Dead Sea Scrolls To Go Digital On Internet

mernil writes to mention that the Dead Sea Scrolls are headed for the internet. The Israel Antiquities Authority, custodians of the scrolls, plan on digitizing the 900 fragments to make them available to the public via the internet. Unfortunately they are claiming the project will take somewhere in the neighborhood of two years to complete.

2 years is too long

If they were smart they would have tied this release in with the Evangelion rebuild series.

Re:2 years is too long

Clearly if it's going to be 50% faster in a mere 492 years, our best bet is to wait until then to transcribe them rather than wasting our precious time now.

Edifying

So now are we going to get a bunch of jokes on how it takes 2 years to have good 'fakes' made? In my experience Sandlotters aren't typically very tolerant of Christian philosophy, or events.

As a Rational Christian, I am excited about this material being released. Debates will be much more entertaining and edifying, with some good old material to validate certain arguments and invalidate others.

Regardless of your Religious background, the dead sea scrolls are very important and to have them readily available for those who speak the language is exciting for many reasons.

2 Years though, at least this shows you how seriously people take preserving historical documents like this.

My big concern is over the principle that once these are made publicly digitally available, they will be easily tampered with. How are we going to be able to validate the good copies from the publicly tampered ones? From a technical standpoint is there anyway to protect things like this so the average Jo knows which is real and which is not?

Re:Edifying

My big concern is over the principle that once these are made publicly digitally available, they will be easily tampered with. How are we going to be able to validate the good copies from the publicly tampered ones? From a technical standpoint is there anyway to protect things like this so the average Jo knows which is real and which is not?

Ummm... as if it was more difficult when they were *not* on the net? Now you can just claim it says something else, in the future you have to do a pretty good photoshop job on it. And in any case, maybe like with all other information getting it from a source you trust?

Re:Edifying

My big concern is over the principle that once these are made publicly digitally available, they will be easily tampered with.

Digital watermarking, digital signatures, heck, even a CRC checksum will go a long way to preventing forgeries. And if I'm not mistaken, these things will be on an "official" website somewhere, so if fakes start circulating it will be easy to point to the original.

And I quite agree as to the importance--as a non-Christian who studies ANE culture, this is an exciting and important step.

Re:Edifying

So now are we going to get a bunch of jokes on how it takes 2 years to have good 'fakes' made?

Nobody I'm aware of is claiming the Dead Sea Scrolls are not ancient documents.

As a Rational Christian, I am excited about this material being released.

Why? The Dead Sea Scrolls really say nothing, at least nothing positive, about Christianity. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain copies of some Old Testament works and works related to the Essenes, a Jewish Zealot group that vaguely resembled Christianity in some ways. If anything, the Dead Sea Scrolls weaken the arguments of orthodox Christianity by demonstrating that Christians were influenced by other Jewish reform movements as much as (or more) than Jesus.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are of enormous importance to Jews as they contain the oldest know copies of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Old Testament). But for the most part, the copies of the Torah in the DSS strictly conform to the current translations of the Torah.

Regardless of your Religious background, the dead sea scrolls are very important

I'm not sure why Hindus, Jains, Budhists, Taoists, Native Americans, Neopagans, etc. should care.

2 Years though, at least this shows you how seriously people take preserving historical documents like this.

It's more likely due to he massive egos and arguments surrounding the DSS, and archeology in general. To this day, over 60 years since their discovery, not all of the DSS have been published.

Re:Edifying

I came across photograph copies in my College Library the other day

Did you wipe them off and apologize to the librarian?

Re:Edifying

As opposed to the bible thumping corner screamers that believe whatever they are told. Believe it or not, there is a subset of us Christians who came to faith because it made sense. We tend to be ashamed of the Christians that are most often portrayed in the media. We can typically defend our belief with reason and solid premises rather than some strong emotional tie to it.

Re:so what does it mean?

That's not actually how it's used in the Bible.

To quote James 2-19, Demons have this sort of faith but they're not welcomed by God: http://net.bible.org/passage.php?search=Jas%202:18-19&passage=Jas%202:18-19 [bible.org]

It's actually not how it's used most often in real life. Simply put, faith means trust.

Let's assume you're married but it could equally be applied in other close relationships.
* Do you have faith in your wife?
* Are you faithful to her?
* If you close your eyes and fall backwards towards you wife, do you have faith that your wife will at least try to stop you from falling?
* If she says or does something that hurt you, do you still have faith in *her* or do you immediately assume the worst about her?
* If your wife were to try something new that she has no experience in, but you've seen that she's fantastic at improvising, so you have faith that she'll succeed?

On the flip side, if your parents tell you "I have faith that you will win the basket ball game" but you see them betting on the other team, do they really trust you?

> So, "faith in God" in the common senses could imply that one believes he exists, as described, without evidence (an arguably irrational position)

True, it is arguable, which in simple terms means, debatable. Ferocious former Atheist, Anthony Flew (credited for the "Invisible Gardener" parable outlining how stupid believers in God were), switched to Deism (the God of Einstein, Spinoza, Plato, Einstein, and Darwin) precisely because he determined that it was a more rational explanation of the universe and all that there is in it than Atheism.

None of these people are stupid. They looked at the evidence....all the evidence. Granted, there isn't a single piece of evidence that shows God's existence, but the bulk of it tells you that he's there.

It's no different in real life. Getting back to the wife analogy, *why* would you have faith in her? If you give any single situation to prove your point, I could just as easily argue that your interpretation is wrong. However, if you give the sum total of all your experiences, you can build a credible case.

Anyway, here's a question to ponder. Assume that the universe and everything in it is pure matter caught in a cause and effect chain. Essentially pure materialism. You are essentially a bag of marbles held together by natural forces caught in a causal chain that fully determines every move you make. A chair or a rock is no different....you're just composed of different atoms and are configured in different ways, but ultimately, everything is just a bag of causal marbles.

If you truly believe in pure materialism, you must accept the following:
a) There is no difference between you and a chair. What you perceive as life is just an illusion.
b) There is no fundamental difference between breaking your legs and breaking a chair's legs or smashing you to death or smashing a chair to pieces. All you're doing is breaking a few bonds and rearranging the configuration of atoms.
c) All atoms in your body get replaced every decade, so there is nothing that defines who you are other than your overall appearance and even that changes with time. Ultimately, *you* don't exist.
c) There is no such thing as free will....just atoms caught in a causal chain. Evangelical Atheists are thus wasting their time trying to convince anyone, but then again they can't help it, so there's no problem.
d) A consequence of all the above is Humanism or other morality has no foundation in pure materialism and it's actually pretty arrogant to be a Humanist because why are human's more valuable than chairs or rats? If you expand goal of humanism to reduce the total amount of suffering in the world (whatever "suffering" means in materialistic terms),wouldn't it make more sense to sterilize all humans so that animals might flourish in a hundred or so years?
e) Knowledge is irrelevant. What is kno

Re:Edifying

So what? You're talking about a religion that has had its primary texts re-written countless times over the centuries, already. Nobody today can point at any kind of original "Bible". Whether or not these are "accurate" is pretty irrelevant, even if you're somebody who is Christian/Jewish.

Perhaps you should read up on textual criticism.

Re:Edifying

So what? You're talking about a religion that has had its primary texts re-written countless times over the centuries, already. Nobody today can point at any kind of original "Bible". Whether or not these are "accurate" is pretty irrelevant, even if you're somebody who is Christian/Jewish.

Did you really say that? Since when does the validity of a particular religious belief have anything to do with the relevance of a 2000-year-old document? You don't have to share the beliefs of the writers of it to understand that this is an immensely important piece of history.

While you're at it, why don't you take a ball peen hammer to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel since it contains religious thought. Or perhaps make it your life's work to erase any remnant of the works of William Blake since he was apparently a Christian.

It think that this is why many look at hostile agnostics and atheists and see people who are just as irrational as the religious folks that they seem to hate so much.

Re:Edifying

Since when does the validity of a particular religious belief have anything to do with the relevance of a 2000-year-old document?

Did you really say that? Christianity is ENTIRELY based on the testimony recorded in early Christian texts and the teachings of early Church fathers. If you invalidate early Christian texts, you invalidate Christianity. Much the same is true of Judaism.

Christians tend to attribute psychotic hatred and irrationality to anyone who says "Christianity is nonsense" because it clashes so strongly with their point of view.

Atheists are not talking about smashing the Sistine Chapel, burning the books of William Blake, or killing modern "Christian rock" stars. Find me some quotes or news accounts. You will find people who attack religious art (like Michelangelo's David). They're all religious nuts, who find any depiction of religious figures sinful.

Re:Edifying

Wow. Yet another ignorant boor ranting against religion, and while demonstrably WRONG, getting modded by other ignorants.

Listen, there are a LOT of reasons to criticize religion. Take your pick. Hateful violent groups, both internally and externally. In many cases religions encourage people to turn away from knowledge and discovery. Blah blah blah. There are many fruitful, and many flame-ish discussions you can have about religions. But, one of the things they have a very good track record on is maintaining the integrity of their key books.

So, for instance, there are fairly minor differences (generally several letters different) in the First 5 books of Moses, between the Bible that the Ethiopian Jews, and the rest of the Jews had, in spite of these groups having virtually no contact for several thousand years.

Now, the Ethiopians had in their cannon several books the rest of the Jewish world has as Apocrypha (I.E. they largely ignored). And, they did not have many later books, or traditions of the rest of the Jewish world.

Different groups have been funny about how they pick and choose which books get INTO (or taken out of) their cannons.

And there are a whole mess of interesting things that come up when a religion starts TRANSLATING texts.

But to just say that religions have had their primary texts re-written many times? Well that is just wrong. And wrong from a hateful disposition (assumed from tone) really doesn't belong in an exchange of knowledge. Propaganda? Sure, but an educated conversation? No. Shame on you, and anyone modding you up. If you want to decry the wrongs of religion, there really are enough out there to pick on. Disseminating untruths is really unnecessary.

Re:Edifying

The most amusing part of this, to me at least, is that YOU are also not supposed to judge. No one is, because it isn't a smart thing to do.

Say what you want, but Christ was a pretty bright guy. It is really pretty hard to find fault in the basic tenants of his message. Certainly there are numerous examples of humans behaving as humans do and labeling it with a religion named after him, but this has little impact on the actual message itself.

I can see why you might resent Christians. I resent a handful myself. I cannot, however, understand how you would bear such ill will towards the epitome of a good person.

Oh wait, you're trolling. Oh, well never mind then. Sorry about that...

Re:Edifying

There are only two serious flaws in your argument:

1. Jesus said He is the Son of God. You will have to refute Jesus' own description of Himself, or challenge the writings that make that statement and the authors thereof. You are, you know, challenging the veracity of men who went to their deaths to defend that point. They may have been lying, but read Romans 5:7 and consider that. Several died for Jesus' name.

2. God, if He is what and who He claims to be, need not be fair or even just, though he claims to be. As Creator, we are His do with as He pleases. Looking around, He has pretty much left us alone to do as we wish, wouldn't you agree? Reading the Old Testament, God pretty regularly (if not always) declared why He caused disaster or punishment on Man. You may not believe God is who He says He is, and that's fine. But to then challenge His actions according to your interpretation of who and what you think He should be isn't intellectually honest, to me. Dismiss God as not real, I can tolerate that as your opinion. Try to redefine God according to your standards, that doesn't work for me. You and I do not get to decide 'who' God is.

And if you "find the idea of "a god" far more reasonable than the extremely elaborate justification for the story of how Jesus came to exist", I'm interested. If God does exist, and He is who HE says HE is, what's so hard about sending His son as He did? God as Creator can do pretty much anything. A virgin birth is trivial, compared to creating the Universe. Picking and choosing the attributes of God or Jesus leads you down the road of intellectual dishonesty. Don't be lukewarm. Be a believer or not, but don't pick out the parts you like and toss the rest you have a difficult time with. Challenge. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Test everything. Hold on to the good."

I'll leave it to you to discern what is good.

And if you want to dismiss the Bible as hopelessly inaccurate, I can tolerate that as your opinion as well. But doing so leaves you with nothing to base your judgement of what or who God is, since you've dismissed what is considered by His followers as His word. Remember, if God is who He says He is, he could change the Bible to be what He wanted it to be. It is what it is, and He has allowed it. Christians should remember that He may indeed have left it imperfect. We should stop nitpicking the details and focus on the truth.

While I would love to convince you of the truth of Jesus as our Saviour, I'm really just trying to convince you to be either fully atheist or not. Don't get trapped in the middle, thinking Jesus was a 'great teacher' but dismissing some of His own words. If you need to deny Jesus' own claim to being God's Son, you need to pretty much ignore His other words too. He's either right or wrong.

And I'm grateful that I will some day be able to examine and understand the Dead Sea scrolls, with the help of many many scholars. So far as I know, as we research more the Bible is upheld as correct, and is confirmed as accurate historically. We may never settle every issue, but that isn't necessary for me. For you, that I can't be the judge of.

Please accept my offer of blessing in His name.

Dead Sea Scrolls were proprietary for decades

Access to the Dead Sea Scrolls was carefully guarded for decades. Think proprietary database formats.

Back in the '80s or '90s, a scholar published a very detailed index. It was so detailed that other scholars were able to reverse-engineer the text of the scrolls, breaking the data monopoly for those scholars who were only interested in the text on the scrolls rather than the scrolls themselves.

Since then, the keepers of the scrolls have been much more, what is the work I'm looking for, open.

infighting over "first publication"

Not much has gotten published and many of the original scholars have died.

I'm guessing it was more professional jealously rather than some "secret revelation invalidating Christianity or Judiasm" that caused the delay.

They aren't paper

Unfortunately they are claiming the project will take somewhere in the neighborhood of two years to complete.

Why will it take two years? Part of the problem is because they aren't made of paper. One of them is made of copper, [wikipedia.org] and most of them are made of parchament, [wikipedia.org] which is much more difficult to work with. Especially considering the age.

The abridged Dead Sea Scrolls

'The Romans are bad'
'So are any Jews who don't do what we do'
'We don't like women'
'Why is is so hard to get a damn bath around here'

Re:Wow!

Religious text is different from fairy tales. fairy tales could be a subset of the text where say a fictional story is used to illustrate a point. However for the most part most of the religious texts are attempts to keep historical records thousands of years ago.

A large meteor hits and destroys your city, that must be God striking down the sinners. As a guy who was just banished from the city survived and saw the destruction, he gets to make the details.

A merchant dealing with livestock builds himself a boat for easier trading with other cities. Luckally enough survived a food that covered the visible landmass. Whiping out thousands of people. It must of been God flooding the entire earth and his livestock and his wife and kids are whats left of the animal population. He survives so he can make the story.

Religious Texts do offer a good historical perspective if you read them with the fact that they have been translated many times, passed by word of mouth for a longer time. Truth = Beauty Art = Beauty so Artistic alterations have been placed it to make it easier to remember and pass on. Adding a few more lessons here and there... So when reading them many of the facts are right however the moral of the story has been changed.

Fairy tales are ficion just to prove the point. Religious Documents are the best history we have for the time.

Re:Wow!

Religious Texts do offer a good historical perspective if you read them with the fact that they have been translated many times, passed by word of mouth for a longer time.

Almost.

Religious texts have rarely been "translated many times", that I know of. That is, they haven't come down to us through a long sequence of translation from one language to another. (They may have been translated many times in the sense that Harry Potter has been translated many times, of course. The question is whether we still have manuscripts in the original language.)

The manuscripts have, however, often been copied many times, introducing textual variants. Such that if we have few manuscripts, we're less confident in the exact wording of the originals. (And if we only have a small number of manuscripts that were under the control of a central religious authority, then all bets are off.) But then if we have many manuscripts, we can become extremely confident in the original wording, through the wonderful world of textual criticism.

That does leave open the possibility of significant change during times of oral transmission. (Though there are limits there, too. Suppose that we only had orally-transmitted knowledge of the JFK assassination. We couldn't be too confident in some details of the events, but if the story is widely-disseminated & widely-known, that would tend to restrict the changes that would occur.)

Re:Wow!

Oral traditions are exceedingly reliable historical references. As the clan/tribe/village gathered to hear a story told it would be the same story that they had heard told from birth like their fathers and mothers.

Any error, addition or omission would have been corrected immediately.

If any geek arose to tell the story of Star Wars and claimed that Obi Wan said "Tashi Station, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany" they would be flamed, flogged and their geek card would be confiscated. It was in the writing that things broke down because for most of human history most of the humans couldn't read but they could all talk and listen.

Re:Wow!

Oral tradition != telephone game. The telephone game occurs after just a few minutes with a small group of people. Oral tradition is a large group activity over many generations so your initial comparison is wildly off base. As my Star Wars example indicates, someone will fix a mistake in oral tradition.

Citation [questia.com]

Re:Wow!

Religious Texts do offer a good historical perspective if you read them with the fact that they have been translated many times, passed by word of mouth for a longer time.

As for the older stuff that you mentioned (Creation, Flood, Destruction of Sodom, perhaps), I suppose that these stories would indeed either need to be passed by word of mouth or else given by direct inspiration from God.

Most of the later stuff in the Old Testament (really everything except for Genesis and parts of Exodus), though, was written down from the beginning.

Leviticus, for example, is recorded Ceremonial, Religious, Moral, and even Secular Law. This was VERY highly regarded and as such copied extremely carefully. In other words, when a priest or scribe was charged with copying a scroll, he was not allowed to copy line-by-line or word-by-word. Instead, he was required to copy letter-by-letter. All of the other scrolls were held in the same regard--they all either dealt with essentially History, Prophecy, or Law.

The scribes had some VERY strict laws on how to copy, which means that today, of the stuff that remains, there are fewer discrepancies among texts than with copies of any other ancient text.

I saw statistic once that compared Homer's Odyssey with the Old Testament. The OT is significantly longer and has more copies remaining. Statistically, that would mean there is a higher chance of error while copying as well as a higher chance of discrepancies among the surviving texts. This, however, is not the case. Homer's shorter work actually contains many more errors overall--not just per line, but over the course of a shorter book.

How you choose to interpret the Bible is up to you. But at least let it be said that the Bible was properly copied.

Re:Wow!

A few other interesting tidbits on OT scribes:

*If a scribe made an error while copying, he had to completely start over on that page. He was not allowed to blot out a word and rewrite it.

*When a scribe completed a page, it was checked against his original. Every line was counted to ensure that each line had the same number of characters, and each page the same number of lines.

*When a scribe came across the name of God, the vowel symbols were never written, leaving (a transliterated) YHVH.

*Even though the scribe was writing the full name of God, he was still required to ceremonially wash his hands and break his stylus before continuing.

Pretty cool, huh? :)