Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalist] Re: on "Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls" Nat. Geographic TV

Expand Messages
  • Larry Wilson
    Interesting that fragments of all books of the Bible were found, even SOS at Qumran but not a single fragment from the Book of Esther. That is highly
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 7, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Interesting that fragments of all books of the Bible were found, even SOS at
      Qumran but not a single fragment from the Book of Esther.

      That is highly suspicious.

      Why?  Because the version of Esther that is critical to chronology determines
      the book was revised.  That is, the LXX version, which is the ealier version has
      Esther married to Artaxerxes I.  When the book was later rewritten and revised,
      the current Hebrew version in most Bibles, they changed who she was married to
      from Artaxerxes I to "Ahasuerus" which is presumed to be Xerxes. 


      Of course, per the Bible, Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king.  Therefore,
      the Book of Esther is just a semi-historical fable.  It definitely doesn't work
      during the reign of Artaxerxes I, but becomes historical in the revised timeline
      when Xerxes has a separate reign as Ahasuerus.  So someone was busy trying to
      authenticate the revised timeline sometime after the LXX came out, recognizing
      the LXX version of Esther contradicted with the canonical account of Ezra and
      Nehemiah.

      Thus it would have been a key point of interest to see which version of Esther
      was at Qumran.  The LXX version would have reflected on the revisionism for
      sure.  But, of course, the claim is that no copy of Esther was found there.  I
      find that rather difficult to believe. 


      I have no proof, of course, but I think if there were fragments of Esther found
      in the DSS, it was the version that would draw attention to this cover-up and so
      it was suppressed.  Odd that out of all the books of the Bible and some
      pseudepigrapha the Book of Esther, a critical reference, is the only book
      missing.

      It begs the question whether those in the field of archaeology and Bible history
      are still trying to influence and manipulate the timeline, suppressing what they
      wish to keep the general public in the dark?

      Larry Wilson

       



      ________________________________
      From: saintxmas <saintxmas@...>
      To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, September 8, 2010 9:17:37 AM
      Subject: [biblicalist] Re: on "Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls" Nat. Geographic TV

       
      A very lightweight program attempting to revive
      the long the wavering mystique of the DSS.
      Cargill concludes the texts were written by
      many Groups thus diluting the emphasis on Essenes.
      Pfann suggests Zealots; so he goes for later dating
      I guess.
      Cargill confused things by connecting Josephus
      and Masada and Qumran.
      Nicely filmed though, and it would be worth
      having a copy in the DVD library.

      Rod N

      --- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Goranson <goranson@...> wrote:
      >
      > "Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls" shown on National Geographic channel is
      >available on youtube:
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQIb13roRYA
      >
      > The show gives rise to many significant pros and cons. Early on (in the second
      >minute) it states that de Vaux claimed 60 years ago that the scrolls were "*all*
      >[my emphasis] written...by the Essenes" by the Dead Sea. But that is false, an
      >unfortunate hearsay myth strawman. Where were National Geographic fact checkers?
      >Also, some mss are older than the Hellenistic era settlement at Qumran, so were
      >obviously composed and penned earlier and elsewhere. Further, who wrote
      >(composed and penned) the scrolls is obviously not the "only" question, as the
      >show oddly framed itself. It's good that the ink analysis was noted, showing
      >penning near the Dead Sea. Good that the skin DNA studies were mentioned; they
      >involve Nubian ibex, native to the Qumran area and not Jerusalem. And good that
      >NAA analysis of the clay was included; but it should have been added that
      >Gunneweg finally obtained clay to test from Peleg's pool and, with his big
      >database, has falsified Peleg's pottery proposal. The claim that a Jerusalem jar
      >inscription is key to the Qumran scrolls is not merely flimsy and idiosyncratic
      >and unpublished, but contradicted by evidence gathered by many scholars (Tov,
      >Tigchelaar, and others--including the speculator himself on sectarian, Essene
      >texts).
      >
      > Stephen Goranson
      > http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________
      > From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com [biblicalist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      >Stephen Goranson [goranson@...]
      > Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:25 AM
      > To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [biblicalist] was Qumran Cave 11 a Zealot library?
      >
      > The Qumran Cave 11 manuscripts--remains of a Zealot library?
      >
      > Such is the proposal in Pfann, Stephen J. "Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves:
      >Libraries, Archives, 'Genizas' and Hiding Places." Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel
      >Archaeological Society 25 (2007) 147-170 Available at
      > http://www.uhl.ac/articles/
      >
      > A CTVC program (not yet scheduled, as far as I know) apparently will advocate
      >this proposal, at least, based on descriptions at CTVC:
      > http://www.ctvc.co.uk/scrolls.html
      > and on Dr. Robert R. Cargill's website:
      > http://robertcargill.com/ Feb. 3 and March 15 posts
      >
      > Some comments and questions:
      >
      > Tov characterized 11Q as most consistently written in Qumran scribal practice.
      >Tov, Emanuel. "The Special Character of the Texts Found in Qumran Cave 11." In
      >Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of
      >Michael E. Stone, ed. E. Chazon, et al., 187-196. JSJSS 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
      >What would a "Zealot library" look like (e.g. consistently produced?)? Would
      >zealots defending the existing temple be hoping for its destruction to allow for
      >a different temple? Were zealots known for their linens? Did Josephus say
      >zealots took scrolls or something else?
      >
      > 11Q29 Fragment Related to Serek ha-Yahad. An S-Qumran connection. Tigchelaar,
      >Eibert J. C. "A Newly Identified 11QSerekh ha-Yahad Fragment (11Q29)?" In The
      >Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the
      >Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997, ed. L. Schiffman et al., 285-292.
      >Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the
      >Book, Israel Museum, 2000.
      >
      > 11QSefer ha-Milhama.
      >
      > 11QcrypticA Unidentified text. Did Zealots use crypticA? Who did (cf. 4Q)? How
      >could that be bracketed off?
      >
      > Ada Yardeni observed that dozens of texts come from one "Qumran scribe,"
      >including texts from Caves 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8-- and Cave 11. Yardeni, Ada. "A Note
      >on a Qumran Scribe." In New Seals and Inscriptions: Hebrew, Idumean, and
      >Cuneiform, ed. Meir Lubetski, 287-298. Hebrew Bible Monographs 8. Sheffield:
      >Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. Unless she is mistaken, or unless one posits that
      >zealots shared this scribe, how can her observations fit the 11Q as zealot
      >hypothesis? Abraham Schalit in the Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus p.34, 46,
      >66 noted that "John the Essene" is likely a misreading for John of Essa.
      >
      > Weston Fields DSS; A Full History vol. 1 (Leiden, 2010) gives reasons to be
      >cautious about cave assignments of some purchased mss. If appreciable numbers of
      >mss are incorrectly assigned, cave assemblages may be significantly affected.
      >Caves that have few mss, such as 3Q, make arguments from silence even more iffy,
      >and why ignore a probable 3Q pesher and angel texts? If the 3QCu burials are in
      >the Sokakah Qumran area, then that's something possibly relevant with those in
      >the area, if they were keeping things for a temple, not from a temple.
      >
      > Stephen Goranson
      > http://www,duke.edu/~goranson
      >







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • George F Somsel
      Oh boy !  Another conspiracy theorist !  george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh boy !  Another conspiracy theorist !
         george
        gfsomsel


        … search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.


        - Jan Hus
        _________




        ________________________________
        From: Larry Wilson <larsinger58@...>
        To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 8:59:55 AM
        Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: on "Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls" Nat. Geographic
        TV

         
        Interesting that fragments of all books of the Bible were found, even SOS at
        Qumran but not a single fragment from the Book of Esther.

        That is highly suspicious.

        Why?  Because the version of Esther that is critical to chronology determines
        the book was revised.  That is, the LXX version, which is the ealier version has

        Esther married to Artaxerxes I.  When the book was later rewritten and revised,
        the current Hebrew version in most Bibles, they changed who she was married to
        from Artaxerxes I to "Ahasuerus" which is presumed to be Xerxes. 

        Of course, per the Bible, Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king.  Therefore,
        the Book of Esther is just a semi-historical fable.  It definitely doesn't work
        during the reign of Artaxerxes I, but becomes historical in the revised timeline

        when Xerxes has a separate reign as Ahasuerus.  So someone was busy trying to
        authenticate the revised timeline sometime after the LXX came out, recognizing
        the LXX version of Esther contradicted with the canonical account of Ezra and
        Nehemiah.

        Thus it would have been a key point of interest to see which version of Esther
        was at Qumran.  The LXX version would have reflected on the revisionism for
        sure.  But, of course, the claim is that no copy of Esther was found there.  I
        find that rather difficult to believe. 

        I have no proof, of course, but I think if there were fragments of Esther found
        in the DSS, it was the version that would draw attention to this cover-up and so

        it was suppressed.  Odd that out of all the books of the Bible and some
        pseudepigrapha the Book of Esther, a critical reference, is the only book
        missing.

        It begs the question whether those in the field of archaeology and Bible history

        are still trying to influence and manipulate the timeline, suppressing what they

        wish to keep the general public in the dark?

        Larry Wilson

         

        ________________________________
        From: saintxmas <saintxmas@...>
        To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wed, September 8, 2010 9:17:37 AM
        Subject: [biblicalist] Re: on "Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls" Nat. Geographic TV

         
        A very lightweight program attempting to revive
        the long the wavering mystique of the DSS.
        Cargill concludes the texts were written by
        many Groups thus diluting the emphasis on Essenes.
        Pfann suggests Zealots; so he goes for later dating
        I guess.
        Cargill confused things by connecting Josephus
        and Masada and Qumran.
        Nicely filmed though, and it would be worth
        having a copy in the DVD library.

        Rod N

        --- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Goranson <goranson@...> wrote:
        >
        > "Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls" shown on National Geographic channel is
        >available on youtube:
        > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQIb13roRYA
        >
        > The show gives rise to many significant pros and cons. Early on (in the second

        >minute) it states that de Vaux claimed 60 years ago that the scrolls were "*all*
        >
        >[my emphasis] written...by the Essenes" by the Dead Sea. But that is false, an
        >unfortunate hearsay myth strawman. Where were National Geographic fact checkers?
        >
        >Also, some mss are older than the Hellenistic era settlement at Qumran, so were

        >obviously composed and penned earlier and elsewhere. Further, who wrote
        >(composed and penned) the scrolls is obviously not the "only" question, as the
        >show oddly framed itself. It's good that the ink analysis was noted, showing
        >penning near the Dead Sea. Good that the skin DNA studies were mentioned; they
        >involve Nubian ibex, native to the Qumran area and not Jerusalem. And good that

        >NAA analysis of the clay was included; but it should have been added that
        >Gunneweg finally obtained clay to test from Peleg's pool and, with his big
        >database, has falsified Peleg's pottery proposal. The claim that a Jerusalem jar
        >
        >inscription is key to the Qumran scrolls is not merely flimsy and idiosyncratic

        >and unpublished, but contradicted by evidence gathered by many scholars (Tov,
        >Tigchelaar, and others--including the speculator himself on sectarian, Essene
        >texts).
        >
        > Stephen Goranson
        > http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
        >
        >
        > ________________________________________
        > From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com [biblicalist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        >Stephen Goranson [goranson@...]
        > Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:25 AM
        > To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [biblicalist] was Qumran Cave 11 a Zealot library?
        >
        > The Qumran Cave 11 manuscripts--remains of a Zealot library?
        >
        > Such is the proposal in Pfann, Stephen J. "Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves:
        >
        >Libraries, Archives, 'Genizas' and Hiding Places." Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel

        >Archaeological Society 25 (2007) 147-170 Available at
        > http://www.uhl.ac/articles/
        >
        > A CTVC program (not yet scheduled, as far as I know) apparently will advocate
        >this proposal, at least, based on descriptions at CTVC:
        > http://www.ctvc.co.uk/scrolls.html
        > and on Dr. Robert R. Cargill's website:
        > http://robertcargill.com/ Feb. 3 and March 15 posts
        >
        > Some comments and questions:
        >
        > Tov characterized 11Q as most consistently written in Qumran scribal practice.

        >Tov, Emanuel. "The Special Character of the Texts Found in Qumran Cave 11." In
        >Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of
        >Michael E. Stone, ed. E. Chazon, et al., 187-196. JSJSS 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
        >
        >What would a "Zealot library" look like (e.g. consistently produced?)? Would
        >zealots defending the existing temple be hoping for its destruction to allow for
        >
        >a different temple? Were zealots known for their linens? Did Josephus say
        >zealots took scrolls or something else?
        >
        > 11Q29 Fragment Related to Serek ha-Yahad. An S-Qumran connection. Tigchelaar,
        >Eibert J. C. "A Newly Identified 11QSerekh ha-Yahad Fragment (11Q29)?" In The
        >Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the
        >Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997, ed. L. Schiffman et al., 285-292.
        >Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the
        >Book, Israel Museum, 2000.
        >
        > 11QSefer ha-Milhama.
        >
        > 11QcrypticA Unidentified text. Did Zealots use crypticA? Who did (cf. 4Q)? How

        >could that be bracketed off?
        >
        > Ada Yardeni observed that dozens of texts come from one "Qumran scribe,"
        >including texts from Caves 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8-- and Cave 11. Yardeni, Ada. "A Note
        >
        >on a Qumran Scribe." In New Seals and Inscriptions: Hebrew, Idumean, and
        >Cuneiform, ed. Meir Lubetski, 287-298. Hebrew Bible Monographs 8. Sheffield:
        >Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. Unless she is mistaken, or unless one posits that
        >
        >zealots shared this scribe, how can her observations fit the 11Q as zealot
        >hypothesis? Abraham Schalit in the Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus p.34, 46,
        >
        >66 noted that "John the Essene" is likely a misreading for John of Essa.
        >
        > Weston Fields DSS; A Full History vol. 1 (Leiden, 2010) gives reasons to be
        >cautious about cave assignments of some purchased mss. If appreciable numbers of
        >
        >mss are incorrectly assigned, cave assemblages may be significantly affected.
        >Caves that have few mss, such as 3Q, make arguments from silence even more iffy,
        >
        >and why ignore a probable 3Q pesher and angel texts? If the 3QCu burials are in

        >the Sokakah Qumran area, then that's something possibly relevant with those in
        >the area, if they were keeping things for a temple, not from a temple.
        >
        > Stephen Goranson
        > http://www,duke.edu/~goranson
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.