The Dead Sea scrolls need a serious re-examination by modern scholars not biased towards mainstream Christianity, similar to the work on Jesus mythicism that has been done over the past 20 years that draws on Gnostic, Essene, and other historically contemporary sources. John Allegro's work on the Dead Sea scrolls needs a non-biased re-examination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allegro
Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
31–40 of 52 posts
Re: Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a historian so I may be missing something, but how would one possibly differentiate between the origin being the Dead Sea or Jerusalem based on things like materials used? I mean, Jerusalem and the Dead Sea are less than 35km apart (according to google). Even thousands of years ago, it would have been a non-issue to transport materials or techniques between these two locations. I can't imagine that our knowledge…
Yeah the scale of trade always seems to surprise everyone. It's hard for me often to understand how folks draw the archaeological lines here. Materials could have been traded and the scrolls written near the Dead Sea ... or even folks from the Dead Sea traveled to Jerusalem, used local materials and made some scrolls, and traveled back.
I think it's instructive to consider bronze. To make bronze you need copper, which is very common, and tin, which isn't. Tin was only mined in a small handful of locations around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_in_ancie...
So from that, it's clear to see that extensive trading networks were necessary for these civilizations, not just for luxuries like exotic herbs and spices, but their basic industrial needs.
Re: Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
#33It's now not far-fetched to believe they're fake.
I don't believe any of the scrolls that overlap with biblical canon are believed to be originals, so what do you mean by fake? It sounds like you just want to take a jab at them because they're of religious significance, which is just as irrational as religious people who don't like scientific theories they don't even understand because they feel it's an enemy to their rrligion.
"I don't believe any of the scrolls that overlap with biblical canon are believed to be originals, so what do you mean by fake?"
That's true of any bible text we have. The original texts are lost, hence biblical exegesis and hermeneutics exist as disciplines. And which "canon" are you talking about? The 5th century canon before the East-West schism of the Eastern Orthodox-Catholic church? The 16th century canons of the Roman Catholic or the Church of England? There are a lot of canons out there.
Re: Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah the scale of trade always seems to surprise everyone. It's hard for me often to understand how folks draw the archaeological lines here. Materials could have been traded and the scrolls written near the Dead Sea ... or even folks from the Dead Sea traveled to Jerusalem, used local materials and made some scrolls, and traveled back.
I think it's instructive to consider bronze. To make bronze you need copper, which is very common, and tin, which isn't. Tin was only mined in a small handful of locations around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_in_ancie... So from that, it's clear to see that extensive trading networks were necessary for these civilizations, not just for luxuries like exotic herbs and spices, but their…
Well not exactly true; you can use Arsenic instead of Tin and there is evidence that they certainly did use it; I am not sure of the breakdown of ancient tin-Bronze vs arsenic Bronze in use. In any case your point still stands as we also know there was tin bronze in use and likely much of it may have come from the British isles.
Re: Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
#35The Dead Sea scrolls need a serious re-examination by modern scholars not biased towards mainstream Christianity, similar to the work on Jesus mythicism that has been done over the past 20 years that draws on Gnostic, Essene, and other historically contemporary sources. John Allegro's work on the Dead Sea scrolls needs a non-biased re-examination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allegro
[deleted]
Re: Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's instructive to consider bronze. To make bronze you need copper, which is very common, and tin, which isn't. Tin was only mined in a small handful of locations around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_in_ancie... So from that, it's clear to see that extensive trading networks were necessary for these civilizations, not just for luxuries like exotic herbs and spices, but their…
Well not exactly true; you can use Arsenic instead of Tin and there is evidence that they certainly did use it; I am not sure of the breakdown of ancient tin-Bronze vs arsenic Bronze in use. In any case your point still stands as we also know there was tin bronze in use and likely much of it may have come from the British isles.
Would arsenic bronze have any added toxic effects?
Re: Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
#37Doesn't really mean anything if the materials aren't local to the region. People in bronze age scandinavia were trading for copper with the mediterranean so there was a "global" trade network already in place.
> People in bronze age scandinavia were trading for copper with the mediterranean Sorry to make a minor point, but while the goods scandinavian and mediterranean goods travelled that far, doesn't mean the people did. Perhaps more likely, each was traded a dozen times with someone 50km away, and the goods reached people the manufacturer had no idea existed.
Re: more likely, each was traded a dozen times...the goods reached people the manufacturer had no idea existed.
Some things never change: https://www.steelavailable.com/en/counterfeit-steel-big-worr...
Re: Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
#38Doesn't really mean anything if the materials aren't local to the region. People in bronze age scandinavia were trading for copper with the mediterranean so there was a "global" trade network already in place.
> People in bronze age scandinavia were trading for copper with the mediterranean Sorry to make a minor point, but while the goods scandinavian and mediterranean goods travelled that far, doesn't mean the people did. Perhaps more likely, each was traded a dozen times with someone 50km away, and the goods reached people the manufacturer had no idea existed.
Transaction costs limit how many people are in these chains. It’s far more common for individual merchants to be paying taxes to several groups vs large numbers of groups being involved in the trading.
Re: Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well not exactly true; you can use Arsenic instead of Tin and there is evidence that they certainly did use it; I am not sure of the breakdown of ancient tin-Bronze vs arsenic Bronze in use. In any case your point still stands as we also know there was tin bronze in use and likely much of it may have come from the British isles.
Would arsenic bronze have any added toxic effects?
More to the people producing it than using it. But metallurgy and mining must have been awfully dangerous industries to be in back then regardless of the arsenic.
Re: Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins
#40The Dead Sea scrolls need a serious re-examination by modern scholars not biased towards mainstream Christianity, similar to the work on Jesus mythicism that has been done over the past 20 years that draws on Gnostic, Essene, and other historically contemporary sources. John Allegro's work on the Dead Sea scrolls needs a non-biased re-examination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allegro
The Christian bias on scroll scholarship was widely corrected in the 90s with the Scrolls' public release. Since then Jewish scholarship of the Scrolls has contributed an enormous amount, cf. Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, et al.