Science Gives The Qumran Theory A Kick In The Nuts

[Minimalist]

The Dead Sea Scrolls were not written on parchments derived from a single local herd but even a small sample size showed genetic diversity including cattle parchment which would have been impossible to raise in the Qumran desert environment.
A Google search for < Qumran genetic test parchment > revealed many scientific papers.  I went with this one from Tel Aviv University as Mizrahi was one of the principals behind the research.

Prof. Mizrahi further explains, “Since late antiquity, there has been almost complete uniformity of the biblical text. A Torah scroll in a synagogue in Kiev would be virtually identical to one in Sydney, down to the letter. By contrast, in Qumran we find in the very same cave different versions of the same book. But, in each case, one must ask: Is the textual ‘pluriformity,’ as we call it, yet another peculiar characteristic of the sectarian group whose writings were found in the Qumran caves? Or does it reflect a broader feature, shared by the rest of Jewish society of the period? The ancient DNA proves that two copies of Jeremiah, textually different from each other, were brought from outside the Judean Desert. This fact suggests that the concept of scriptural authority — emanating from the perception of biblical texts as a record of the Divine Word — was different in this period from that which dominated after the destruction of the Second Temple. In the formative age of classical Judaism and nascent Christianity, the polemic between Jewish sects and movements was focused on the ‘correct’ interpretation of the text, not its wording or exact linguistic form.”

https://www.aftau.org/news_item/dead-sea...e-written/


Gee.  Maybe all of the fucking bible is just human generated bullshit?

[Fireball]

Hmm. Color me unsurprised.

[Reltzik]

Gee.  Maybe all of the fucking bible is just human generated bullshit?

The part about Rome occupying Judea was true.

.... though I suppose that imperialistic conquest can be filed under the heading of "human generated bullshit" pretty easily.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Dead Sea Scrolls were not written on parchments derived from a single local herd but even a small sample size showed genetic diversity including cattle parchment which would have been impossible to raise in the Qumran desert environment.
A Google search for < Qumran genetic test parchment > revealed many scientific papers.  I went with this one from Tel Aviv University as Mizrahi was one of the principals behind the research.

Prof. Mizrahi further explains, “Since late antiquity, there has been almost complete uniformity of the biblical text. A Torah scroll in a synagogue in Kiev would be virtually identical to one in Sydney, down to the letter. By contrast, in Qumran we find in the very same cave different versions of the same book. But, in each case, one must ask: Is the textual ‘pluriformity,’ as we call it, yet another peculiar characteristic of the sectarian group whose writings were found in the Qumran caves? Or does it reflect a broader feature, shared by the rest of Jewish society of the period? The ancient DNA proves that two copies of Jeremiah, textually different from each other, were brought from outside the Judean Desert. This fact suggests that the concept of scriptural authority — emanating from the perception of biblical texts as a record of the Divine Word — was different in this period from that which dominated after the destruction of the Second Temple. In the formative age of classical Judaism and nascent Christianity, the polemic between Jewish sects and movements was focused on the ‘correct’ interpretation of the text, not its wording or exact linguistic form.”

https://www.aftau.org/news_item/dead-sea...e-written/


Gee.  Maybe all of the fucking bible is just human generated bullshit?

Wait, are you trying to tell us this was all slapped-together? Rub me in butter.

[Minimalist]

Gee.  Maybe all of the fucking bible is just human generated bullshit?

The part about Rome occupying Judea was true.

.... though I suppose that imperialistic conquest can be filed under the heading of "human generated bullshit" pretty easily.

At times.... from 37 to 4 BCE the Romans left Judaea to its own devices under Herod the Great.  Herod's son Archelaus was given Judaea and a couple of other shitholes for his kingdom in 4 BCE and ruled until 6 AD when the Sanheddrin petitioned Augustus to replace him and Judaea to become a Roman Prefecture. From 6 to 41 there was direct Roman administration to a point.  A considerable degree of home rule was granted to the Sanheddrin while the Roman Prefect resided in the delightful seaside town of Caesarea.  When Caligula became emperor he couldn't wait to install his boyhood friend Herod Agrippa and later they put Herod Agrippa II as ruler.  It was almost as if the Romans just wanted anyone to rule Judaea as long as it wasn't them.

[Minimalist]

Wait, are you trying to tell us this was all slapped-together? Rub me in butter.

Well, Thump.  The real question is who did the 'slapping?'  As noted the fragments that were stitched together by people who were more concerned with the story they were telling than which manuscript they came from.  These bible-thumping assholes are very concerned with claiming that their stories are real and it turns out they stitched various pieces of manuscript to others that had nothing to do with the original manuscripts the pieces came from.

Shocking, I know!

[Huggy Bear]

The part about Rome occupying Judea was true.

.... though I suppose that imperialistic conquest can be filed under the heading of "human generated bullshit" pretty easily.

At times.... from 37 to 4 BCE the Romans left Judaea to its own devices under Herod the Great.  Herod's son Archelaus was given Judaea and a couple of other shitholes for his kingdom in 4 BCE and ruled until 6 AD when the Sanheddrin petitioned Augustus to replace him and Judaea to become a Roman Prefecture. From 6 to 41 there was direct Roman administration to a point.  A considerable degree of home rule was granted to the Sanheddrin while the Roman Prefect resided in the delightful seaside town of Caesarea.  When Caligula became emperor he couldn't wait to install his boyhood friend Herod Agrippa and later they put Herod Agrippa II as ruler.  It was almost as if the Romans just wanted anyone to rule Judaea as long as it wasn't them.

What's your opinion on Josephus? Credible historical source or no?

[brewerb]

At times.... from 37 to 4 BCE the Romans left Judaea to its own devices under Herod the Great.  Herod's son Archelaus was given Judaea and a couple of other shitholes for his kingdom in 4 BCE and ruled until 6 AD when the Sanheddrin petitioned Augustus to replace him and Judaea to become a Roman Prefecture. From 6 to 41 there was direct Roman administration to a point.  A considerable degree of home rule was granted to the Sanheddrin while the Roman Prefect resided in the delightful seaside town of Caesarea.  When Caligula became emperor he couldn't wait to install his boyhood friend Herod Agrippa and later they put Herod Agrippa II as ruler.  It was almost as if the Romans just wanted anyone to rule Judaea as long as it wasn't them.

What's your opinion on Josephus? Credible historical source or no?

[Minimalist]

At times.... from 37 to 4 BCE the Romans left Judaea to its own devices under Herod the Great.  Herod's son Archelaus was given Judaea and a couple of other shitholes for his kingdom in 4 BCE and ruled until 6 AD when the Sanheddrin petitioned Augustus to replace him and Judaea to become a Roman Prefecture. From 6 to 41 there was direct Roman administration to a point.  A considerable degree of home rule was granted to the Sanheddrin while the Roman Prefect resided in the delightful seaside town of Caesarea.  When Caligula became emperor he couldn't wait to install his boyhood friend Herod Agrippa and later they put Herod Agrippa II as ruler.  It was almost as if the Romans just wanted anyone to rule Judaea as long as it wasn't them.

What's your opinion on Josephus? Credible historical source or no?

A good and fair question, Huggy.

The answer is not simple.

To a very large extent much of his earlier books of Antiquities of the Jews has been substantiated to one degree or another by archaeology and or Roman history.  Just as an example, Josephus recounts the installation of P. Sulpicius Quirinius as governor of Syria and at the same time the change in Judaean status from independent client kingdom to Roman Prefecture under the governor of Syria.  In addition to numerous inscriptions attesting to this fact we also have coins issued by the various Roman Prefects of Judaea, Coponius, Valerius Gratus, Pontius Pilate, etc so a political change was clear.

However where Josephus cannot be trusted is when he is personally involved such as the Campaign in Galilee during the Great Revolt.  His 'recollection' of his escape from the defeat at Jotapata is not only self-serving but bears a cunning similarity to the supposed suicides of the Zealots who were defeated at Masada.  By that time Josephus was in Rome as a paid lackey of the Flavian dynasty.  He was not in a position interview any alleged survivors of the massacre or soldiers of the Tenth Legion but he could have spoken to Flavius Silva or some of his staff officers upon return to Rome.  What is certain is that after Jotapata he went over to Vespasian and is still regarded by Jews as a Quisling to this day.

So much as with any ancient historian one is forced to take a lot of what they say cum grano salis, as the saying goes.

[epronovost]

So much as with any ancient historian one is forced to take a lot of what they say cum grano salis, as the saying goes.

One of the big advantages of Josephus is that there has been a lot of historiographical research and commentary on his work since he talked about a region in a time in history for which there is enormous interests. It does help in estblishing his credibility (or lackthereoft) in several places. It also exposed some likely Christian forgeries and interpolation in his work that might have underwised not have been spotted.

[Rhythmcs]

As if it could even matter to a christian nut whether jospehus was a good historical source? Firstly, they want a source of miracles, not reporting. Secondly...if jospehus (or anyone else) said "then these fucking nuts started babbling about some christ and I lost my shit because I was in the room personally when that got cooked up" they'd all abandon their faiths?

Nonsense, all around. Didn't matter then, still doesn't matter today.

[Dānu]

They just want talking points. Conservatives are all the same. They think if they've got a good talking point, the truth doesn't matter.

[Minimalist]

Yes and it is also true that the first century CE was one of the most well documented periods in ancient history with Roman, Greek, and Jewish writers.  Not only do we have extensive literature from the period but there are numerous references to works which are no longer extant sprinkled across those that are.

And oddly...or perhaps not so oddly...none of those writers living in the early first century saw fit to mention even a hint of a dead jew coming back to life after having been crucified by a Roman magistrate...or a bunch of Jewish priests, depending on your p-o-v.

Prior to c 180 we have a few scattered references to 'christians' ( or possibly 'chrestians' ) but the first Greco-Roman writer to mention anybody named jesus was Celsus.  Xtians will twist their nuts into pretzels to ignore that simple fact.

[SYZ]

Celsus accused Jesus of having "invented his birth from a virgin,"
and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of
a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning,
and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade,
because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away
by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully
gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself
out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there
acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly
pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account
of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."

 —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, published 1867-1872.

[Minimalist]

SYZ, as Bart Ehrman wrote in his book "The Lost Christianities" early jesusism was far from the monolithic doctrine that the church tries to claim it was.

The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two.
Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.

The church, with the help of the Roman Empire, did their best to exterminate or assimilate these other view points.  But what it suggests is that jesusism developed independently in a multitude of small sects across the Eastern Empire with no overriding control by anyone.

Never forget how Pliny the Younger described to Trajan the xtian beliefs in his province of Bithynia in Asia Minor in 110 CE.

However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles. These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition.

So....no refence to jesus, crucifixion, coming back from the dead, rising to heaven, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Caiaphas, miracles, sermons, not even anything "jewish."  WTF?  As Richard Carrier has pointed out the "communcal meal" was a feature of many so-called "mystery cults" rampant in the Roman Empire of which jesusism started out as one.