January 5, 2003
INDIANA JONES'S GO BALLISTIC:
Debate Erupts Over Authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls (JOHN NOBLE WILFORD, December 24, 2002, NY Times)Hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been written about the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered more than 50 years ago in caves near the ruins of a forlorn settlement known as Qumran. Scholars and divines have transcribed, translated and argued over the texts, searching for insights into the history of ancient Israel at a time of transition in Judaism and the origin of Christianity.But Qumran itself went largely unexplored for the longest time. Even the results of the few initial excavations in the 1950's have remained mostly unpublished and unavailable for independent study.
The situation, some scholars say, is not unlike the handling of the scrolls themselves, which were tightly held by select biblical scholars whose control over their publication was finally broken after a rancorous struggle a decade ago.
Now it is the archaeologists who are restive. Many no longer accept without question the view of Qumran advanced after the first excavations by the Rev. Roland de Vaux, a French biblical scholar and archaeologist.
Examining building foundations, graves and possible ritual baths at the site, Father de Vaux concluded that this had been a self-contained monastic settlement of Essenes, a strict Jewish sect, and that it was their scribes who wrote the scrolls in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. Some of the ascetic practices and radical religious beliefs mentioned in the scrolls appeared to correspond with Essene doctrine, as recorded by near-contemporary historians like Josephus, Pliny and Philo Judaeus.
Challenges to this interpretation have been mounting in recent years. Qumran may instead have been a military fortress, some scholars contend, or a fortified manor house or a villa. It may have been an agricultural community or commercial entreprise. In any case, it is increasingly argued, there is no firm archaeological evidence linking the Qumran settlement to the scrolls found in the nearby caves.
The crumbling consensus was manifest at a conference of Qumran archaeologists held here in November at Brown University. Organizers said this was the first meeting to focus solely on the archaeology of the site, 12 miles south of Jericho on a rugged plateau above the western shore of the Dead Sea.
These guys need hobbies. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 5, 2003 1:51 PM
That is their hobby.
Posted by: pj at January 5, 2003 1:28 PMThey could be sitting around a tap arguing about somethimg that matters: Williams or DiMaggio, Munson or Fisk, etc.
Posted by: oj at January 5, 2003 2:24 PMIt ought to matter to people with your
views on Judeo-Christianity, because
there are other interpretation's than Vaux's
(Allegro's) that if correct are a real
problem for you.
That said, although I do not follow this
closely, I have been aware of the issue
for at least 10 years. Where has the Times
been?
Williams; tossup.
Posted by: pj at January 5, 2003 3:04 PMThey love caving.
And when they're not doing that, they like putting lots of little pieces of old flaky parchment together (something like a jigsaw puzzle from hell--oops!). When they find a bigger piece, it makes their decade.
They get really pumped when they find ostrakon. And when they're not chewing the fat about the stats on dudes like John the Baptist, Josephus Flavius, and Jesus of Nazareth (the Halleluyah line), they wax nostalgiac over the Essene team.... Yup. Thems were the days!
Actually the Dead Sea scrolls are big problems for the mainline sects of Christianity and Judaism for that matter. Considerable problems exist concerning what the proper translations should be for the normally accepted books of the bible, let alone the Apochrypha. What the Dead Sea scrolls do is to provide an additional, often contradictory, source for translations which may just upset the KJV or RSV applecart considerably. In addition, if you really get into the minor prophets and Kings/Chronicles, there is a considerable disparity in how various reigns are described. The Dead Sea Scrolls would provide an authoritative "last edition" for the original documents, possibly with marginal editorial commentary, if these scholastics would ever get done with their job. Unfortunately, getting done these translations is become akin to building the Tower of Babel.
Posted by: Tom Roberts at January 5, 2003 4:10 PMTom:
There are so many differences between the accepted Gospels, why shouldn't there be alternate ones around and what difference can it make?
New versions of Scripture aren't going to overturn Christianity. There's always been questions about every document: was it inspired by God? was it purely the work of its human author, and therefore fallible? We have to assume that if God had wanted us to take a document as inspired, he would have made it known to the last 2000 years of Christians.
Posted by: pj at January 5, 2003 6:42 PMOrrin: look at the reviews of Pagels' "Gnostic Gospels" at
">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679724532/qid=1041893418/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-8036546-2777528
or even better read the book. Then do some research into the effects of the Albigensian Crusades and the Lanquedocian Gnostic heretics on the stability of the medieval church, and you can get some idea of how the concept of heterodoxy vs orthodoxy became theologically important, not only in terms of past history but how these past events could easily be transmuted to heterodoxy today.
The special challenge that the Dead Sea scrolls pose for the mainline Christian sects is due to the concept that the OT essentially ended with Malachi, the last of the minor prophets. Some credance is given Maccabees, but the OT essentially dies with the exile of Israel and then return of the remnant to Judah after several generations of purification, to await the Messiah. The Dead Sea scrolls challenges this cherished Christian myth, and puts the NT context into a much more heterodox scene. No longer are the Saducees and Pharisees the Jewish heavies, solely supporting the Sanhedrin to quash the disciples of Jesus bar Joseph. It might also make the reader more sympathetic to Saul of Tarsus, prior to his vision on the road to Damascus. Danger lurks for orthodoxy in the Dead Sea scrolls, just as it lurked in the Gutenburg bible for the RC church prior to Reformation.
I.e.: what happens if Mary Magdalene was Jesus's prime apostle, let alone his wayward wife who returned to his side during his ministry (that would explain what Jesus was doing for ~30 years prior to the marriage at Cana)? Maybe he had children? So much for an unmarried, male priesthood. Now the Dead Sea Scrolls won't go into that type of issue as they were written by Essene Jews. But similar problems might arise.
pj: As I pointed out to Orrin, the big issue of the Gnostic and Essenic texts is that they bring up completely novel texts, not just revisions of the familiar ones. In fact, the majority of these documents are not directly related to the familar OT and NT books, and hence not only present novel historical material but novel editorial and theological views. They put a new light on Paul's remonstrances against various heterodox Christian spin off groups which he railed against in his Epistles.
Posted by: Tom Roberts at January 6, 2003 5:17 PMpj: BTW, your comment on divine intention manifested by 2000 years of being hidden is precisely the argument that the RC church used against Protestant research into the biblical texts in the original languages. The counterreformationists asked "What is the problem with the Vulgate, particularly as it was translated by a saint?"(Jerome, I believe)
Posted by: Tom Roberts at January 6, 2003 5:22 PMI've been reading Gnostic Gospels on and off and I just don't get what her fuss is. It's at least curious that if God really wanted to experience mortality he wouldn't have gotten his phreak on at some point, presumably with a wife, rather than a harlot. How does any of that change the core of his teachings? It all reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian where they start worshipping his sandal. It elevates forms over content.
Posted by: oj at January 6, 2003 8:05 PMObviously, if Jesus had a wife, he didn't care
for marriage. His family values stink.
However, the difficulty lies in the deity question.
If Jesus wasn't god, if he didn't even exist,
then the advice in the NT is no more persuasive
than the advice in Kahlil Gibran.
There can be only two intellectually responsible
stances to take with regard to Scripture:
pure Fundaentalism or pure skepticism.
Once you start picking and choosing, Orrin,
you're just another guy and your stopping
point is no more valid than mine.