mwc Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 Ancient writings from the Dead Sea scrolls are to be read for the first time by British scientists using powerful x-rays.... The team's first goal is to read hidden texts from the scrolls and the Torah which is said to record the word of God as revealed to Moses. "There are some parts of the Dead Sea scrolls that haven't been unrolled, and there are parts of the Torah that haven't been seen as well," Prof Wess said. "There are discoveries to be made in terms of trying to understand the whole picture of the history of the people who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls and why they moved into that area of the Dead Sea. Sometimes we don't know their value because we can't see inside them, and until we start looking, we don't know what's there." Full article. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Ancient writings from the Dead Sea scrolls are to be read for the first time by British scientists using powerful x-rays.... The team's first goal is to read hidden texts from the scrolls and the Torah which is said to record the word of God as revealed to Moses. "There are some parts of the Dead Sea scrolls that haven't been unrolled, and there are parts of the Torah that haven't been seen as well," Prof Wess said. "There are discoveries to be made in terms of trying to understand the whole picture of the history of the people who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls and why they moved into that area of the Dead Sea. Sometimes we don't know their value because we can't see inside them, and until we start looking, we don't know what's there." Full article. mwc MWC, thanks for sharing this interesting article! Did they ever release what the other dead sea scrolls said? I'd be very curious to know what deviations our present understanding of those teachings are, from these ancient manuscripts. Hopefully someone will let us know what these unrolled scrolls say, after they x-ray them and interpret it. Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jun Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Did they ever release what the other dead sea scrolls said? Barbara Thiering, a theologian and biblical scholar, has studied the Dead Sea Scrolls for over twenty years and has a very thought provoking book called "Jesus the man" which is based on her study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Her study challenges all of the supernatural hocus-pocus of christianity. There is also a DVD "The secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls" which I found very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share Posted September 17, 2007 MWC, thanks for sharing this interesting article! You're quite welcome. Haven't seen you around for awhile. Did they ever release what the other dead sea scrolls said? I'd be very curious to know what deviations our present understanding of those teachings are, from these ancient manuscripts. Hopefully someone will let us know what these unrolled scrolls say, after they x-ray them and interpret it. Thanks again! There are lots of things about the DSS (books, etc.). Here's a pretty good site. I went to a DSS exhibit in San Diego on Saturday which was pretty interesting (not as in depth as I would have liked but considering the intended audience it was good...and probably about as close as I'll ever get to some of these things). They had some of the original scrolls there among other artifacts (I enjoined the small coin collection they showed). From what I could gather the academics have pretty much decided that information should be released ASAP because of all the controversy the initial delay caused so I imagine that this tradition will be applied to these scrolls as well. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 MWC... I always gain from and appreciate your insights! Thanks for that site. I read from that site here : Readers approach the Dead Sea scrolls from a variety of perspectives and with differing interests. The texts "say" different things to different people. This is what I suspected. Because they weren't very articulate back then, according to today's standards, and their style of communicating must have been quite different. I don't see how they can really interpret it completely authentically. How can modern people avoid their own spin, from their personal opinions? It seems a comprehensive perspective on the evolution of all mythologies from that region until the dead sea scrolls, with an in depth understanding of their culture, use of metaphors, parables, and customs might give a clue to their real meanings. As time goes on, could we be actually getting closer or just farther away from what these scrolls and their teachings are all about? Thanks Jun! Yes, I easily agree that there were probably no initial intentions of miracles then, which aren't able to be happening today too. Heck, even the bible quotes Jesus as saying that everything he did, we too can do... and even greater things. That statement alone eliminates a lot of supernatural hocus pocus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share Posted September 18, 2007 Readers approach the Dead Sea scrolls from a variety of perspectives and with differing interests. The texts "say" different things to different people. This is what I suspected. Because they weren't very articulate back then, according to today's standards, and their style of communicating must have been quite different. I don't see how they can really interpret it completely authentically. How can modern people avoid their own spin, from their personal opinions? It seems a comprehensive perspective on the evolution of all mythologies from that region until the dead sea scrolls, with an in depth understanding of their culture, use of metaphors, parables, and customs might give a clue to their real meanings. As time goes on, could we be actually getting closer or just farther away from what these scrolls and their teachings are all about? If you read a lot of the scrolls they veil a lot of things in metaphor. It's fairly obvious. They also never really come right out and say what they mean...at least in the parts we have so far. So they have someone called the "Teacher of Righteousness" in one text. What does that mean? He's like a messiah but not entirely. They also speak of Damascus, which sounds like the real city, but it also sounds like a metaphor as well, which if taken that way works better with other things that are said. Taken with what is in Acts it would mean the author got it wrong and "Saul" wasn't literally going anywhere but was going metaphorically to Damascus and had a "vision" (he then reached Damascus, the "straight" road, could "see" and so on but not literally but not being initiated the author got it wrong). Damascus was sort of a destination of the enlightened but taken literally it meant the city in Syria (the OT never really says but it is used as a "promised land" of sorts depending on the interpretation). The texts are full of possibilities like the kind I mention especially when you put them into the context of other documents (not the best thing to do academically but it's fun to speculate). In and of themselves it's hard to find much meaning because so little text actually exists. That's why the ability to read these larger scrolls could really shed some light on things if it works (hopefully it's not just more Psalms, Isaiah and Deuteronomy because they really loved those three documents and had a number of copies of them...although we could see how well copied they were which would tell us a little something about their scribes I guess). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 If you read a lot of the scrolls they veil a lot of things in metaphor. It's fairly obvious. They also never really come right out and say what they mean...at least in the parts we have so far. So they have someone called the "Teacher of Righteousness" in one text. What does that mean? He's like a messiah but not entirely. MWC, that is really awesome! I love that metaphoriacal / allegorical stuff. It is difficult for me to read, yet I like the process of the rise of a revelation from within. And the Teacher of Righteousness, this is very interesting. As I've been reading, what about this guy Ben Sirach? Is there any sign that this character we reference as jesus is really a compilation of several people? Also, are there signs of how other cultural mythologies (such as Egyptian) got incorporated into these teachings? Gosh, I consider you so well informed and appreciate any insights you may have obtained from your reading. They also speak of Damascus, which sounds like the real city, but it also sounds like a metaphor as well, which if taken that way works better with other things that are said. Taken with what is in Acts it would mean the author got it wrong and "Saul" wasn't literally going anywhere but was going metaphorically to Damascus and had a "vision" (he then reached Damascus, the "straight" road, could "see" and so on but not literally but not being initiated the author got it wrong). Damascus was sort of a destination of the enlightened but taken literally it meant the city in Syria (the OT never really says but it is used as a "promised land" of sorts depending on the interpretation). How am I NOTsurprised? Of course Paul was not literally blinded, but his mind's ability to perceive was "blinded". Why wouldn't the rest of the story be metaphorical too! I didn't think it was to that extent, but it makes sense. The texts are full of possibilities like the kind I mention especially when you put them into the context of other documents (not the best thing to do academically but it's fun to speculate). In and of themselves it's hard to find much meaning because so little text actually exists. That's why the ability to read these larger scrolls could really shed some light on things if it works (hopefully it's not just more Psalms, Isaiah and Deuteronomy because they really loved those three documents and had a number of copies of them...although we could see how well copied they were which would tell us a little something about their scribes I guess). mwc So MWC, I'm curious to know how much of it is based on actual events and how much of it is allegorical with just morals to teach others. I'd say there is probably both, with other mythologies imposed too. Gosh, is there any sign that this might have a real chance of each of these parts being authentically determined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 MWC, that is really awesome! I love that metaphoriacal / allegorical stuff. It is difficult for me to read, yet I like the process of the rise of a revelation from within. And the Teacher of Righteousness, this is very interesting. As I've been reading, what about this guy Ben Sirach? Is there any sign that this character we reference as jesus is really a compilation of several people? Also, are there signs of how other cultural mythologies (such as Egyptian) got incorporated into these teachings? Gosh, I consider you so well informed and appreciate any insights you may have obtained from your reading. The DSS are Jewish. In that there's no mistake. Who accessed them and what their sphere of influence was is another question altogether (and the reverse is obviously true too...were these people isolationists or did they "mix" with others?). My personal opinion is that during the period that the Jews were fighting the Romans (during the 1st revolt) that groups that normally wouldn't mix, and would have even killed each other had it not been for their common enemy the Romans, came together and so did their beliefs. Qumran became one of these "melting pots" if you like and from there came "new" theologies. One of those could have been xianity or a variation that we might consider a proto-xianity. The beliefs of the people that were in the Qumran sect just prior to this "mixing" would have been a little more "pure" if you like but since the place had been around for some time (they estimated 2nd or 3rd century BCE at the exhibit) it had undergone a number of natural evolutionary changes on its own. As it stands there is absolutely no connection between xianity, the DSS and Qumran. Just pure speculation like the kind I give in my own opinion above. The writings of Ben Sirach are found in the DSS and so the odds are they were inspired by those writings. People believe they can see the influence of those same writings in some of the NT. People also believe they can see some of the ways of the Essenes (who may have lived at Qumran) in John the Baptist. Take all this speculation together and you might say this group inspired, or even transformed into, the other group. The reality is this is truly a case where we're lacking the "missing link." I'd love to have it among some of those yet to be explored texts but unless a NT author copied unique portions of text whole cloth it's unlikely we'll find a smoking gun. It may help clear up who the people at Qumran really were and what they were doing out there, what their beliefs were about (which will likely just add to other speculation), and perhaps it will increase our knowledge of that period allowing us to better judge other documents. How am I NOTsurprised? Of course Paul was not literally blinded, but his mind's ability to perceive was "blinded". Why wouldn't the rest of the story be metaphorical too! I didn't think it was to that extent, but it makes sense. Well, I rambled quite a bit but I was only talking about the Acts telling of the tale and not Paul's letters. It's important to differentiate them and also how I see them. I see Acts as two parts. The "Saul" part and the "Paul" part. I think the "Saul" part is by a different author and tells a different story than the "Paul" part does. Eventually this text was "borrowed" and "glued" to the "Paul" story to unite two groups. This is why Paul in his letters doesn't agree with the "Saul/Paul" of the Acts or really mention any of those things that happened to that other person. That story is a fiction (not that Paul didn't like to "enhance" his own life but boasting as he does is something else altogether). Anyhow, it is "Saul" that is blinded. It is "Saul" that is part of the metaphorical tale and not "Paul." The thing is that this story was rewritten by someone that took it literally and so he actually went on a journey, saw a vision, became blind, had scales, went to the road that is "straight," lost the scales and so on. All metaphor taken literally by an uninformed author that was simply "borrowing" a story to "glue" to his own "Paul" story. It fit with their concept of "revelation" so why not use it? I'd love to see a document similar to this appear at Qumran. The Damascus documents are similar and we aren't certain if people really went to Damascus are not (we think they might have but that still doesn't mean it was literal but that some just took it that way). There is zero evidence, outside Acts, that I've been able to find for a xian church being in Damascus at that time for Paul, any Paul, to persecute...that leaves only people that are connected to these documents being up that way to be persecuted (which is why I hold the opinion someone "borrowed" from someone else). So MWC, I'm curious to know how much of it is based on actual events and how much of it is allegorical with just morals to teach others. I'd say there is probably both, with other mythologies imposed too. Gosh, is there any sign that this might have a real chance of each of these parts being authentically determined? I personally think that very little of the gospel accounts are based in actual events (and those are simply place names, festivals and the like). If I could definitively find anything based in some absolute truth, unlike everyone else, I doubt I'd say a word but rather go stake my claim and open my tourist trap on the spot over in Israel...then start yelling like there's no tomorrow about my discovery. I'd be rich and famous. If I had to choose a figure and mythology that the whole thing was based on I'm going to go with one that, to my knowledge, isn't said often. After all my personal research I would say that jesus is pharaoh. This is why he appears to be so many other gods especially Horus and Osiris. He wouldn't have been pharaoh of his own day but a more ancient version (when the role was more venerated). The living pharaoh was basically Horus and the dead pharaoh took the form of many gods, including Osiris (the person was referenced in the texts as Osiris <Name> meaning they were seen as others present as the god Osiris and in other parts of the texts they were referenced as other gods as well...as the situation required it). This is why I've recently said that I believe that the bulk of the religion came from Alexandria. There is more to my reasons than this but it would take considerable effort to explain it all. Needless to say jesus fits the role of pharaoh quite nicely. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts