Eisenman and the DSS

[Hawthorne]

No strong link has been made between the settlement at Qumran and the caves. There is a stronger link between Jerusalem and the caves, as well as the caves near Jericho mentioned from memory by Origen and the caves where Timotheus records scrolls were found in early medieval times. The scrolls were not produced at Qumran. There are absolutely no traces of a small scribal community in the production of the scrolls, for you'd expect the same scribal hands appearing time and again. But this is not true. There is a vast number of scribal hands pointing directly to a big city context to support so many scribes. The Copper Scroll indicates deposits of scrolls in different locations along with hidings of priestly raiments, so there is very little connection between the caves and Qumran other than the settlement being used as a viaduct for the scrolls from Jerusalem.

I do not believe the case is as authoritatively solved as "spin" makes it out to be. Scholars continue to be divided on the question of the origin of the scrolls. It is clear that not all the scrolls originated at Qumran, but some scholars still maintain that Qumran at some point in its history may have been occupied by a sectarian sect that, among other things, produced some of the scrolls. The findings of Wolff et al. (2012) appear to support the local production of at least some of the scrolls. [Wolff, T., Rabin, I., Mantouvalou, I., Kanngießer, B., Malzer, W., Kindzorra, E., & Hahn, O. (2012). Provenance studies on Dead Sea scrolls parchment by means of quantitative micro-XRF. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 402(4), 1493-1503.]

The distribution of the Cl/Br values thus obtained allowed the determination of the fragments produced locally, i.e., in the Dead Sea region.

This would seem to require "spin" to qualify his assertion that there "are absolutely no traces of a small scribal community in the production of the scrolls." There may be some, including the evidence originally cited by de Vaux (inkwells, etc).

This is not to say that I agree with the Essenes @ Qumran theory. I have no idea, at all, what to think about that or even why I would care. I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls (some of them), pretty cool.

This study, too, seems to support the notion of a small scriptorium at Qumran:

Rabin, I. (2013). Archeometry and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dead Sea Discoveries 20 no 1 2013, p 124-142

Exact comparison of the ink with...a local variety of gum Arabic...and ink based on the mixture of gum Arabic and tannins...leads to the conclusion that the inks of the Hodayot scroll contain tannins that were added either on purpose or accidentally through the use of hte local gum Arabic enriched with tannins...The latter is characteristic of Ein Feshkha or other saline springs in the area. Hence, we conclude that the scroll was copied locally. (p. 139)

[spin]

No strong link has been made between the settlement at Qumran and the caves. There is a stronger link between Jerusalem and the caves, as well as the caves near Jericho mentioned from memory by Origen and the caves where Timotheus records scrolls were found in early medieval times. The scrolls were not produced at Qumran. There are absolutely no traces of a small scribal community in the production of the scrolls, for you'd expect the same scribal hands appearing time and again. But this is not true. There is a vast number of scribal hands pointing directly to a big city context to support so many scribes. The Copper Scroll indicates deposits of scrolls in different locations along with hidings of priestly raiments, so there is very little connection between the caves and Qumran other than the settlement being used as a viaduct for the scrolls from Jerusalem.

I do not believe the case is as authoritatively solved as "spin" makes it out to be. Scholars continue to be divided on the question of the origin of the scrolls. It is clear that not all the scrolls originated at Qumran, but some scholars still maintain that Qumran at some point in its history may have been occupied by a sectarian sect that, among other things, produced some of the scrolls. The findings of Wolff et al. (2012) appear to support the local production of at least some of the scrolls. [Wolff, T., Rabin, I., Mantouvalou, I., Kanngießer, B., Malzer, W., Kindzorra, E., & Hahn, O. (2012). Provenance studies on Dead Sea scrolls parchment by means of quantitative micro-XRF. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 402(4), 1493-1503.]

The distribution of the Cl/Br values thus obtained allowed the determination of the fragments produced locally, i.e., in the Dead Sea region.

Actually, it doesn't allow such a determination at all. It provides no definitive way of knowing why the samples evince the Cl/Br values they do. Perhaps, I missed it. All I see is a conjecture supported by eliminating a few other conjectures. I see so very few controls to this analysis, apparently few samples, we are left with the basic knowledge that a few vellum fragments at Qumran evince a different ratio of Cl/Br from samples from Murabba'at and Nahal Hever. This is used to sustain the unfalsifiable claim that those samples were processed at Qumran.

This would seem to require "spin" to qualify his assertion that there "are absolutely no traces of a small scribal community in the production of the scrolls." There may be some, including the evidence originally cited by de Vaux (inkwells, etc).

This is not to say that I agree with the Essenes @ Qumran theory. I have no idea, at all, what to think about that or even why I would care. I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls (some of them), pretty cool.

This study, too, seems to support the notion of a small scriptorium at Qumran:

Rabin, I. (2013). Archeometry and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dead Sea Discoveries 20 no 1 2013, p 124-142

Exact comparison of the ink with...a local variety of gum Arabic...and ink based on the mixture of gum Arabic and tannins...leads to the conclusion that the inks of the Hodayot scroll contain tannins that were added either on purpose or accidentally through the use of hte local gum Arabic enriched with tannins...The latter is characteristic of Ein Feshkha or other saline springs in the area. Hence, we conclude that the scroll was copied locally. (p. 139)

I don't have access to this article—it's too recent for my access—, so I can't comment directly. Some questions then: 1. What is the full range of distribution of the type of acacia trees that supplied the gum Arabic? 2. If saline springs are the explanation for characteristics of the tannin how can relate it solely to a Qumran related site? The water for such springs doesn't come up from the sea, but down from the mountain behind. What is the extent of the geological characteristics able to produce such springs?

[Hawthorne]

No strong link has been made between the settlement at Qumran and the caves. There is a stronger link between Jerusalem and the caves, as well as the caves near Jericho mentioned from memory by Origen and the caves where Timotheus records scrolls were found in early medieval times. The scrolls were not produced at Qumran. There are absolutely no traces of a small scribal community in the production of the scrolls, for you'd expect the same scribal hands appearing time and again. But this is not true. There is a vast number of scribal hands pointing directly to a big city context to support so many scribes. The Copper Scroll indicates deposits of scrolls in different locations along with hidings of priestly raiments, so there is very little connection between the caves and Qumran other than the settlement being used as a viaduct for the scrolls from Jerusalem.

I do not believe the case is as authoritatively solved as "spin" makes it out to be. Scholars continue to be divided on the question of the origin of the scrolls. It is clear that not all the scrolls originated at Qumran, but some scholars still maintain that Qumran at some point in its history may have been occupied by a sectarian sect that, among other things, produced some of the scrolls. The findings of Wolff et al. (2012) appear to support the local production of at least some of the scrolls. [Wolff, T., Rabin, I., Mantouvalou, I., Kanngießer, B., Malzer, W., Kindzorra, E., & Hahn, O. (2012). Provenance studies on Dead Sea scrolls parchment by means of quantitative micro-XRF. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 402(4), 1493-1503.]

The distribution of the Cl/Br values thus obtained allowed the determination of the fragments produced locally, i.e., in the Dead Sea region.

Actually, it doesn't allow such a determination at all. It provides no definitive way of knowing why the samples evince the Cl/Br values they do. Perhaps, I missed it. All I see is a conjecture supported by eliminating a few other conjectures. I see so very few controls to this analysis, apparently few samples, we are left with the basic knowledge that a few vellum fragments at Qumran evince a different ratio of Cl/Br from samples from Murabba'at and Nahal Hever. This is used to sustain the unfalsifiable claim that those samples were processed at Qumran.

So says someone calling himself "spin." I'll let the peer reviewed paper stand against that.

This would seem to require "spin" to qualify his assertion that there "are absolutely no traces of a small scribal community in the production of the scrolls." There may be some, including the evidence originally cited by de Vaux (inkwells, etc).

This is not to say that I agree with the Essenes @ Qumran theory. I have no idea, at all, what to think about that or even why I would care. I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls (some of them), pretty cool.

This study, too, seems to support the notion of a small scriptorium at Qumran:

Rabin, I. (2013). Archeometry and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dead Sea Discoveries 20 no 1 2013, p 124-142

Exact comparison of the ink with...a local variety of gum Arabic...and ink based on the mixture of gum Arabic and tannins...leads to the conclusion that the inks of the Hodayot scroll contain tannins that were added either on purpose or accidentally through the use of hte local gum Arabic enriched with tannins...The latter is characteristic of Ein Feshkha or other saline springs in the area. Hence, we conclude that the scroll was copied locally. (p. 139)

I don't have access to this article—it's too recent for my access—, so I can't comment directly. Some questions then: 1. What is the full range of distribution of the type of acacia trees that supplied the gum Arabic? 2. If saline springs are the explanation for characteristics of the tannin how can relate it solely to a Qumran related site? The water for such springs doesn't come up from the sea, but down from the mountain behind. What is the extent of the geological characteristics able to produce such springs?[/quote]

Again, more handwaving from "spin."

My point is that you overstated your position. But that's too much for you.

[spin]

No strong link has been made between the settlement at Qumran and the caves. There is a stronger link between Jerusalem and the caves, as well as the caves near Jericho mentioned from memory by Origen and the caves where Timotheus records scrolls were found in early medieval times. The scrolls were not produced at Qumran. There are absolutely no traces of a small scribal community in the production of the scrolls, for you'd expect the same scribal hands appearing time and again. But this is not true. There is a vast number of scribal hands pointing directly to a big city context to support so many scribes. The Copper Scroll indicates deposits of scrolls in different locations along with hidings of priestly raiments, so there is very little connection between the caves and Qumran other than the settlement being used as a viaduct for the scrolls from Jerusalem.

I do not believe the case is as authoritatively solved as "spin" makes it out to be. Scholars continue to be divided on the question of the origin of the scrolls. It is clear that not all the scrolls originated at Qumran, but some scholars still maintain that Qumran at some point in its history may have been occupied by a sectarian sect that, among other things, produced some of the scrolls. The findings of Wolff et al. (2012) appear to support the local production of at least some of the scrolls. [Wolff, T., Rabin, I., Mantouvalou, I., Kanngießer, B., Malzer, W., Kindzorra, E., & Hahn, O. (2012). Provenance studies on Dead Sea scrolls parchment by means of quantitative micro-XRF. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 402(4), 1493-1503.]

Wolff: The distribution of the Cl/Br values thus obtained allowed the determination of the fragments produced locally, i.e., in the Dead Sea region.

Actually, it doesn't allow such a determination at all. It provides no definitive way of knowing why the samples evince the Cl/Br values they do. Perhaps, I missed it. All I see is a conjecture supported by eliminating a few other conjectures. I see so very few controls to this analysis, apparently few samples, we are left with the basic knowledge that a few vellum fragments at Qumran evince a different ratio of Cl/Br from samples from Murabba'at and Nahal Hever. This is used to sustain the unfalsifiable claim that those samples were processed at Qumran.

So says someone calling himself "spin." I'll let the peer reviewed paper stand against that.

This would seem to require "spin" to qualify his assertion that there "are absolutely no traces of a small scribal community in the production of the scrolls." There may be some, including the evidence originally cited by de Vaux (inkwells, etc).

This is not to say that I agree with the Essenes @ Qumran theory. I have no idea, at all, what to think about that or even why I would care. I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls (some of them), pretty cool.

This study, too, seems to support the notion of a small scriptorium at Qumran:

Rabin, I. (2013). Archeometry and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dead Sea Discoveries 20 no 1 2013, p 124-142

Rabin: Exact comparison of the ink with...a local variety of gum Arabic...and ink based on the mixture of gum Arabic and tannins...leads to the conclusion that the inks of the Hodayot scroll contain tannins that were added either on purpose or accidentally through the use of hte local gum Arabic enriched with tannins...The latter is characteristic of Ein Feshkha or other saline springs in the area. Hence, we conclude that the scroll was copied locally. (p. 139)

I don't have access to this article—it's too recent for my access—, so I can't comment directly. Some questions then: 1. What is the full range of distribution of the type of acacia trees that supplied the gum Arabic? 2. If saline springs are the explanation for characteristics of the tannin how can relate it solely to a Qumran related site? The water for such springs doesn't come up from the sea, but down from the mountain behind. What is the extent of the geological characteristics able to produce such springs?

Again, more handwaving from "spin."

My point is that you overstated your position. But that's too much for you.

Deep responses. You posted info from two papers, which is fair enough, but can't read those papers and deal with any response. Oh, well.

[Hawthorne]

My point is that you overstated your position. But that's too much for you.

Deep responses. You posted info from two papers, which is fair enough, but can't read those papers and deal with any response. Oh, well.[/quote]

How would someone "spin" want me to respond? My point is not to get into a detailed discussion of those papers. My point is to demonstrate that your positions are not as firm as you would like people to believe. I checked your assertion and instantly found two papers that provide some evidence (as opposed to your "absolutely no evidence") that scrolls were locally produced, some of them the very sectarian scrolls that would be most likely to have been produced there. Two papers that arrive at similar conclusions using different methods.

My point is made already. I don't have to defend the papers themselves. They are peer-reviewed, their conclusions may be wrong, but until they are demonstrated to be wrong, you do not have warrant for your assertion.

[spin]

My point is that you overstated your position. But that's too much for you.

Deep responses. You posted info from two papers, which is fair enough, but can't read those papers and deal with any response. Oh, well.

How would someone "spin" want me to respond?

On this forum we attempt to respond to the issues.

My point is not to get into a detailed discussion of those papers. My point is to demonstrate that your positions are not as firm as you would like people to believe. I checked your assertion and instantly found two papers that provide some evidence (as opposed to your "absolutely no evidence") that scrolls were locally produced, some of them the very sectarian scrolls that would be most likely to have been produced there. Two papers that arrive at similar conclusions using different methods.

Ignorance of the issues is no response at all. As you cannot do anything other than cite the claims of the materials you found, you've done all you can. You are merely recycling the same tired rhetoric.

My point is made already.

That you don't know what you are talking about. That's obvious now.

I don't have to defend the papers themselves. They are peer-reviewed, their conclusions may be wrong, but until they are demonstrated to be wrong, you do not have warrant for your assertion.

So, you in your lack of knowledge do what is reasonable: trust those who know more than you. Pity you don't know enough to also deal with the problems.

I asked you to do things for both papers. For the first to find anything that establishes the assertion that the Cl/Br ratio is significant. You couldn't. You have blind faith. For the second I asked for details, because I have dealt with various scientific claims regarding the DSS before, often conclusion driven analyses that don't get past assertion to tie the data to the conclusion. The beauty of C14 is that if the sample is carbon based it has an age. No tenuous connections. No undemonstrated theories.

You can run along now content that you've scored some point or other.

[John T]

Ink wells were found at Qumran.

Spin is spinning.

I started a new O.P. which addresses his outdated theories, including the "willy-nilly" theory. Proof is provided by James Tabor, that the Essenes were proto-Christian and wrote most of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Please go back to the board index, "Jewish Texts and History" and select "Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls."

Respectfully,
John the Ignorant

[Stephan Huller]

Nonsense.

[spin]

John T, having made a fool of yourself with claims of Essene scriptures, you cannot respond and are trying to talk about anything else. Not buying, John T.

One of your attempts to avoid admitting you were talking nonsense is to try to make something of this statement:

The scrolls were deposited willy-nilly, so that earlier works were mixed with later works.

The claim of willy-nilly is conditioned on the fact that "earlier works were mixed with later works". This is confirmed by the carbondatings of tested samples from Cave 4. Compare the datings provided by 4QpPsaA with 4QTQahat for example and see that their date ranges do not overlap at all. Ranges from Cave 4 are quite varied, so obviously "earlier works were mixed with later works", hence "willy-nilly". As you have merely taken offense with the phrase "willy-nilly" and not said anything sensible on the notion itself, I will only need to ridicule you if you repeat the process.

So, "Essene scriptures", John T.

[John2]

Hello everyone,

Sometimes I get tired of thinking about ancient history and need to recharge, so I'm taking a break for awhile and enjoying sitting back and watching the continued discussion on this thread. I intend to pick up where I left off and discuss the issue of the meaning of the "kings of the peoples" in col. 8 of the Damascus Document when I have more interest and time.

Since my internet time is limited, I've fallen behind in reading other threads and blogs and doing research and checking emails since I started this thread. I'm grateful for all the responses it's had so far, which I've tried my best to respond to, and it won't be very long before I am "back." Thanks everyone for making it more interesting so far than I imagined it would be.