'Newly Discovered Ancient Manuscripts from Dead Sea Scrolls Cave.'

beansidhe
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

It is exciting, I agree, not least because reading something handwritten from 2000 years ago is eventful enough! It is interesting to wonder if maybe a word will be different, or even an entire text.

Indeed, things like what kind of script used, exact wording of the texts, dialectical, grammatical and other divergencies. Food for a nerd like meself. Thanks for the find! Just when I thought I had gathered all the mss found at Qumran, these fortune cookie scrolls show up.

Glad you dropped by

Yea, thought I'd do a bit of stalking after you showed up in one of me threads

Very interesting.
Are there any updates on this yet?

By the way, just to put things into perspective, The Old Testament (about Moses, Abraham, Isaac) was written about 3000 years ago while The New Testament (which is written about The Life of Jesus Christ) was written almost 2000 years ago.

So this dead sea scroll is in an appropriate time (when The Old Testament was written and probably before The New Testament was being written).

arpgme
Very interesting.
Are there any updates on this yet?

By the way, just to put things into perspective, The Old Testament (about Moses, Abraham, Isaac) was written about 3000 years ago while The New Testament (which is written about The Life of Jesus Christ) was written almost 2000 years ago.

So this dead sea scroll is in an appropriate time (when The Old Testament was written and probably before The New Testament was being written).

Job is about 3000 years old. The Tora and most of the other books contained in the Tanakh is about 500 years younger. NT manuscripts vary in age from Revelation being first century, to most gospels and writings surfacing during the following couple of ceturies.

Utnapisjtim

arpgme
Very interesting.
.

Job is about 3000 years old. The Tora and most of the other books contained in the Tanakh is about 500 years younger. NT manuscripts vary in age from Revelation being first century, to most gospels and writings surfacing during the following couple of ceturies.

nope wrong answer on the new testament, just using a wiki for the gospels cause it's fast. now opinions do vary most believe that the four were writen first century.
Gospel Of Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90;[2] a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported.

Gospel of Mark, has the most dispute of when written

A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.125 BCE) ascribes this gospel to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim.[5] The book was probably written c.66-70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt,

also from the wiki on mark.

The four gospels are the earliest narrative portraits of Jesus, and were written between, broadly, 65 and 110 CE.[15] They were written for an audience already Christian -

Gospel of Luke

Most scholars date Luke c.80-100.[22]

Gospel of John

The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.[

The four canonical gospels "were probably all written by the end of the first century".
Gospel

so clearly it it plain to see that most believe them to come in the first century or with in ten years after the second, they do think they were edited and rewritten in latter times.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Rylands manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, the exact form of the text preserved in these later, numerous manuscripts may not be identical to the form of the text as it existed in antiquity. Textual scholar Bart Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[2]

Wikipedia source

Utnapisjtim
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Rylands manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, the exact form of the text preserved in these later, numerous manuscripts may not be identical to the form of the text as it existed in antiquity. Textual scholar Bart Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[2]

Wikipedia source

from your wiki. pay close attention to the red and green.

Dating the New Testament manuscripts
The New Testament books appear to have been completed within the 1st century. However, the original manuscripts of the New Testament books do not survive today.The autographs were lost or destroyed a long time ago. What survives are copies of the original. Generally speaking, these copies were made centuries after the originals from other copies rather than from the autograph. Paleography, a science of dating manuscripts by typological analysis of their scripts, is the most precise and objective means known for determining the age of a manuscript. Script groups belong typologically to their generation; and changes can be noted with great accuracy over relatively short periods of time. Dating of manuscript material by a radiocarbon dating test requires that a small part of the material be destroyed in the process; it is less accurate than dating from paleography.[24] Both radiocarbon and paleographical dating only give a range of possible dates, and it is still debated just how narrow this range might be. Dates established by radiocarbon dating can present a range of 10 to over 100 years. Similarly, dates established by paleography can present a range of 25 to over 125 years.[25]

did i or did i not say that in my post and did i or did i not say that they were edited. not only that it says the same the quote that you posted.

but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate

your sourcing the copies, not the originals.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


As for being copies, implied that they were equal or even similar is even a long shot. Most of these books were originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Nearly nothing of these sources have survived, only (often much) later translated Greek and Latin texts. Many different versions of the texts we now know as Luke and Mark etc. have changed radically during those centuries. Commentaries expressing how some of these mss used the Tetragrammathon instead of Lord for Christ and contained passages unknown now, and other later additions are well known fakes, like the story with the famous words 'cast the first stone' and the Comma Johanneum, Secret Mark and many others. Saying our current "sources" are genuine is like saying today's Donald Duck is the same as Walt Disney's Donald. Many of the mss refered to by the same names were in fact often completely unrelated texts, simply attested to or in courtecy of the same saint. The history of biblical documents is the story of fraud and forgery more so than a tradition of accuracy and sound preservation.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


why do you keep on arguing the point that the copies according to most biblical scholars agree that the gospels used now are copies based on the originals written in the first century.

i showed you that in my original post ,and even showed you were your source basically said the same thing.

i even said that they were rewritten and edited. here from my first post. key words in green.

so clearly it it plain to see that most believe them to come in the first century or with in ten years after the second, they do think they were edited and rewritten in latter times.

no where did i allude to them being 100% accurate, down to the last letter.

now as far as all the other claims you make, that's for another topic. why don't you make a thread for it.

that's all i have to say on this matter. continue on if you wish.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Well, you claimed there were 1st century "originals" available while truth is all we have are mostly 10th century mss which our bibles are generally built upon. There are no "originals" to these copies of copies' copies available that has later been translated back and forth between mostly Latin and Greek to pervade the texts even further. The Originals, written in contemporary Aramaic and rabbinical Hebrew were all confiscated and destroyed, either by people like Saul Paulus and his Pharicee inquisitors or the Romans or any of the different sects and authorities playing alon in the bloody game of Christendom's genesis.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim



just flippin stop i made no such claim, open your eyes and use reading comprehension.

show me where i said this.

Well, you claimed there were 1st century "originals" available

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

just flippin stop i made no such claim, open your eyes and use reading comprehension.

show me where i said this.

Well, you claimed there were 1st century "originals" available

Yous said a few posts ago:

hounddoghowlie: your sourcing the copies, not the originals

So as for reading and writing, how about remembering what you write?

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


i remember what i read and wrote just fine.
that's were reading comprehension comes in.

from my first post.

now opinions do vary most believe that the four were writen first century.

Gospel of Mark, has the most dispute of when written

and from the quote for john.

The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.[

all of the above support the fact there are disputes over date and the actual materiel. why would i post these if i believed that they were original.
then my last statement in that post.

so clearly it it plain to see that most believe them to come in the first century or with in ten years after the second, they do think they were edited and rewritten in latter times.

as far as my second post that you claim i said the originals are available.

your sourcing the copies, not the originals.

are you seriously gonna try and play like you didn't understand that i was saying your using dates for the copies. please.
that's a far cry from your claim that i said, to use your words.

there were 1st century "originals" available

as i said you can not show where in my any of my posts, that i said what you claim.
so sharpen those skills and come back later. i'm done with you.

In addition to the issues already discussed in support of the later dates is the important fact that the four canonical gospels were not mentioned or named as such by anyone until the time of Church father Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c. 120/140-c. 200/203 ad/ce). In Against All Heresies (III, 11.8), written around 180 ad/ce, Irenaeus is the first to name the canonical gospels and give reasons for their inclusion and number in the New Testament…

The remarks by Irenaeus represent the first mention of all four canonical gospels together. In fact, prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.

www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

from the just saying file
i have trouble with the concept that the god who created the earth and everthing in it can't back it up to the standard expected in a typical normal debate at ATS

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Well, seeing this discussion is somewhat about whether the pope has a beard or not, I think we should just agree to disagree and carry on with our life. I have made my statement, so have you, we are getting nowhere here.

arpgme
Very interesting.
Are there any updates on this yet?

Not as far as I've seen, arpgme, but I'll keep looking out for news and let you know

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Think of it this way. Certain illegal books start circulating dedicated to known enemies of the state, namely the earliest saints of Christendom which at the time these books started circulating, being a Christian back then, your ability to hide your connection with a certain prophet and suspected Zealot called Jeshua ha'Meshiach, meant the difference between life and death. Nearly nothing remains of these 1st century books, but the names of these books survived as time went by and the early churches started forming and new books were compiled and translated the texts we know today as NT and named the books after the older originals which were probably nothing like the texts we have today. It's typically Roman split and conquer tactics. If you can't fight it, shape it. Hence the Assyrian Roman Jew and Pharicee-killer-of-Christians Shaul Paulus who all of a sudden was the best Chistian of them all with his ramblings filling up a great bulk of NT with all kinds of moralistic and sexist abstractions away from the reasons behind why Jesus had to carry the cross in the first place.

reply to post by beansidhe


Question: Why did this man say phylacteries were leather pouches, when phylacteries are the square boxes tied to their heads?

It's kind of tough to stuff a scroll into a phylactery. I therefore question this article until the author redacts phylactery.

WarminIndy
reply to post by beansidhe

 

Question: Why did this man say phylacteries were leather pouches, when phylacteries are the square boxes tied to their heads?

It's kind of tough to stuff a scroll into a phylactery. I therefore question this article until the author redacts phylactery.

Doctrine. That's what doctrine does. It restrains you like a serpent and leaves you standing there feeling all emberrased and confused. Doctrine.

WarminIndy
reply to post by beansidhe

 

Question: Why did this man say phylacteries were leather pouches, when phylacteries are the square boxes tied to their heads?

It's kind of tough to stuff a scroll into a phylactery. I therefore question this article until the author redacts phylactery.

Thankfully Utnap wrote this earlier, so I can answer your question:

My initial thought was, oh no, another pile of fragments to add to the already vast DSS puzzle. But after digging a little deeper (pun intended - Source), I understand these nine fragments were actually tiny scrolls found inside leather 'tefillin'. Tefillin are two little boxes each containing compartments with tiny handwritten scrolls inside which the observant Jew carefully bind around their hand and forehead as part of the morning prayer ritual.

The scrolls he refers to are very, very small, and the phylacteries were, in fact leather, so I think he's using the word pouch interchangeably with phylactery. It's hard to be certain, but that's my best guess.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


On a good day. When doctrine really hits, it hits hard.
Hope all is good with you!