader (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

P.s. Here is what you said of Professor Golb the other day: "In between the lines one can read and feel the disdain, anger and indignation of the writer, that IMO reflects more poorly on him than the other way around." Now, out of all the editions of his book, you find one on which a photo was printed upside down, and you select it for the "reviews" section of this article about his book -- and you expect me seriously to believe that your intent was not defamatory?Critical Reader (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC) \

?

I haven't the time and inclination to parse through this page's discussion re: the scrolls. Reading the article, I'm left wondering exactly what the book and the Wikipedia article are trying to say. The only real dscription of the book, other than the table of contents, is a line saying the scrolls may have been written in Jerusalem and moved to Qumran. Now, I'm left with the question "so what?". It only matters who wrote them, not where. Does the book challenge the idea that the Essenes wrote them? If so, say so. Does it speculate on other possible authors? If so, who? I suspect there would not be nearly as much dispute about the article if the Wikipedia piece simply talked about the book's theories and had a few good reviews. If you want to review the book yourselves (positively or negatively) or praise or trash the author, do so and submit your articles to a peer-reviewed journal. Good luck. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search For The Secret Of Qumran[1] is a book by Norman Golb which intensifies the debate over the origins of the Dead Sea scrolls, furthering the opinion that the scrolls were not the work of the Essenes, as other scholars claim, but written in Jerusalem and moved to Qumran in anticipation of the Roman siege in 70 CE.

The opening lines of the article actually answers your first question so I emboldened them and copied them above. Perhaps the rest of your concerns are also addressed in the article as well. Who knows ?

Dead Sea Scrolls

203.214.85.254 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I have the current information on Sadducees who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls during Jesus time.