Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:32 pm

It's the concept of the "Essenes" that is undermined.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:35 pm

i don't know if that would happen; maybe in their living their but not in their writing/copying but again too many possibilities exist to rule them out.

the way the article is written it makes it sound unlikely that the essenes had anything to do with the scrolls at all if they existed at that time.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:45 pm

You cannot forget the political realities of the first century AD. Once the Jews lost their collective minds and revolted against Rome it had to be pretty apparent that Jerusalem would be ground zero for Roman retribution.

The notion that someone would seek to hide a library of important documents in an out of the way place is hardly extraordinary. If the US were to move the Archives to Nebraska it would not mean that they were written in Omaha.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:03 am

i am not really disagreeing with you on this or with the article, i just don't think the interpretation or the conclusions should be so limited.

If the US were to move the Archives to Nebraska it would not mean that they were written in Omaha.

i understand and i can agree that the Essenes could have written or copied the scrolls elswhere and then hidden them in the caves; but that would be a risky venture but possible.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:21 am

I understand that.

P.s.....less risky then leaving them to burn in Jerusalem.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:30 pm

Speculating are we, arch? That's a sin for scientists on our side, but allowed by you? WTF? Make up your mind.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:43 pm

The speculation could have come in 1947 when the scrolls were found. A whole theory of the Essenes being some sort of monastic group of Jews living in a backwater area and writing these scrolls out was concocted to explain the existence of, A- the building and B- the scrolls.

The new findings are that the building was a pottery factory which had been there for quite some time and the scrolls were dumped in nearby caves to keep them safe.

It is the old "associated material" tendency of archaeology run wild!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:59 pm

It is the old "associated material" tendency of archaeology run wild!

yes thatis a good possibility i will have to go and recheck some things i have to see if that is what it was..

Speculating are we, arch

it was done long before i got into archaeology so i am just leavif the possibilities open. the essenes could have done their writing elsewhere and then moved to the factory when the romans came. or they tookover the factory when it wentout of business. right now who knows, the building andwho was using it doesn't takeaway fromthe scrolls, it is a minor point.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:01 pm

surely as the scrolls aren't first editions they aren't relevant to anything anyway
wheres the bible from 10,000bce Arch ?
the one you were saying was written in Hebrew

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:18 pm

surely as the scrolls aren't first editions they aren't relevant to anything anyway
wheres the bible from 10,000bce Arch ?
the one you were saying was written in Hebrew

where do you come up with this crap? i have never said the bible was written in Hebrew long before its time.

i have said that the continuity links are there to preserve the true accounts making it possible for the Biblical version to be the original and all others the copies.

but sincey you can't accept the fact that the sumerian legends were second or third you manipulate what i wrote to try and make me say something i haven't said.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:25 pm

you just love posting unsubstantiated bullshit dont you
got any links that prove the Sumerians didn't write the original biblical stories ?
after all
without links youre just talking out of your "anal orifice" aren't you
should be easy to prove right ?

i have said that the continuity links are there to preserve the true accounts making it impossible for the Biblical version to be the original and all others the copies.

so youre actually admitting that its impossible for the Biblical version to be the original

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:18 pm

you just love posting unsubstantiated bullshit dont you

i think that applies to you more than me.

so youre actually admitting that its impossible for the Biblical version to be the original

sorry a typo. i will fix that

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:20 pm

sorry a typo. i will fix that

you call it a typo thats fine
everyone else knows it was a freudian slip

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:12 pm

The speculation could have come in 1947 when the scrolls were found

getting back to this point. was i speculating or was saying i didn't care what the building was as the possibilities are many and not limited to the tenuous conclusion being presented.

no doubt it was used as a pottery factory, no denial there but was it in that business at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem? could the essenes moved in, temprorarily while they found a place to put the scrolls?

the fact that it was used as a pottery factory doesn't diminish the fact concerning the scrolls and its only relevance would be towards the essenes living arrangements.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:03 pm

Probably no way to tell.

It would be a blow to the idea of the Essenes sitting around, like monks, copying these documents but, the documents themselves remain legitimate.