Why does nt the WTS publish anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

by mP 5 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  mP

  !
• 

  slimboyfat

  I think they probably have. They have certainly published a fair amount about the fragments of the LXX from the Dead Sea that contain the tetragram.
• 

  transhuman68

  The Dead Sea scrolls create a real headache for religions like the Witnesses, as they reveal there were no 'standard' Hebrew Scriptures, and that there is nothing special or unique about the stories & phrases in the Christian Sciptures either. Here's an extract from 'The Dead Sea Scrolls' (Wise, Abegg & Cook):

  These religious writings are of two different kinds: the biblical and the non-biblical. The biblical texts are copies of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament), forming about one-quarter of the total number of scrolls in the collection. The caches included a copy of every one of the books of the Jewish Bible, except, apparently, the book of Esther. Not a trace of Esther has turned up.
  The "Dead Sea Bible" is the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found-at least a thousand years older than the traditional Hebrew texts from the early medieval period that have been the basis of all our modern Bible translations. In many cases, the scrolls have supported the traditional text of the Bible, but in others, what they say in particular verses (their "readings") agrees with non-traditional versions like the Septuagint. (The Septuagint is the ancient translation of the Old Testament into Greek that was used among Egyptian Jews.) Sometimes the scrolls preserve readings we never knew existed.
  At other times, the scrolls contain differences more profound than the readings of individual verses. They preserve "editions" of entire biblical books that differ from the traditional text. For example, two forms of the book of Jeremiah have emerged from the caves, one agreeing with that usually printed and translated in modern Bibles, the other about 15 percent shorter and with the contents in a different order. Several versions of the book of Psalms have likewise come to light. These versions differ greatly from one another, in particular from Psalm 90 onward. Psalms 90-150 are arranged in different orders, and what is more, some of the manuscripts include additional, previously unknown psalms. The content and form of the book of Psalms was manifestly in flux in the period when the scrolls were written. (To read some of these additional psalms, attributed to David, turn to text 15, Apocryphal Psalms, and text 127, Apocryphal Psalms of David.)
  In a similar vein, the discovery of the scrolls has uncovered the existence in this period of anthologies of biblical excerpts, of "rewritten Bibles," and of lost sources used, perhaps, by the writers of the biblical books. The first two of these categories were apparently methods of interpreting the Bible; in both, material was added to the biblical texts quoted. The additions were intended to give a particular "spin" to the biblical portions being interpreted. Whether people understood these types of texts as less authoritative than the Bible itself is a legitimate question, given that the final contours of the Bible were not fixed. The Healing of King Nabonidus (text 39) is a scroll manuscript preserving a source that may have inspired a biblical writer, in this case the author of Daniel. Healing is a more primitive version of a story about the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar familiar to modern readers from Daniel 4.
  In short, the scrolls have proven that some of the Jews of Jesus' day knew and used more than one form of many biblical books, and it seems not to have disturbed them or driven them to resolve the differences. There was as yet no agreed upon "canon" of the Bible. Which books would be included in the Bible and in what form or "edition" had not yet been decided. Doubtless different Jews and groups of Jews would have made different selections of authoritative books. Many of the Dead Sea Scrolls, though not a part of our Bible today, were certainly regarded as holy and authoritative by at least some Second-Temple Jews. Only later, after 100 C.E., did a "standard" version of the Bible emerge.
• 

  designs

  The Dead Sea Scrolls by Wise, Abegg & Cook is the best
• 

  Leolaia

  The Society has said quite a bit on them.

  *** w59 4/15 p. 245 Christianity’s Origin and the Dead Sea Scrolls ***
  
  Another similarity is claimed between Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls sect as regards eschatological teachings, those relating to the end of a system of things and the day of judgment. No question about it, the Essenes were expecting the judgment day and the end of the world in their day; indeed, it is because of this belief that they withdrew from all the rest of mankind, so as to be the better able to perfect themselves, much as certain sects in the United States have withdrawn to some mountainous region in expectation of the end of the world. As for the early Christians, while it appears that some endeavored to unduly ‘hasten the day of Jehovah,’ it is also clear that Jesus and Paul in particular gave them to understand that the end of this system of things was a long way off. Did not Jesus say that the good news of the Kingdom would first be preached throughout the whole world before the end came?

  Comment: Early Christianity was exactly similar to Essenism in this respect; the NT is filled with references to the closeness of the eschaton (e.g. Matthew 10:23, 16:27-28, 24:34, Mark 8:38-9:1, 13:30, 14:62, Luke 21:32, Romans 13:11-12, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 4:13-17, 5:23, Hebrews 10:25, 37, James 5:7-9, Revelation 1:1-3, 1:7, 2:16, 3:11, 3:19-20, 6:9-11, 17:10-12, 22:6-7, 10-12). The Society here sets all this aside and claims that the opposite is true. They also fail to acknowledge that the NT claims that the gospel was already preached to the entire world (Acts 2:5, Romans 1:5-8, 10:16-18, Colossians 1:5, 23).

  *** w59 4/15 pp. 245-246 Christianity’s Origin and the Dead Sea Scrolls ***
  
  Further, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls that set out Essene beliefs show they believed in the immortality of the human soul and in eternal torment for the punishment of the wicked. Both of these teachings are in striking contrast to the plain Scriptural teachings that the soul of man is mortal and that extinction, death, is the penalty for sin....Nor to be overlooked is the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls sect borrowed from Persian Zoroastrianism. This can be seen from its worship of angels and of the sun and by its emphasis on mysteries. True Christianity has absolutely nothing in common with any pagan religion.

  Comment: The NT contains the same eschatological beliefs. The difference here is that the Society expends much interpretive effort into easing references to these beliefs into their preferred system of "Bible doctrine", whereas they have not endeavored to similarly interpret away the references to eternal torment and the afterlife in Essene texts. The references to postmortem punishment in the Dead Sea Scrolls are not much different from what is contained in the NT. As for the conceptual parallels to Zoroastrianism, the NT is probably indebted just as much. The whole apocalyptic complex of savior-figure + resurrection + Judgment Day + eschatological punishment is parallel to Zoroastrianism, and Revelation is thought to be specially dependent on Zoroastrian thought, both in its presumed use of the Oracles of Hystaspes and in its millenialism.

  *** w59 4/15 p. 247 Christianity’s Origin and the Dead Sea Scrolls ***
  
  While most serious scholars reject the extreme position that the Dead Sea Scroll community accounted for the origin of Christianity, they feel obligated to find all manner of traces of Essenism in the ministry and teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. But if that is so, how can we account for the total silence regarding the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Scriptures? The Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and Zealots are mentioned but never the Essenes nor their Qumran monastery.

  Comment: Scholars today recognize that the Qumran community represented a sect within Essenism and that the Essenes were a broader group than the monastics by the Dead Sea. This broader Essenism drew heavily on older Enochic Judaism and include texts that have a very close relationship with first century Christianity, such as the Book of Parables (which anticipated Christian ideas about the Messiah and the Son of Man) and 4 Ezra (which has striking parallels with Christian apocalypses). The free use of Enochic traditions in the epistle of Jude is strong evidence that Palestinian Christianity drew on Essenism (the Pharisees in contrast did not recognize Enochic literature). The early Christian redaction of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is another indication of the close relationship. The lack of mention of the Essenes in the NT is not significant. Josephus shows that the Essenes were one of the three major sects of Judaism in the first century AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves do not mention the name of the Essenes anywhere. They are simply referred to as those who are pious and faithful to God. Similarly, the NT mentions specifically the groups that were in conflict with the early Jesus movement. The Society's argument from silence ignores the possibility that either the Essenes were not in conflict with the early Christians, or that the Essenes themselves did not necessarily call themselves Essenes. The name's etymology is uncertain, but the best guess is that it derives from Aramaic chasayya "the pious" (= Hebrew chasîdîm, i.e. the Hasidim or the Asadaeans, an early Jewish sect from the second century BC). This would explain why Philo of Alexandria called them the Therapeutae since the transliteration of chasayya and 'asayya "healers" is similar in Greek. The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the people in their sect as the pious: "The Lord will consider the pious (chasîdîm), and call the righteous by name, and his spirit will hover upon the poor, and he will renew the faithful with his strength. For he will honor the pious (chasîdîm) upon the throne of an eternal kingdom, freeing prisoners, giving sight to the blind, straightening out the twisted" (4QMessianic Apocalypse 2 2:5-8). The Hazon Gabriel (line 16) similarly makes reference to the "prophets, the elders, and the pious ones (chasîdîn)".

  *** w77 3/15 pp. 190-191 Transmitting the Hebrew Scriptures to You ***

  Another publication notes that this scroll and an additional copy of parts of Isaiah found near the Dead Sea “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.” When reading the Hebrew Scriptures, therefore, you can be confident that your Bible is based upon a Hebrew text that accurately conveys the thoughts of God’s inspired penmen. (2 Tim. 3:16)
  
  *** g79 10/8 p. 15 Purity of the Bible Text Threatened ***

  One scroll contained almost the complete book of Isaiah. Out of the 1,292 verses of Isaiah in the English Bible, only 13 were adjusted by the translators of the Revised Standard Version because of the text of this scroll. This did not mean that there were no more variations than this, but the vast majority of others were mere changes in spelling and grammar. Remember, these Hebrew scrolls were penned 1,000 years apart.
  
  *** it-2 [1988] p. 315 Manuscripts of the Bible ***
  
  One of these was the now-renowned Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah (1QIsa), a well-preserved leather roll of the entire book of Isaiah, except for a few gaps. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 322) It contains a pre-Masoretic Hebrew script and has been dated toward the end of the second century B.C.E. Hence, it is about a thousand years older than the oldest extant manuscript of the Masoretic text. However, though showing some differences in spelling and grammatical construction, it does not vary doctrinally from the Masoretic text.

  Comment: The Society likes to cite the similarity between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT as a proof for the reliability of textual transmission of the OT. This however is selective because other books were found in very different editions at Qumran, including 1-2 Samuel, Psalms, and Jeremiah. The Isaiah scroll is also noteworthy for showing scribal mistakes that demonstrate that the copyist pronounced YHWH as 'Adonai "Lord". This is contrary to the Society's claim (such as in the 1 April 2009 Watchtower, p. 30) that the graphical inclusion of the tetragrammaton in the text necessarily implies that it was pronounced as such (rather than via a substitute).

  *** si [1990] pp. 118-119 pars. 5-6 Bible Book Number 23—Isaiah ***
  
  Though some have pointed to the book’s change of style from chapter 40 onward as indicating a different writer, or “Second Isaiah,” the change in subject matter should be sufficient to explain this. There is much evidence that Isaiah wrote the entire book that bears his name... [T]hese ancient scrolls refute the critics’ claims of two “Isaiahs,” since chapter 40 begins on the last line of the column of writing containing chapter 39, the opening sentence being completed in the next column. Thus, the copyist was obviously unaware of any supposed change in writer or of any division in the book at this point.

  Comment: The Great Isaiah Scroll does not falsify the Deutero-Isaiah theory; it is much too late. There is no way the scribe could have possibly known that something was added to the book hundreds of years earlier. The time span between the period of the prophet Isaiah (early seventh century BC) and the date of the scroll (second century BC) is too great. This would be like someone arguing that the Trinity reference in 1 John 5:7 must be original to the epistle since it appears in the Codex Legionensis some 500-600 years later. We are lucky to have manuscript evidence of the time in between that show that this passage is secondary. We have no manuscript evidence of Isaiah prior to the time of Deutero-Isaiah (middle of the sixth century BC), much less of the time between then and the second century BC. Higher criticism attempts to trace the early history of the text beyond what textual criticism could attest.

  *** w97 8/15 p. 11 Part One—How the Bible Came to Us ***
  
  During this period, from about the sixth to the tenth centuries C.E., a group of Jews known as the Masoretes developed systematic copying methods to preserve the Hebrew Scripture text. They went so far as to count all the lines and even each individual letter, noting variations among manuscripts, all in an effort to preserve an authentic text. Their efforts were not in vain. To cite one example, comparison of modern Masoretic texts with the Dead Sea Scrolls, written between 250 B.C.E. and 50 C.E., shows no doctrinal change in over 1,000 years.

  Comment: This is not true; the differences between the DSS and the MT do indeed reflect doctrinal differences on occasion. One example that readily comes to mind is Deuteronomy 32:8, where the MT removes the latent henotheism in the text.

  *** dp [1999] chap. 2 p. 27 par. 26 Daniel—A Book on Trial ***
  
  The authenticity of the book of Daniel received further support when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the caves of Qumran, Israel. Surprisingly numerous among the finds discovered in 1952 are scrolls and fragments from the book of Daniel. The oldest has been dated to the late second century B.C.E. At that early date, therefore, the book of Daniel was already well-known and widely respected. Notes The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: “A Maccabean dating for Daniel has now to be abandoned, if only because there could not possibly be a sufficient interval between the composition of Daniel and its appearance in the form of copies in the library of a Maccabean religious sect.”

  Comment: The evangelical Zondervan press takes an a priori position that the Bible is inerrant, so it is no surprise to see the Society quoting them. The date of c. 125 BC is not sufficiently close to 164 BC to rule out the Maccabean date for the book (the evidence for which is overwhelming), any more than the date of the Rylands papyrus of John rules out a date in the late first century AD for that book. The Society says about that manuscript: "This is the oldest manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures in existence. Many scholars believe that it was written about 125 C.E., a mere quarter of a century or so after John's death" (1 March 2010 Watchtower, p. 9).

  *** w01 2/15 pp. 4-5 What Is the Truth About the Dead Sea Scrolls? ***
  
  Some have claimed that Christianity had its beginnings at Qumran. Nevertheless, many striking differences can be noted between the religious views of the Qumran sect and the early Christians. The Qumran writings reveal ultrastrict Sabbath regulations and an almost obsessive preoccupation with ceremonial purity. (Matthew 15:1-20; Luke 6:1-11) Much the same could be said regarding the Essenes’ seclusion from society, their belief in fate and the immortality of the soul, and their emphasis on celibacy and mystical ideas about participating with the angels in their worship. This shows them to be at variance with Jesus’ teachings and those of early Christians.

  Comment: Here the Society mixes together both sectarian positions of the Qumran sect (such as the Sabbath regulations, celebacy, and predestinationism) and more general Jewish beliefs (such as immortality of the soul) that were shared with early Christianity. The idea of participating with angels in worship was definitely shared by early Christians: " You have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, t o the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant.... Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe" (Hebrews 12:22-28; cf. Hebrews 1:6, 4:14-16, 9:23-28, Revelation 5:11-14).
• 

  ziddina

  Wonderful, Leolaia!!

  On the spot, as usual!