Posted on 08/17/2004 9:43:31 PM PDT by yonif
Authorities are hoping that DNA testing of animal bones discovered in excavations at the Qumran plateau will reveal the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Archeologists believe the findings will resolve the debate sparked nearly half a century ago with the discovery of the biblical manuscripts in 11 separate caves on the shores of the Dead Sea.
Prof. Oren Gutfield of Hebrew University, who participated in the excavations, is attempting to ascertain the relationship between the scrolls and their place of discovery.
"What we will do now are DNA tests to these bones in order to compare DNA results from these animals with DNA of the Dead Sea Scrolls parchment. A connection was never found between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the site itself, but if a match is found it means that the people who lived in Qumran actually prepared the scrolls from animals at the site itself," Gutfield said.
The seven bone deposits of mules eaten and buried inside cleaning pots and storage jars by the Qumran community in the 1st century BCE will undergo DNA testing this week.
Archeologists will compare the findings of the bones with the DNA of the scrolls conducted over the past five years. Also, the Qumran storage pots resemble those found inside the caves with the scrolls.
According to Gutfield, "If the bone deposits, which are unique to the plateau, match with the scrolls, we will be able to resolve one of the greatest debates of the archeological world today – do the scrolls originate from within the Qumran community or were they transported to the caves from outside before the siege of the Romans in 66 CE?"
There are two schools of thought regarding the origin of the scrolls. Most scholars, led by archeologist Roland de Voux, who directed the excavations at the plateau in the 1950s, claim that the 900 scrolls originate from both within Qumran and also from contributions of individuals joining the community.
A group of dissidents argues that the site must be disconnected from the scrolls. The manuscripts, written by high priests, were only transported to the caves immediately before the Roman siege of Jerusalem. Associate professor of archeology at Bar-Ilan University Hanan Eshel suggests that the majority of the manuscripts, although not all, are sectarian and were written by community members. He suggests that evidence for this thesis is rooted within the text of the scrolls themselves.
"The content of the scrolls prove that they [the dissidents] are wrong. They [the scrolls] describe the rules and workings of the Qumran community. Even more so, they speak out against the Jerusalem establishment and the priests of Jerusalem themselves," Eshel said.
"I can't understand why some people would deny a connection between the scrolls found in the cave and the site [Qumran] itself. In addition to the proximity of the caves to the site, one must go through the site to reach the caves. If a match is found, it will prove the connection once and for all," he said.
"Actually, aren't equines kosher? Their hooves aren't cloven, after all. I'll have to get out the Bible..."
Two requirements, cloven hooves and chews a cud.
Lev. 11:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 26
Deut. 14:6, 7, 8
"CE and BCE are obnoxious artifacts of anti-Christian sentiment...."
Exactly. The world doesn't just hate Christians, in truth they hate Jesus Christ and they try to erase, disparage or rewrite anything that refers to Him. This also reminds me of what someone said about the Jesus Seminar: "They think if they vote enough times God will resign."
That system seems to FURTHER move away from being Christocentric. At least CE recognizes something significant occurred. BP is absurd. Why pick 1950? BKW? (Before the Korean War?) No-one is gonna want to translate all their dates. (In BP four hundred and fifty-eight, Columnus sailed the oceans great? The spirit of 174? The San Francisco 101ers? The Summer of 19?)
Sorry, BC and AD is stayes, but I won't complain if some rabbis wanna use BCE and and CE. Yeah, I will get irked when "Christian" biblical scholars use those terms, but I do like knowing who my enemies are. >:^)
He is way off base. his efforts are malscholorship designed to get a raies.
It's just a phony lead in to deny the Hebraic roots of the Bible and Christianity. At the same time it negates any Jewish connection. islamic archaeology has been striving to wipe out the jewish record for years. This moron is moslem or a Nazi or both. He is totally irrelevent.
IMHO BCE=Before Christ Era; CE=Christ Era!!
Is that a joke? Are you trying to wind us up?
Mules? That doesn't sound plausible, these critters are not kosher. Unless they were starving and mules were all they had.
BP dates are appropriate in the context of scientific investigations such as the investigation being discussed here. They're not appropriate for ordinary history such as those events you mentioned. All archaeologists have other Chronometric dating systems to use if they have no interest in Christian time frames and the calendar systems tracking those time frames. All anyone would have to do is use an alternative time system and if they chose translate it for the general public (years in the Christian calendar). One such alternate calendar is the Hebrew calendar (official in Israel). I would think most would find it obnoxious if someone were to take that calendar and suddenly claim it was not Jewish at all.
from Overview of Dating -"Many different calendar systems have been created around the world. They all have in common the fact that they have a starting point from which one can count forward and backward. That point can be in the past, the present, or the future. Scientists who use chronometric dating methods usually prefer to count years from the present. With this system, an event that occurred in 1000 B.C. would be written 2950 B.P. (or 2950 years "before the present"). By convention, 1950 A.D. is considered the present." http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/time_2.htm
They're interchangable, just as you thought.
CE, according to Webster, stands for Christian Era as well as Common Era, but Common Era is is the prefered usage in academia.
The obvious question is if the two designations are interchangable why change AD to CE?
There are different answers to that question depending upon whom you talk to. My own thoughts on the subject is the obvious denial of Christianity by a segment of academia. Common Era sound less religious than Anno Domini which translates into Year of Our Lord. After one or two generations of students who have been taught to use Common Era it will become standard usage and AD will be forgotten.
The irony is that some Christian churches also use Common Era instead of AD. I suppose those churches want to tone down the religious aspect of church services in favor of a more sensitive, secular, approach to religion.
You confirmed what I thought was correct. Then my real question follows, "where on earth did they get 66 AD"?
i thought it was well understood the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 AD. Oops, just answered my own question when I re-read the article. The seige began in 66 leading to the destruction in 70.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.