15 ms·

New 'Dead Sea Scrolls' Revealed

208 points by kungfudoi 10y ago

justinator 10y ago
Between 2009 and 2014, Steve Green, the owner of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores, purchased 13 of the fragments, which he has donated, along with thousands of other artifacts, to the Museum of the Bible. Green is helping to fund construction of the museum, scheduled to open in Washington, D.C., next fall. (A fly-through of the museum can be seen on YouTube). I'm more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this, "museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts from an individual, to a private company held by that individual. Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-suprem...
- gotofritz 10y ago
  I wonder whether the owners' religious beliefs influenced what scrolls were passed on to the museum... some of the scrolls are a bit left field. But then again, they would have needed to understand them first...
  - c0achmcguirk 10y ago
    Which of the scrolls are you referring to? Were they from canonical books?
    - gotofritz 10y ago
      No, the non-canonical
- chinese_dan 10y ago
  "'m more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this, "museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts from an individual, to a private company held by that individual." More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no idea what I'm talking about" "Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners." Ahhh, so you demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs. One has nothing to do with the other. You just wanted to post your displeasure with Hobby Lobby.
  - Retric 10y ago
    It's simple if you are not willing to provide health insurance either admit that and don't provide health insurance or don't employ people. I also demonize serial killers, because they go against my personal beliefs. Because that's what personal beliefs mean. I also don't calibrate the lives destroyed from insanity, why should a tolerate the mass delusions from religion again?
    - castis 10y ago
      What exactly are you having to tolerate?
      - Retric 10y ago
        Poor working conditions for a fellow person. In a wider context indoctrination of children. I feel that 'Sunday school' is child abuse. But, where we don't tolerate public beatings of children some topics are considered off limits. PS: I accept many people will disagree with this. But, while many pat them on the head and move on I think it is important for everyone to understand their bubble is just that, and their assumptions are far from universal.
        kbenson 10y ago
        It's a tricky subject, because heavily regulating what kids must be exposed to by the state could easily be classified as propagandized brainwashing. If we support both the right of parents to express their beliefs to their children and the right of the children to make an informed decision when they are adults about their beliefs, the best thing may be have a mandatory "survey of beliefs" class for children at various points in their lives. A class that covered the 4-5 most common world religious beliefs as well atheism in a way that did not promote any of them, much less one over the others (a tall order in some communities, I'm sure), would do a great deal to both inform individuals on various beliefs and how they interrelate, as well as foster understanding for others.
- proksoup 10y ago
  I disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, but support their right to make it. There are different types of contraceptives, and that we use the same word for all types is disingenuous and muddies the argument. The day after pill is very different from a condom, and at least a little different from "the pill".
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > The day after pill is very different Why? They both prevent conception.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      The morning-after pill has two methods of action, IIRC - preventing ovulation, and making the womb inhospitable for implantation. In the latter case conception occurs.
      - Domenic_S 10y ago
        We're wandering from the topic, but I don't believe that's correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth... - The primary mechanism of action of levonorgestrel as a progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pill is, according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation and thickening of the mucosa of cervix. FIGO has stated that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. (references on the wiki page as always)
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        They've removed the notice from that specific type of ECP (and I was not aware of that), but it's still present on other types, including some that are common in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechanism_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechan...
- Dagwoodie 10y ago
  Do pitchforks need to come out every time a Christian or Christian topic is mentioned on HN? Everyone knows there are people who exercise their religious freedoms, do we need to keep trying to burn them in effigy here?
  - mhurron 10y ago
    If people think strongly enough about a topic, it will happen.
  - kmonsen 10y ago
    I agree with your general sentiment, but disagree with your wording. From what I understand HL, and many others, are not exercising their religious freedom but rather imposing their religion on others. For example, if you are against an action like prevention on religious reasons you should of course be free to not use them yourself. Enforcing those standard on others, including your employees, is not exercising your own religious freedom.
    - Dagwoodie 10y ago
      He's not imposing any behavior on his employees or taking their freedoms way, he's just choosing not to pay for it himself on religious grounds. I suspect the real issue is that he's going agains the grain by not celebrating that form of birth control and that's enough to feel like oppression to some.
Shivetya 10y ago
So there are many sets out there and this few fragments, 13 in all, are actually going to be tested for authenticity. That is a very good outcome and one benefit of those who can and desire to collect such artifacts has, especially when they are willing to turn them over to groups that can properly discern authenticity. As to some claiming its merely dealing in stolen artifacts, most of this concern only arises when profit is to be made or the group claiming ownership has a strong voice. When does it stop? We argue day in and day out here about the absurdity of copyright and patents yet rush to defend states declaring ownership over stuff they know not existed? (its even sillier with sunken treasures)
- g00gler 10y ago
  Isn't the argument against copyrights very similar, if not the same, to the argument for the state to own historic artifacts? I'd argue that the state should own historic artifacts so that they can be held in common. That way no one individual can claim ownership, retain the right to destroy it if they wish, and prevent others from viewing/studying it. Of course the state isn't going to let me or you handle it, but they'll obviously give access to research institutions and whatnot who will publish their findings. Hobby Lobby dude might not do the same and as a private owner, he retains the right not to.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Your argument is just they should be owned by X vs Y. You are not arguing that these should belong to a humanity, but rather a specific state. Thus, no they are not similar arguments.
  - chc 10y ago
    A state also might not do the same. You might live in a place where the government would be likely to be generous with its property and encourage intellectual pursuits, but that isn't inherently any more true of government officials than it is of "the Hobby Lobby dude."
    - g00gler 10y ago
baldfat 10y ago
I majored in Theology in Undergrad and Graduate School. This is a common thing that comes up since most of these manuscripts were gathered by private "archaeologist." If not seen in the light of manuscripts we have for other ancient text it is easy to forget how significant these were/are. We don't have any ancient manuscripts with anything close to these. its awesome just to see them online. http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il?locale=en_US http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il?locale=en_US
- shot_o_goof 10y ago
  I'm probably reading too much into this, but it looks like the story has been refined since these were written. The Leviticus claims could be proven false easily by a small tribe. Everyone does everything right, and you get a 2 year drought. Is this common, that the orriginal texts were refined to make them less flimsy? Or was that the point of Nicene, to create a coherent narrative with that was a tad more believable at the time?
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    It's hard to tell what specifically you're referring to in either paragraph, but if you're talking about the Nicene Creed in the second, the point was to settle a bunch of theological arguments among early Christians. The Israelite people writing Leviticus were writing long before Jesus lived.
    - shot_o_goof 10y ago
      Yea, I didn't think that through at all.
  - teilo 10y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. The Qumran scrolls have nothing whatsoever to do with Nicaea. The OT canon was well established before the Christian era. As far as canonical issues, the council of Nicaea had nothing to do with establishing the canon of Scripture as accepted by the 4th century church. They did publish a list of those books which were already widely recognized in the church, however, no votes were taken as to what books were or were not to be counted as part of the NT canon. No decisions regarding the canon, whether of the Old or the New Testament were made. This is not speculation. We have the proceedings of the council.
insulanian 10y ago
Are these scripts important because of their age or because of the (disruptive?) content?
- emodendroket 10y ago
  They're important because we only have copies and scholars spend a lot of energy trying to work from multiple, fragmentary copies of the text and figuring out exactly what the original said. Any copies, but especially particularly old ones, are invaluable here, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are older than the (more complete, and oldest known before they were found) Masorectic text. That said, when I say differences it's generally a matter of a few words, not huge, distinct plots or something. Sometimes these finds can also include lost, non-canonical texts, but it looks like not in this case.
  - hacknat 10y ago
    The Dead Sea scrolls have versions of Daniel that are significantly different and rearranged than the Masoretic text. Also there are some very interesting and pivotal discrepancies in some of the Kings texts.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      I didn't know that. Is there some description of the differences I could read?
      - drewcrawford 10y ago
        Most of the textual differences are ironed out in the source language which are not especially accessible. English bibles are not translated directly from manuscripts but from one or more "critical texts" which are scholarly reconstructions of the underlying manuscripts. A common one is Nestle-Aland [0], you can read it online. The smaller text appearing there are variant readings that have some degree of manuscript support. The vast majority of them are terribly boring, by way of example, the very first one on the page: > τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, [καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ] ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον [μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός.] > All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: Behold, the virgin in the womb will conceive, and will bear a son, and [they will call the name of him Immanuel], which is translated, '[with us God]' The [bracketed] parts are omitted in some manuscripts. These omissions may feel significant, but since this is a quotation of well-known saying, the shorter readings are probably some scribe trying to scrimp on paper who thinks you should go buy that book if you wanted to know what's in it. This can be annoying in cases where the book in question didn't make it out to modern scholarship, and all the scribes scrimped on paper that day, which does happen. Less commonly (although not infrequently), a textual problem is significant enough to bleed all the way through to the end user. This typically happens when there is no agreement about how to resolve the conflicts or the possibilities are so strange as to be nonsensical. One amusing example is 1 sam 6:19 [1]. There is overwhelming manuscript support for a reading like this: > But the Lord struck down some of the people of Beth Shemesh because they had looked into the ark of the Lord; he struck down 50,070 of the men. [NET] However, in addition to there being a glaring grammar error in the manuscript, this reading presents a number of obvious problems: logistical (how exactly do you get 50,070 people to all look into a box?), numerical (this is a surprisingly exact figure to collect during wartime in enemy territory), internal (elsewhere in the same book Beth Shemesh is a tiny rural village), archeological (it really was a tiny rural village). This problem has lead to various wildly different resolutions over the years, a small sampler: > But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them. [NIV] > God struck down the men of Beth-shemesh because they looked inside the ark of the LORD. He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men. The people mourned because the LORD struck them with a great slaughter. [HCSB] > Then God smote those of Bethshemesh because they had looked at the ark of the LORD; he smote fifty thousand of the people and seventy principal men. And the people lamented because the LORD had smitten the people with such a great slaughter. [Jubilee] > And He smiteth among the men of Beth-Shemesh, for they looked into the ark of Jehovah, yea, He smiteth among the people seventy men -- fifty chief men; and the people mourn, because Jehovah smote among the people -- a great smiting. [YLT] > Perhaps the text should be understood to read the LORD killed 70 men and 50 oxen. [NKJ footnote] [0] http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/ http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/ [1] http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/6-19.htm http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/6-19.htm
NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
Why would anyone one be interested in previous drafts of fictional work?
buovjaga 10y ago
The Green collection staff have been criticized for their methods of handling papyri: https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/destroying-mummy-masks-since-we-own-its-ok-maybe-not/ https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/destroying-m... They used soap and water to dissolve mummy masks. Another interesting story, about FBI investigating Greens: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/26/exclusive-feds-investigate-hobby-lobby-boss-for-illicit-artifacts.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/26/exclusive-f...
SoapSeller 10y ago
Israeli here, forget what they tell you about the so called "startup nation", the most amazing (and frankly, the only) thing about being Israeli is that I'm able to read the text in the images. (And "thanks" to mandatory bible studies I could more-or-less place them without reading the english description)
- danarmak 10y ago
  What do you mean, what's unique about that? Lots of people can read 2000-year-old Latin and Greek inscriptions, too. Biblical Hebrew is probably more similar to modern Hebrew than late-classical Latin is to modern Italian, but it's not that similar. I don't know about Greek, but someone on Quora says that "a speaker of modern Greek can usually get the gist of an ancient text, although trying to translate may often lead to tragic misinterpretations". I'm an Israeli too, and I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't taken those mandatory classes, and encountered Biblical Hebrew today for the first time, I wouldn't really understand it. Back in highschool, we had to use a commentary/thesaurus/teacher all the time.
  - jimmytucson 10y ago
    What is so remarkable about that is the Israelites' language and culture remains in tact despite repeated conquering and the death of their state over 2500 years ago. Normally, when a state is conquered, they relinquish their gods and language for their conquerors' but this didn't happen to the Israelites. In fact, quite the opposite - their culture still thrives and remains the most influential by far of any other small, ancient near-Eastern tribe. (Very unfair comparison to a humongous military and financial empire like Rome or Greece.)
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      > Normally, when a state is conquered, they relinquish their gods and language for their conquerors /< There are more instance of this not happening than happening that I can name. I find it more impressive how much survived despite being repeatedly targeted and murdered for it over the following 2+ millennia.

208 points by kungfudoi 10y ago

Between 2009 and 2014, Steve Green, the owner of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores, purchased 13 of the fragments, which he has donated, along with thousands of other artifacts, to the Museum of the Bible. Green is helping to fund construction of the museum, scheduled to open in Washington, D.C., next fall. (A fly-through of the museum can be seen on YouTube). I'm more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this, "museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts from an individual, to a private company held by that individual. Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-suprem...

gotofritz 10y ago
I wonder whether the owners' religious beliefs influenced what scrolls were passed on to the museum... some of the scrolls are a bit left field. But then again, they would have needed to understand them first...
- c0achmcguirk 10y ago
  Which of the scrolls are you referring to? Were they from canonical books?
  - gotofritz 10y ago
    No, the non-canonical
chinese_dan 10y ago
"'m more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this, "museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts from an individual, to a private company held by that individual." More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no idea what I'm talking about" "Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners." Ahhh, so you demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs. One has nothing to do with the other. You just wanted to post your displeasure with Hobby Lobby.
- Retric 10y ago
  It's simple if you are not willing to provide health insurance either admit that and don't provide health insurance or don't employ people. I also demonize serial killers, because they go against my personal beliefs. Because that's what personal beliefs mean. I also don't calibrate the lives destroyed from insanity, why should a tolerate the mass delusions from religion again?
  - castis 10y ago
    What exactly are you having to tolerate?
    - Retric 10y ago
      Poor working conditions for a fellow person. In a wider context indoctrination of children. I feel that 'Sunday school' is child abuse. But, where we don't tolerate public beatings of children some topics are considered off limits. PS: I accept many people will disagree with this. But, while many pat them on the head and move on I think it is important for everyone to understand their bubble is just that, and their assumptions are far from universal.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        It's a tricky subject, because heavily regulating what kids must be exposed to by the state could easily be classified as propagandized brainwashing. If we support both the right of parents to express their beliefs to their children and the right of the children to make an informed decision when they are adults about their beliefs, the best thing may be have a mandatory "survey of beliefs" class for children at various points in their lives. A class that covered the 4-5 most common world religious beliefs as well atheism in a way that did not promote any of them, much less one over the others (a tall order in some communities, I'm sure), would do a great deal to both inform individuals on various beliefs and how they interrelate, as well as foster understanding for others.
proksoup 10y ago
I disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, but support their right to make it. There are different types of contraceptives, and that we use the same word for all types is disingenuous and muddies the argument. The day after pill is very different from a condom, and at least a little different from "the pill".
- DanBC 10y ago
  > The day after pill is very different Why? They both prevent conception.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    The morning-after pill has two methods of action, IIRC - preventing ovulation, and making the womb inhospitable for implantation. In the latter case conception occurs.
    - Domenic_S 10y ago
      We're wandering from the topic, but I don't believe that's correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth... - The primary mechanism of action of levonorgestrel as a progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pill is, according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation and thickening of the mucosa of cervix. FIGO has stated that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. (references on the wiki page as always)
      - LyndsySimon 10y ago
        They've removed the notice from that specific type of ECP (and I was not aware of that), but it's still present on other types, including some that are common in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechanism_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechan...
Dagwoodie 10y ago
Do pitchforks need to come out every time a Christian or Christian topic is mentioned on HN? Everyone knows there are people who exercise their religious freedoms, do we need to keep trying to burn them in effigy here?
- mhurron 10y ago
  If people think strongly enough about a topic, it will happen.
- kmonsen 10y ago
  I agree with your general sentiment, but disagree with your wording. From what I understand HL, and many others, are not exercising their religious freedom but rather imposing their religion on others. For example, if you are against an action like prevention on religious reasons you should of course be free to not use them yourself. Enforcing those standard on others, including your employees, is not exercising your own religious freedom.
  - Dagwoodie 10y ago
    He's not imposing any behavior on his employees or taking their freedoms way, he's just choosing not to pay for it himself on religious grounds. I suspect the real issue is that he's going agains the grain by not celebrating that form of birth control and that's enough to feel like oppression to some.

Shivetya 10y ago

So there are many sets out there and this few fragments, 13 in all, are actually going to be tested for authenticity. That is a very good outcome and one benefit of those who can and desire to collect such artifacts has, especially when they are willing to turn them over to groups that can properly discern authenticity. As to some claiming its merely dealing in stolen artifacts, most of this concern only arises when profit is to be made or the group claiming ownership has a strong voice. When does it stop? We argue day in and day out here about the absurdity of copyright and patents yet rush to defend states declaring ownership over stuff they know not existed? (its even sillier with sunken treasures)

g00gler 10y ago
Isn't the argument against copyrights very similar, if not the same, to the argument for the state to own historic artifacts? I'd argue that the state should own historic artifacts so that they can be held in common. That way no one individual can claim ownership, retain the right to destroy it if they wish, and prevent others from viewing/studying it. Of course the state isn't going to let me or you handle it, but they'll obviously give access to research institutions and whatnot who will publish their findings. Hobby Lobby dude might not do the same and as a private owner, he retains the right not to.
- Retric 10y ago
  Your argument is just they should be owned by X vs Y. You are not arguing that these should belong to a humanity, but rather a specific state. Thus, no they are not similar arguments.
- chc 10y ago
  A state also might not do the same. You might live in a place where the government would be likely to be generous with its property and encourage intellectual pursuits, but that isn't inherently any more true of government officials than it is of "the Hobby Lobby dude."
  - g00gler 10y ago

baldfat 10y ago

I majored in Theology in Undergrad and Graduate School. This is a common thing that comes up since most of these manuscripts were gathered by private "archaeologist." If not seen in the light of manuscripts we have for other ancient text it is easy to forget how significant these were/are. We don't have any ancient manuscripts with anything close to these. its awesome just to see them online. http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il?locale=en_US http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il?locale=en_US

shot_o_goof 10y ago
I'm probably reading too much into this, but it looks like the story has been refined since these were written. The Leviticus claims could be proven false easily by a small tribe. Everyone does everything right, and you get a 2 year drought. Is this common, that the orriginal texts were refined to make them less flimsy? Or was that the point of Nicene, to create a coherent narrative with that was a tad more believable at the time?
- emodendroket 10y ago
  It's hard to tell what specifically you're referring to in either paragraph, but if you're talking about the Nicene Creed in the second, the point was to settle a bunch of theological arguments among early Christians. The Israelite people writing Leviticus were writing long before Jesus lived.
  - shot_o_goof 10y ago
    Yea, I didn't think that through at all.
- teilo 10y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. The Qumran scrolls have nothing whatsoever to do with Nicaea. The OT canon was well established before the Christian era. As far as canonical issues, the council of Nicaea had nothing to do with establishing the canon of Scripture as accepted by the 4th century church. They did publish a list of those books which were already widely recognized in the church, however, no votes were taken as to what books were or were not to be counted as part of the NT canon. No decisions regarding the canon, whether of the Old or the New Testament were made. This is not speculation. We have the proceedings of the council.

insulanian 10y ago

Are these scripts important because of their age or because of the (disruptive?) content?

emodendroket 10y ago
They're important because we only have copies and scholars spend a lot of energy trying to work from multiple, fragmentary copies of the text and figuring out exactly what the original said. Any copies, but especially particularly old ones, are invaluable here, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are older than the (more complete, and oldest known before they were found) Masorectic text. That said, when I say differences it's generally a matter of a few words, not huge, distinct plots or something. Sometimes these finds can also include lost, non-canonical texts, but it looks like not in this case.
- hacknat 10y ago
  The Dead Sea scrolls have versions of Daniel that are significantly different and rearranged than the Masoretic text. Also there are some very interesting and pivotal discrepancies in some of the Kings texts.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    I didn't know that. Is there some description of the differences I could read?
    - drewcrawford 10y ago
      Most of the textual differences are ironed out in the source language which are not especially accessible. English bibles are not translated directly from manuscripts but from one or more "critical texts" which are scholarly reconstructions of the underlying manuscripts. A common one is Nestle-Aland [0], you can read it online. The smaller text appearing there are variant readings that have some degree of manuscript support. The vast majority of them are terribly boring, by way of example, the very first one on the page: > τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, [καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ] ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον [μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός.] > All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: Behold, the virgin in the womb will conceive, and will bear a son, and [they will call the name of him Immanuel], which is translated, '[with us God]' The [bracketed] parts are omitted in some manuscripts. These omissions may feel significant, but since this is a quotation of well-known saying, the shorter readings are probably some scribe trying to scrimp on paper who thinks you should go buy that book if you wanted to know what's in it. This can be annoying in cases where the book in question didn't make it out to modern scholarship, and all the scribes scrimped on paper that day, which does happen. Less commonly (although not infrequently), a textual problem is significant enough to bleed all the way through to the end user. This typically happens when there is no agreement about how to resolve the conflicts or the possibilities are so strange as to be nonsensical. One amusing example is 1 sam 6:19 [1]. There is overwhelming manuscript support for a reading like this: > But the Lord struck down some of the people of Beth Shemesh because they had looked into the ark of the Lord; he struck down 50,070 of the men. [NET] However, in addition to there being a glaring grammar error in the manuscript, this reading presents a number of obvious problems: logistical (how exactly do you get 50,070 people to all look into a box?), numerical (this is a surprisingly exact figure to collect during wartime in enemy territory), internal (elsewhere in the same book Beth Shemesh is a tiny rural village), archeological (it really was a tiny rural village). This problem has lead to various wildly different resolutions over the years, a small sampler: > But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them. [NIV] > God struck down the men of Beth-shemesh because they looked inside the ark of the LORD. He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men. The people mourned because the LORD struck them with a great slaughter. [HCSB] > Then God smote those of Bethshemesh because they had looked at the ark of the LORD; he smote fifty thousand of the people and seventy principal men. And the people lamented because the LORD had smitten the people with such a great slaughter. [Jubilee] > And He smiteth among the men of Beth-Shemesh, for they looked into the ark of Jehovah, yea, He smiteth among the people seventy men -- fifty chief men; and the people mourn, because Jehovah smote among the people -- a great smiting. [YLT] > Perhaps the text should be understood to read the LORD killed 70 men and 50 oxen. [NKJ footnote] [0] http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/ http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/ [1] http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/6-19.htm http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/6-19.htm

NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago

Why would anyone one be interested in previous drafts of fictional work?

buovjaga 10y ago

The Green collection staff have been criticized for their methods of handling papyri: https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/destroying-mummy-masks-since-we-own-its-ok-maybe-not/ https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/destroying-m... They used soap and water to dissolve mummy masks. Another interesting story, about FBI investigating Greens: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/26/exclusive-feds-investigate-hobby-lobby-boss-for-illicit-artifacts.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/26/exclusive-f...

SoapSeller 10y ago

Israeli here, forget what they tell you about the so called "startup nation", the most amazing (and frankly, the only) thing about being Israeli is that I'm able to read the text in the images. (And "thanks" to mandatory bible studies I could more-or-less place them without reading the english description)

danarmak 10y ago
What do you mean, what's unique about that? Lots of people can read 2000-year-old Latin and Greek inscriptions, too. Biblical Hebrew is probably more similar to modern Hebrew than late-classical Latin is to modern Italian, but it's not that similar. I don't know about Greek, but someone on Quora says that "a speaker of modern Greek can usually get the gist of an ancient text, although trying to translate may often lead to tragic misinterpretations". I'm an Israeli too, and I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't taken those mandatory classes, and encountered Biblical Hebrew today for the first time, I wouldn't really understand it. Back in highschool, we had to use a commentary/thesaurus/teacher all the time.
- jimmytucson 10y ago
  What is so remarkable about that is the Israelites' language and culture remains in tact despite repeated conquering and the death of their state over 2500 years ago. Normally, when a state is conquered, they relinquish their gods and language for their conquerors' but this didn't happen to the Israelites. In fact, quite the opposite - their culture still thrives and remains the most influential by far of any other small, ancient near-Eastern tribe. (Very unfair comparison to a humongous military and financial empire like Rome or Greece.)
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    > Normally, when a state is conquered, they relinquish their gods and language for their conquerors /< There are more instance of this not happening than happening that I can name. I find it more impressive how much survived despite being repeatedly targeted and murdered for it over the following 2+ millennia.