Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Soli Deo Gloria? The Scholars, the Market and Dubious Post-2002 Dead Sea Scroll-like Fragments
by A. Justnes and J. M. Rasmussen:

http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2017/11/jus418014.shtml

Mystery at the new Bible museum: are its Dead Sea Scrolls fake?
by Daniel Burke:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/17/us/bible- ... index.html


The latter reports a museum caption starting "In 2002, dozens of previously known 'Dead Sea Scroll' fragments began appearing with antiquity dealers."
I think it should read "...previously unknown...."--which I emailed them; maybe it will be corrected, if so. (As far as I know, these were unknown before 2002.)

But notice that these forgeries are perfectly ordinary. Nothing new or outlandish. Just a money making enterprise.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:14 am But notice that these forgeries are perfectly ordinary. Nothing new or outlandish. Just a money making enterprise.

Whoever produces them do seem to have a good handle on writing ancient Hebrew, no grammatical mistakes or new controversial variants, etc., which suggests someone with an academic or ancestral interest in Hebrew. Why would they do something so disrespectful to a subject near & dear to their hearts by marketing reproductions as if real? Of course, no one knows ... it is beyond comprehension. Then again, art dealers and shrewd con-personages have done this with art and historical documents for years, centuries even. DCH

One of these recently-sold fragments, claimed (without proof, as far as I've seen) to be from Qumran, is described as follows:
"Of the significant findings, "The university's Deuteronomy 27 fragment features a unique reading in verse 4 that agrees with the Samaritan Torah. This will give scholars new insights into the relationship between Judaism and Samaritanism in antiquity,” said Karen Winslow, Ph.D., professor and chair, biblical and theological studies in the Azusa Pacific Seminary."
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/05/prweb14358390.htm
Were it true, that would be a significant different reading, appearing right in the middle of the fragment.

But there was an already established relationship between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Qumran fragments. Again hardly new. Something that everyone with even peripheral knowledge of the find(s) already knows.

More on this--suspicious or not--unprovenanced/claimed 4Q--ms:
https://foundationjudaismchristianorigi ... ronomy.pdf

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:00 am More on this--suspicious or not--unprovenanced/claimed 4Q--ms:
https://foundationjudaismchristianorigi ... ronomy.pdf

Stephen,

That link seems to be legit based on the condition of the fragment itself and the technique that was used to get a good image of the writing. Not sure how something like this could be faked easily. At least the writing does not seem to avoid the holes and cracks in the medium upon which it is written.

Were you suggesting before that if fragments gives certain readings then they can be suspected fakes? Folks say things like this about other fragments, but am not sure what the basis is supposed to be.

I seem to recall that for some of the fragments in the Greene(sp?) collection the readings tend to exactly match the MT with few variants except ones that appear in the various manuscripts of the MT. For this reason alone some suspect forgery because it is supposed that a forger had targeted conservative Christians as potential buyers.

The one that you linked to, on the other hand, is full of known variants, a little like a cross between the SP and DSS fragments of Deuteronomy that are usually classified "Proto-Samatritan."

Sometimes I wonder if something that has a medley of many known variants in such a small package is not also targeted, except here it would be specialists who like to speculate about such things as DSS mss traditions like Proto-Samartan ("Palestinian"), proto-MT ("Babylonian") and proto-Lxx ("Egyptian") text types.

DCH

For some additional proposed reasons to question the authenticity of some claimed "Dead Sea Scrolls" fragments sold after 2002:
https://kuleuven.academia.edu/EibertTigchelaar
"Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls Fishy Fragments — or Forgeries? On Provenance and Authenticity: Some Cases"
(page 4 for "The so-called Hargerizim fragment") by Eibert Tigchelaar