Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Conspiracy Theory

From the article:

  • Vatican conspiracy theory

Allegations that the Vatican suppressed the publication of the scrolls were published in the 1990s. Notably, Michael Baigent's and Richard Leigh's book The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception claim that several key scrolls were deliberately kept under wraps for decades to suppress unwelcome theories about the early history of Christianity; in particular, Eisenman's speculation that the life of Jesus was deliberately mythicized by Paul, possibly a Roman agent who faked his "conversion" from Saul in order to undermine the influence of anti-Roman messianic cults in the region. The complete publication and dissemination of translations and photographic records of the works in the late 1990s and early 2000s - particularly the publication of all of the "biblical" scrolls - has greatly increased the credibility of their argument among mainstream scholarship. Today most scholars, both secular and religious, feel the documents are distinctly Jewish in origin, connecting them to early Christianity.

Okay now, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are NOT scholars. These are the guys who wrote Holy Blood Holy Grail, the Jesus Papers and the Messianic Legacy, basically conspiracy theories which have since been exploded. I would think the publishing of the Dead Sea Scrolls would have WEAKENED (not "strengthened") their argument (that the Vatican was purposely hindering the DSS publication because the DSS contained information devastating to Christianity). The DSS don't seem to be about Christianity at all (they only "connection" being they are about 2nd Temple Judaism, out of which Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism would emerge). Barbara Theiring and Robert Eisennman (sp?) are considered fringe scholars now in their understanding (Theiring much more so). How to phrase that diplomatically without being misleading? If the documents are "distinctly Jewish in origin" how does that automatically connect them to early Christianity? The article is unclear.

"If the documents are "distinctly Jewish in origin" how does that automatically connect them to early Christianity?" This is a very simple question to answer... Christianity is a sect of the Jewish faith. the original Christians were Jewish people who believed Jesus was the Messiah spoken of by the early Jews. Jews and Christians read all the same religious text but Jews don't read about Jesus (the new testament). therefor anything to do with early Jewish religion or the "Jewish God of isriel" would mean it holds value to Christianity and speaks about the God they believe in and the people (Jews) they believe to be the chosen ones.~~Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I presume that this alleged suppression was to have occurred at some time since 1947, not 2,000 years ago. To argue that they were written 2,000 years ago, and yet had nothing at all to do with early Christianity is hard to believe, and as you point out in your first paragraph, "most scholars" don't. There can be little doubt that those who had early access to the scrolls were a small, privileged group who delayed, for whatever reason, not only their general publication, but also details about discoveries in progress. So the question is not whether there was conspiracy, but whether it was directed by "The Vatican", and not just noted or approved of by Roman Catholic influence from outside the group. But in your second paragraph, you argue the opposite, that they "don't seem to be about Christianity at all". Considering that they were certainly religious in nature, and roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, why don't they seem "connected" to you? Assuming Jesus was around, and an important religious personage, why would the writers of the scrolls, who, like Jesus, were Jewish and unconventional in their attitudes, have avoided writing anything at all about him? I find it more plausible that they did, but without using the name ("Jesus Christ") with which we are familiar today. Unfree (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

when is it thought the scrolls were written? what steps needed to be taken to prove they were not forged? Kingturtle 00:45 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

  • One guy thought they were medieval when first published, but a combination of archaeology, palaeography, and carbon dating convinces most today that they were written, variously, between 200 BCE and 70 CE (the destruction of Jerusalem in the First Jewish War thought to be the end of the period during which scrolls were deposited there), with most of the carbon dated ones being BCE. This is from memory.--Peter Kirby 08:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

i checked all the journal articles on this guys and the few responses they made to him. i also checked out some documentaries about the dating of the manuscripts with all modern techniques. the bones found in the community that placed the scrolls there were dated to the middle ages, the jewelry in the bones was dated to the 12th AD. carbon testing was never applied on the scrolls, it was applied to the woolens within which, it was claimed by the Bedouin, the scrolls were wrapped. furthermore Mrs. Elizabeth crowfoot, in her introduction, discoveries in the Judean desert, wrote "a carbon 14 test was carried out by Dr. F.E. Zeuner on some of the woolens; unfortunately the date return, AD. 546-66 does not coincide with any known occupation". S. Zeitlin seems to have had better paleographical proof than his contestants because nobody really answered. he pointed out to certain anachronisms, including physical signs on the scrolls, parentheses, connecting lines between two words and ellipses indicating that a word or words had been omitted. he also pointed out to reference notes on the text, something that was not done till the middle ages. what i recommend is to add more information on the opinion of this scholar, we all know there was much interest to date the scrolls to antiquity because there was nothing like it. before these scrolls the older scrolls were medieval dating to the 9-11 AD. what most strikes me is that the findings comprised sections of some 800 books, a whole library in a few words. however, in antiquity there were only libraries in large cities, no libraries in small communities. libraries in small communities is something you would expect in the middle ages. so there is scientific proof, paleographic proof, and respected scholars that continuously published articles in the Jewish quarterly review. this opinion then should not be put under the carpet in an encyclopedia that as far as i know intends to be complete.

It certainly would make your writing a lot more "penetrable" if you'd conform to common standards of grammar and punctuation. ("on this guys and", "responses they made to him", "documentaries", "bones", "parentheses", "ellipses", "reference notes", "the 9-11 AD", "library in a few words" -?)
The scrolls have indeed been carbon dated, at least twice, and found to be roughly 2,000 years old. Your "research" must be flawed. Why you are complaining about the word "library" makes no sense. Call them a "collection", if you wish. It's irrelevant to what they are. Unfree (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel obtained 4 of the 7 Dead Sea scrolls on 13 February 1955. -- What does that mean? There are far more than 7 altogether. Someone who is familiar with this please fix it. -- zero 09:16, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • I have fixed this and much expanded the "Discovery" section. --Peter Kirby 08:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with this?

Is this going anywhere? This thread appears to be four years old. I can't tell from the text of the affected § whether it is referring to the original authors of the scrolls as conspirators, those involved in the restoration and/or translation or what. I think the *§ should just be removed unless something coherent can be said. (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Things to fix and improve

Is there a typo in the WSJ ad? It reads "This would be and ideal gift to an educational or religious institution by an individual or group." Was that actually what was in the WSJ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glengyron (talkcontribs) 02:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


The first paragraph of the discovery section is plagiarised from

  • This no longer appears to be the case. Tbarron 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I came upon this article looking for information on the Dead Sea scrolls. What a messy article! I really think that it needs to be re-organized and re-written. (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Possible Issue

It seems that as with most of such ancient documents the date and time of the creation of these scrolls is still debateable. I've read sources that say the Scrolls could have been made up to 60 years after the life of Christ and another source that said that the scrolls were possibly created 60 years before Christ's life. I'm not the person to make such a correction but I think more research could be done on this topic before this page should be considered at least temporaly complete.

Both facts are quite accurate, based on carbon dating. No "correction" is required. Unfree (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. The article only mentions the Qumran cave but scrolls from the same time period have also been found at a number of other places in the Dead Sea area, such as at Masada.
  2. The argument over whether the scrolls were written on-site or brought from somewhere else needs to be aired. A recent contribution to this argument is mentioned here: Archeologists claim Essenes never wrote Dead Sea Scrolls (Haaretz)

--Zero 07:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, the Haaretz link is dead. Fortunately, I have books by Golb and others and may be able to shed some light on this subject. --Peter Kirby 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Although this article is overall quite good, I find some of these articles tend to be somewhat bland and brief. In a comparison between this article and that on the Book of Daniel, I find that there are several unsubstantiated, broad-ranging claims made. (Eg. Daniel derives from two separate sources around the 2nd-3rd centuries AD, etc.) The fact is among the Dead Sea scrolls were found fragments from the Book of Daniel, proving that it had wide distribution well before the 2nd BC, a major point supporting that book's authenticity and completely unreported upon in either the Daniel article or the Dead Sea Scrolls article. Could I get some feedback on these points? TTWSYF

  • I don't see the "2nd-3rd centuries AD" claim in the Book of Daniel article. Was it cleaned up, or did you confuse the reference to centuries BC? The Dead Sea Scrolls prove (should that be "prove"? people are fussy about that word) that Daniel was written before AD 70 and provide evidence that Daniel was written in the centuries BC; however, they do not push the date of Daniel back before 200 BC. --Peter Kirby 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is somewhat out of date. The introduction to the 2004 edition of Geza Vermes' "complete" translation of the scrolls describes more recent developments and has a more complete account of how the scrolls came to be published. Maybe someone with a deeper interest than I have can check it out and update the article. The published edition of the scrolls (called "Discoveries in the Judean Desert") is now up to something like 36 volumes with a few more to go.

Don't confuse these two; Vermes edited (I think; perhaps authored) "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (3rd ed. containing the Temple Scroll) (London: Penguin, 1987)", ("DSSE") according to Thiering's bibliography in JM; Discoveries in the Judean Desert ("DJD") is a series produced by "the International Team" and published "mainly" (according to Eisenman and Wise, on page 5 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (New York, Barnes and Noble, 1994) by the Oxford University Press. E and W also write, loc. cit., "By controlling the unpublished manuscripts -- the pace of their publication, who was given a document to edit and who was not -- the International Team could, for one thing, create instant scholarly 'superstars'. For another, it controlled the interpretation of the texts. For example, instead of a John Allegro, a John Strugnell was given access; instead of a Robert Eisenman, a Frank Moore Cross; instead of a Michael Wise, an Emile Puech. Without competing analyses, these interpretations grew almost inevitably into a kind of 'official' scholarship." (Clearly, Eisenman and Wise felt slighted!) Unfree (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


"Geza Vermes, who had been involved from the start in the editing and publication of these materials, blamed the delay – and eventual failure – on de Vaux's selection of a team unsuited to the quality of work he had planned, as well as relying "on his personal, quasi-patriarchal authority" to ensure the work was promptly done." -- This contradicts itself. It was delayed or promptly done, not both. --Zero 07:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood; according to Vermes, it was de Vaux's reliance on the force of his own personality to speed up the work (as well as the unsuitability of the team he chose) which backfired. That's what led to the delay. In any case, the statement has been altered, and I intend to alter it again. Unfree (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


New issue: 22:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)22:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence of Para. 1.0, Dates and Contents, reads: " The so-called Copper Scroll (1952), which lists hidden caches of gold, scrolls, and weapons, is probably the most notorious. ". A popular definition of 'notorious' reads: "Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous: a notorious gangster; a district notorious for vice." Notorious also has several other negative conotations. I recommend that 'notorious' be replaced by 'controversial' to reduce POV. I propose the sentence be rewritten as follows: "The so-called Copper Scroll (1952), which lists hidden caches of gold, scrolls, and weapons, is probably one of the most controversial of the scrolls." Comments on this proposed change will be appreciated.

No, quite to the contrary, it isn't a matter of controversy, so much as amazement. What makes the scroll remarkable is the value of the treasure it inventories, over a billion dollars! (See the article, "Copper Scroll".) Perhaps notoriety (in the neutral sense) isn't the best word choice. While I've got the chance, I'd like to defend the non-derogatory usage of "notorious". If the world ceased to recognize words for what they mean, but for what it thought they might hint at, what a dismally misinformed world this would be! Unfree (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

<removed vandalism> dead sea scrolls

I deleted: " There was even a new finding that another of the scrolls has been found deep in the caves of Athens, Greece. This is consistent with knowledge that the Jewish religion actually reached Europe before Constantine." Even if an ancient scroll was found in Athens, it is not revelant to this article unless it has a Dead Sea connection. Anyway, there is no citation given and we need one. --Zero 13:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

  • There is now a mention of the treasure described in the Copper Scroll, but no substantive discussion. --Peter Kirby 01:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The planet Neptune "is consistent with" Chicago. Of course Judaism spread throughout the Eastern Hemisphere long before Constantine. Centuries before Constantine, and even longer before George Washington. Incidentally, I deleted two repetitions here of a paragraph below, and some vandalism. Unfree (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Treasure

Why isnt there any mention of the treasure that the scrolls spoke of? When they were first discovered the treasure was discredited as a hox but it was later revealed that archaeologists and researchers did this to prevent a treasure hunt. The treasure is supposedly that of the temple, saved before its destruction, if found it would be the greatest archaelogical find in human history.

That depends on whether it exists, and if it exists whether

The treasure would undoubtedly be worth more than all of those combined.

Copper Scroll The first of the Dead Sea Scrolls was discovered in 1947, and the famed Copper Scroll - made of pure copper - was found at Qumran in 1952. The Copper Scroll is an inventory - written in Hebrew - of the holy treasures of Solomon's First Temple, treasures hidden before the destruction of that temple by the Babylonians and treasures which have not been seen since.

The Copper Scroll states that a silver [or alabaster?] chest, the vestments of the Cohen Gadol (Hebrew High Priest), gold and silver in great quantities, the Tabernacle of the Lord (the Mishkan) and many treasures were hidden in a desolate valley - under a hill - on its east side, forty stones deep. The Mishkan was a "portable" Temple for the Ark of the Covenant. The writings in the Copper Scroll were confirmed 40 years later in the 1990s through an ancient text found in the introduction to Emeq HaMelekh ("Valley of the King(s)") -- a book published in 1648 in Amsterdam, Holland, by Rabbi Naftali Hertz Ben Ya’acov Elchanon (Rabbi Hertz).

I challenge the assertion that the inventory referred to the treasure of the original, pre-Babylonian Temple, and the hint that it referred to a single cache. It locates and inventories many caches, including at least two among the caves at Qumran, and is most likely contemporaneous with the other scrolls, that is, around two millennia ago. Furthermore, the asserted great "depth" of the treasure was due to a misinterpretation, by Milik, I believe. It actually was a distance, not a depth. Unfree (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


I find the "Significance" section of the page wholly inadequate. In a garbled sentence it says nothing and is very confusing. Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge to adequately alter it, and I believe it ought to be either removed or completely edited. I think a solid sentence like "Unlike many modern theories, the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Bible has not changed significantly from its original form" would stand in for the first part of the sentence. Also, I don't think that "though they do indicate that primitive Christianity was very different than Christianity as it is practiced today" fits in with the rest of the article, as "Interpretations" states that:

"Notably, Michael Baigent's and Richard Leigh's book The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception contains a popularized version of speculations by Robert Eisenman that some scrolls actually describe the early Christian community, characterized as more fundamentalist and rigid than the one portrayed by the New Testament, and that the life of Jesus was deliberately mythicized by Paul, possibly a Roman agent who faked his "conversion" from Saul in order to undermine the influence of anti-Roman messianic cults in the region."

As the theory was purely "speculations by Robert Eisenman" according to the article, could someone clarify and correct "Significance" to reflect whether these are still speculations? If they are, I believe this should be noted in this passage.

--whitti 8 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

  • I have edited the "Signficiance" section in a way that should be provisionally acceptable. --Peter Kirby 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Popularized Theories

Exactly how was Robert Eisenman's theory popular? Exactly who besides those two half-scholars believed or even put credit to Eisenman's crazy theories. James Vanderkam, in the book entitled, " The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls", found so many flaws in these theories. To say it was a popularized theory would be arrogant. It in fact was one of the most denounced theories to be applied to the dead sea scrolls. I mean come on, James the brother of Jesus was the leader of the Essenes? It was the Saudacees who were the sect at Qumran? The Essenes being the sect living at Khirbet Qumran is a popularized theory, not the latter you described. I think you should probably not edit anymore of the writings on this topic, i've seen a couple things wrong with your "editing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addamohara (talkcontribs) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Why is it that any articles having to do with the history of religion are the subject of so much controversy and edit wars? I find it very difficult to get any accurate information from Wikipedia on this subject, and frankly, it's getting annoying. You've got inappropriate stuff from fundamentalists on one hand and "minimalists" on the other- not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Maybe this should be left to professionals.

I mean, you don't see this kind of controversy in articles about citrus fruit.

I agree, let's go argue over Paris Hilton's tits instead. Edit war anyone? Yongke 06:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. Usually, people aren't moved to edit an article unless they have some sort of expertise. Religion is one of a handful of areas where non-experts cannot imagine that their personal biases are not borne out by scientific investigation, and so feel entitled to "correct" the misunderstandings of those sadly benighted archaeologists, historians and manuscript scholars who have spent entire careers at mainstream institutions who "have an unreasonable bias against my own intuitions". Most annoying is the resistance to first comprehending the positions of their opposition before deciding to state their case, and the only solution seems to be open abuse towards those who write without bothering to learn the facts of a debate. Honestly, there are people out there who think reading a Lee Strobel book makes them a world authority. 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

for what it's worth, at least wikipedia provides a venue for concentrated argument over disputed facts. IMO this is superior to isolated authors writing long-winded articles that are never truly forced to resolve conflicts. I can imagine the wiki conflict resolution process evolving into the definitive account of what constitutes consensus fact. As things stand, crackpots tend to find some author that supports their view and cease their investigation there, reassured that their position has expert support 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

To quote the Wiki FAQ: Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints).

What Peter Kirby is suggesting is to remove the "conflicting viewpoints" so that it appears more in line with his understanding of Christianity. I can't agree with that. Kungfucolin (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Its rather obvious: religion is something that a majority of the world is very passionate about. Leaving this to 'professionals' would undoubtedly be against the ethos of Wikipedia. On the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there really shouldn't be that much contention: they are concrete, historical documents.

--whitti 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Citrus fruit is science; anyone can grab a citrus fruit off a store shelf and weigh it, taste it, etc.; the Dead Sea Scrolls, while partly archaeological science because they were excavated and subject to carbon dating, are texts interpreted to get any useful info out of them, and so there will be disagreement. The most noteable disagreement, in the case of the Scrolls, is whether they were written by Essenes. But what it is it that you (poster above Whitti) are referring to in particular? If you brought attention to the particulars, it could be fixed. --Peter Kirby 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Many apologies, I am a novice, a complete novice, in everything. I read that the book of Isaiah foretold the destruction of Babylon by King Cyrus and the coming of Jesus, written in 732 B.C.E. I need to ask if the Dead Sea scroll was genuinely carbon dated and if the complete book or which small fragments of Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea scrolls. Retrieved from ""

  • At least two copies of Isaiah were found at Qumran, one fragmentary and another more complete. I don't know offhand if these particular ones were carbon dated. But, since the oldest scrolls are 2nd century BCE, the dates of the copies tell us nothing about whether Isaiah was "written in 732 B.C.E." (such precision!) or foretold the coming of Jesus (that's POV). --Peter Kirby 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Somebody just deleted a chunk of information regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls and their significance to the LDS church. That deletion is not discussed. Can the info be salvaged, where should it be put? --Peter Kirby 02:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Date and Contents

I found a link that I thought was very interesting and fills out some dating facts but I'm unsure of the accepted "wiki way" to reference it. Could someone in the know add it to this section please? The link is to the University of Arizona Physics Department [1] . SOPHIA 22:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for better understanding Jesus and the Gospels is a controversial topic. In this chapter, we have emphasized that there is no direct relationship between Jesus and the scrolls, and none of these ancient documents was written by or for Christians as far as we know. Attempts have been made to find direct connections, but in many cases these are speculative, sensational, or bizarre (e.g., John Allegro and the sacred mushroom, Barbara Thiering's peshar technique, and the scrolls and the New Age Jesus). - "The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity," by James VanderKam and Peter Flint (Hardcover - Dec 1, 2002).

Other theories

"There is also writing about the Nephilim related to the Book of Enoch." ... I think this paragraph should have a link to this, "Nephilim" and the Book of Enoch along with a brief description. Without that the reader is left wondering what significance this statement has.

...To be honest, I guess I'm talking about me as the reader...but there must be others.

--8r13n 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand this paragraph on "Other theories" (and I am a native speaker of English :-)). Here's what it currently says:
Because they are frequently described as important to the history of the Bible, the scrolls are surrounded by a wide range of conspiracy theories. There is also writing about the Nephilim related to the Book of Enoch. Theories with more support among scholars include Qumran as a military fortress or a winter resort; see above (Abegg et al 2002).
First, what does it mean to say that "the scrolls are surrounded by a wide range of conspiracy theories." That there have been conspiracy theories about their discovery, or about their origin? Modern day conspiracy theories, I assume?
Second, who wrote about the "Nephilim"? Is this supposed to be one of the conspiracy theories, or something else? And what is the relationship to the Book of Enoch: the conspiracy theories relate to that book, or that book talks about the Nephilim? (If I'm not mistaken, the Nephilim are also mentioned in Genesis.)
Finally, what is the relationship between the theories mentioned in the last sentence and the scrolls? Military fortesses and resorts have a need to store religious scrolls, or what? McSwell (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How did the Masoretic text, come to be mentioned in this article? The oldest surviving version of Hebrew scripture, actually what Christians refer to as the 'Old Testament', is the Codex Vaticanus, circa 4th Cen. of the common era. The text of the Codex V. is sometimes referred to as 'the Septuagint'. The context of the dead sea scrolls, when translated, seems to be close to 'the Septuagint', more so than the Masoretic text of the 9th C.--CorvetteZ51 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus is Greek scripture not Hebrew scripture, however the text did call for a bit of clarification. Feel free to let me know what you think of the present version. Hemmingsen 06:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I read a NYT article from 2001 I think that said the New Jerusalem Bible would be updated with permission from the Vatican to include Dead Sea Scrolls material. I have not seen any recently published version of this bible. Does anybody know if this material has filtered into any of the published bibles of today, and how much of it, etc? Perhaps much of the material and it's meaning is still under debate. Thanks. 22 February 2006

THE CHINESE CONNECTION An article by Neil Altman with the above title was published in the Toronto Star (Canada) on 04 November 2006. The article can be found at this link. (For information, the URL embedded in the link is Perhaps someone with more experience contributing to Wikipedia would know whether this information should be added to the main article. Thanks 08 November 2006

  • I edited the text to move the 'Chinese' connection to the section on Date, since its presence in the introduction seems to give it undo prominence, expecially since, according to my reading of the article, only one person currently is making that claim, and that is the writer of the article. I also removed the word 'significant' from 'significant recent findings' to make it NPOV. Personally I don't think much of the article, for two reasons: 1. It seems to be a minority viewpoint, perhaps an extreme minority one, and might not be appropriate for inclusion given the rules of Wikipedia, but I am an expert on neither the rules nor the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2. According to the account of his Chinese-Jewish contact, his family came to China circa 500 BCE, so I am not sure why the Scrolls having a Chinese connection would necessarily make them form around 500 CE, but, again, my reading of that would be OR, so I am leaving it in unless someone has a source that knows more about this.Felgerkarb 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with leaving Altman and his "Chinese connection" in the article. I made the mistake of citing that same news report, only to find Altman isn't considered academically qualified on the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact some real experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls are incensed at Altman for this article and others, saying the letters are Arabic. Why perpetuate Altman nonsense?--Chrisbak 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seems like nonsene to me. I am not knowledgable enough to comment on it without approriate references to back me up. I guess it depends if you think it is either 'doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use [verification needed] tag to ask for source verification.' or 'doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.'

I personally have no problem removing it, but I was not ther person who originally added it. I will move it to the Talk section pending further debate.

It is here for reference and discussion:

However according to a 2006 news article by Neil Altman, a US writer who specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some recent findings suggest some of the Dead Sea Scrolls may have a Chinese connection and date after AD 500.[1] Altman writes that especially the Chinese symbol for God dating after Christ possibly explain the time frame of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their place of origin. Chinese Central Asia has been identified as the area from which the Chinese symbol for God in the scrolls came, and a scholar has identified other Chinese characters in the scrolls. This Chinese connection suggests a date for the Dead Sea Scrolls of no earlier than AD 100 and perhaps 700 years or more later. 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm surprised someone hasn't mocked up a map of where these scrolls were found. Exactly how close to the Dead Sea were these caves? David Bergan 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Book of Nehemiah

According to the Date and contents section, the scrolls contain fragments from the Hebrew Bible, from all the books except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah. However according to 25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls it is all "except for the book of Esther". Library of Congress materials relating to the Qumran Library also has all "except Esther".

Does anyone know the status of the Book of Nehemiah? Hemmingsen 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Temple Scroll

The Spring 2006 issue of Christian History & Biography (Issue 90) has a snippet on page 9 saying that the Temple scroll is on view for the first time outside of Israel in the Cleveland, Ohio at the Maltz Museum through October 22, 2006. We don't have a separate article on this scroll, so I'm letting you all know here in case you want to do anything about it. GRBerry 02:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC) meow

Biblical Documents Written Before AD 100

I'm fairly certain the Septuagint was written before AD 100 and contains most of the Christian Old Testament so the opening paragraph is seemingly incorrect in saying that the DSS is "practically the only known surviving Biblical documents written before AD 100." It seems to put too much emphasis on the DSS. I think a mention of the Septuagint is relevant here.

Presumably the sentence is referring to extant manuscripts - there's no mss of the Septuagint earlier than the DSS. PiCo 07:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Essay-Entry Template

This article, though full of citations and good information, reads like an essay. Some cite templates, rewording of [[WP:OR|OR] sounding paragraphs, and copyediting would go a long way. /Blaxthos 00:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of documents

"Roughly 825-872" is a pretty strange number. Why so specific on the upper end? Why don't we know how many there are? --Masamage 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The scrolls were found as fragments and then pieced back together. Moreover, some are in private hands. -- 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a wording something like "estimates range from 825 to 872". Otherwise it makes more sense to say "roughly 850". 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

The Content of the Scrolls

To the editors: I won't pretend to be an expert on the topic, but the article contains barely any information about the actual content of the scrolls and how this differs from traditional religious and historical text. In fact none of it is written from a religious perspective. Perhaps that should be a new heading? At least a serious expansion to the "significance" section? There is a lot more to the scrolls than just which caves they were found in and who wrote them. Wikiuser7 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem Theory

To the editors: I have removed Thesultan's insertion of the word "small" before "group," and his remark to the effect that this group is "outside the mainstream." The language Thesultan has inserted is not neutral, but merely expresses his own wishful thinking, as no polls have been taken to determine how big or small this group is or whether it is or is not today in the "mainstream." Thesultan has previously inserted defamatory comments onto the wikipedia article on Norman Golb and has now been blocked from doing so. He clearly bears a grudge against Golb and others who hold the Jerusalem theory, and should be blocked from making offensive and misleading changes in this article as well.Critical Reader 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To the editors: I have written nothing defamatory in this article. I certainly have written nothing misleading! The truth is that I wrote nothing defamatory in the Golb article either. However, after my experience here in another discussion with Critical Reader, where he is able to hijack an entry with an agenda even as editors are watching, I have decided that my one week experiment on this site will come to an end. I simply cannot conclude that any entry on this site would be accurate or unbiased. Thanks for the experiment and goodbye.

Once again, sign your name so people can see where your statements end. If inserting an offensive tirade, entitled "Self-Promotion" and dealing with the presumed identities of internet bloggers, into a biography of a living person doesn't amount to defamation, then I need to learn the English language all over again. You will undoubtedly be back with a different pseudonym, and I hope others will help me to keep these entries relatively civil.Critical Reader 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Golb's son Raphael has been arrested[2] after a two-year investigation pointed to him as a suspect in a campaign of cyberbullying, impersonation and defamation of his father's academic critics. This information may warrant an evaluation of some of the editing history behind the "Jerusalem theory." Or not. DavidOaks (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Elior

The article currently has contradictory statements about Rachel Elior's view of the origins of the scrolls. The Jerusalem libraries section says she endorses Golb's theory, while the Temple section says she endorses the Temple theory (which Golb disagrees with). Does anyone know what her actual position is? Timotheos 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

She accepts Golb's rationale for rejecting the traditional theory and his view that the Scrolls came from Jerusalem. She does not deny that he may be right about a plurality of libraries, nor does she specifically argue against that conclusion, although she herself focuses on scrolls she believes came from the Temple. Her stance on the distinction is not 100% clear. Golb himself clearly admits that many of the Scrolls may have come from the Temple, although he thinks Rengstorf's theory cannot account for the multiplicity of doctrines found in the texts. The Temple theory is really a sub-class of the Jerusalem theory and in my view the article should be re-organized to reflect that, rather than giving the impression of a scattering of different, unrelated views. I suggest structuring the article into three portions: Qumran-sectarian theory [including both Essene view and Sadducee view]; Jerusalem theory [including both multiple-libraries view and Temple view]; other theories [Christian connections, conspiracies, etc.]. I have introduced this structure, aware of the risk that there might now be another edit war, because supporters of the Qumran-sectarian theory have been trying to emphasize the "disunity" of their opponents, despite the fact that the Qumran-sectarian theory itself has many variants (some of them believe it was a third, unidentified sect, some of them believe the sect lived all over the Dead Sea region, etc., issues that could all be dealt with in the Qumran-sectarian portion of the article). Critical Reader 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

P.s. I have also made some minor edits to the Jerusalem libraries and Temple sections to try and clarify the matter. Hopefully this will not lead to a massive edit war.Critical Reader 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the rearrangement Critical Reader has made to the Origins section is helpful, and Elior's position has been clarified. Thanks. Timotheos 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Museum material

I have deleted one paragraph which was obviously an advertisement for the exhibit pure and simple--a clear violation of wikipedia standards--and I have inserted basic information on the controversy concerning this exhibit. Either the exhibit material comes out entirely, or the controversy should be mentioned in an appropriately neutral fashion which can of course be discussed.Critical Reader 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the DSS wiki article?

It seems that this article has become the home to a personal 'edit war' between CRITICALREADER (and his/her IP aliases) and THESULTAN (and his/her IP aliases. I say, banish them both and then get Prof. Golb AND the SDNHM off the page. At least put them at the bottom, and not in the opening few paragraphs. Why is the SDNHM placing ads in the wiki article? And how is it that Prof. Golb is mentioned before de Vaux, Allegro, Milik, Cross, Sanders, Strugnell, etc., etc. The article is a disaster! Instead of mentioning why they are important, telling the history of the scrolls, and THEN the modern controversy, you two are cutting each other's throats at the top of the page. Lose the polemic, and let's get back to actual scholarship. Prof. Golb has his place, as does the SDNHM, but NEITHER of them belong at the top of the article! IsraelXKV8R 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you entirely, I don't think any of that material belonged there at all, but that guy plunked in the advertisement for the museum--what was I to do, let it stand? As you will see in my comment directly above, I stated that it should either come out or be neutral--I was hoping someone else would take it all out, and you have now done so--thank you.Critical Reader 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Someone asked me to take a look at this article. I have no particular knowledge of the scrolls beyond that of the average editor, although I have always had a bit of an interest in archaeology, so I am neutral as far as the various theories are concerned. IsraelXKV8R raised a good point, so I have reorganized the article in a way that I believe makes it more useful and readable. The details of the scrolls and their discovery really should come first, not only because they give readers the bread and butter info on the subject, but also because I think those sections will be less controversial. I deleted the promotional reference to the current San Diego exhibit (which was incidentally added to the article by someone using the museum's computer system) because this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertisements or notices of limited duration. I tried to group together all of the various origin theories and controversies without changing them. I merged the bit on Golb from the article's lead into the existing section on his theory. Please help smooth out any rough transitions I have left behind. I am otherwise unconcerned with the content of the article; I'm just trying to make it more useful to the world. -- But|seriously|folks  02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you have done entirely (see my note directly above).Critical Reader 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this reorg is a good change. Timotheos 14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of document

At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–61 AD.

The document itself, or the parchment it was inscribed upon? Is there some fundamental reason why the parchment and its inscription are necessarily contemporaneous, or is this such a small quibble in the face of vastly larger quibbles that no qualified scholar brings it up? But still, it seems to me that carbon dating dates the materials of the document, not the document itself. Furthermore, at this point in the article, the term document is not yet properly defined. I'm still thinking in terms of crumbled and bleached fragments of parchment that might or might not jigsaw together (by physical means or textual means) into a cohesive narrative. What does document mean? Hide of a single sheep? Pen of a single hand? Telling of a single narrative arc? MaxEnt 07:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Carbon date of a document doesn't pretend to mean anything other than the number you get when you analyze a fragment of the material. If there is such a thing as a consensus date of composition, it probably involves additional (e.g. paleographic)analysis and rather a lot more argument and disagreement. A carbon date is at least a relatively neutral fact, even if it doesn't suit your purposes. 08:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

citing an authority or a consensus is not proof. if you cannot understand the contents of the documents you should not take what others say for granted before doing a lot of reading (a lot of reading is not just one book). carbon dating is not convincing, that is why it is calibrated with dendrochronology. but dendrochronological samples for that area are very scarce, and therefore the calibration can yield huge mistakes. to defend carbon dating with paleography is circular reasoning, read above what i have posted about the so called paleographic proof. (sorry for the grammar errors, i don't really care that much about that in this specific section).

Corrected Distances of Caves from the Site

I corrected distances of caves from site in the 'Discovery' section. Please crossreference Google Earth, as well as Yizhar Hirschfeld Qumran in Context p.17; Jodi Magness Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls p.1; and the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land entry on 'Qumran' p.1235 for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talkcontribs) 00:41, August 25, 2007 (UTC) IsraelXKV8R 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreement with Masoretic texts

The significance section states:

"Although some of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most do not."

I would like to see the list of manuscripts that differ significantly either listed here or detailed in another entry or referenced to a source that I can read about these differences.

ThomHehl 09:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to read about those too! Kungfucolin (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of The Forbidden Books

It is up for deletion as an article on the grounds that is is a blatant advert for a book.

As far as DSS scholarship goes, there have been no copies of gospels, canonical or otherwise, discovered at Qumran or among documents comprising the DSS. —Pre7ceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talkcontribs) 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And is now deleted. IsraelXKV8R 17:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Doing NPOV tag cleanup. Insertion of an NPOV tag must be accompanied by a posting in the discussion page stating clearly and concisely what the editor feels is wrong and how it can be made better. I'm not involving myself in the editing of this topic - if the tag is returned with accompanying discussion allowing dispute and resolution from other editors, then fine. This is a drive-by tagging and I'm removing it. Direct discussion either to this page or my talk page. Jjdon (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Most of this article is the same as: this site , who copied who? Tremello22 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I went back all the way back to December 2006 to compare the two article and I am certain due to the development of the "Caves" section and such things as Trevor instead of Trever and unaccessible instead of inaccessible that plagiarized the Wikipedia article around March 2007 giving no credit to Wikipedia. Stealing by a "Christian" website which asks for donations is unchristian. There were years of work put into this article by many people, and they didn't even give Wikipedia as the source. Can anything be done about them not sourcing Wikipedia? I find this disgusting!!! I have only have two DSS books and was going to add what references I could until I saw the above question. Now that I have found who stole from whom, I'll start adding references. I guess they didn't read the Ten Commandments (i.e. Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal"). Can anything be done about this lack of a stated source of their use of this content without referencing Wikipedia?

And why do very few people source their additions? They have the books, so why not site them. It's not hard.Jason3777 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

CE vs. AD

just so we're all clear, ust so we're all clearthe standard academic and scientific notation for references to years is ce (common era) and bce (before common era). ad and bc are not standard scientific references. the use of bce and ce is not a slight against jesus, christianity, or any form of faith, it is simply the scientific way of referring a year. ad/bc implies a christian perspective, and then opens the door for a muslim to argue that we should date things according to the islamic calendar (which makes today the 12th of rajab, ah 1429) or a jew to date the article according to the jewish calendar (which makes today the 13th of tamuz, 5768).

ce and bce are the standard, neutral designations, and should be employed in articles. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

btw - the WP:ERAS says nothing about which should be used, only that articles with an overtly christian/theological theme can take bc/ad. since the dss are both jewish and xn, and there are two religious ways to signify them, we should stick to the scientific norm. these are archaeological artifacts, studied by archaeologists. if you want to discuss the dss in a class at church, make the conversion to bc/ad. the math is fairly simple. ;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this page after editing. I am new to editing Wikipedia and apologize for any mistakes made on editing or commenting. I would like to bring up a few points on this.

1.) The AD / BC naming convention has been around for millennia. As such is widely understood and used in many, many more pieces of literature than CE/BCE.
2.) regardless of changing the name from AD / BC to CE / BCE the time frame is still revolving around the same person. The only difference is that now it just doesn't make sense as to what started or constitutes the "Comment Era". If the definition of CE is the start of Christianity then why even remove AD and BC to start with?
3.) The Wikipedia community seems to have decided on this already as AD and BC. BCE-CE_Debate

Tehombre (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) TehOmbre

I got into this a few weeks ago. Basically, Wikipedia says that each is acceptable. The only issue here is comprehension and consistency. If a page uses one system, don't add another. And there's no need to fight. Whatever it is, leave it. Since both are understandable, it's a non-issue.Tim (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
tehombre, a couple of things.
1) kings james english has been around much longer than modern english as well, but we don't use that system anymore. Just as with bc/ad, science no longer uses these designations, opting for bc/ce instead.
2) the problem with bc/ad is that it also does not accurately refer to jesus. jesus was born during the reign of herod the great, who died in 4 bce. plus, the pope forgot to count the year zero. so jesus was born at least 5 bc/bce historically. one reason for ditching the bc/ad designation is that it did not accurately reflect dating of jesus. so, rather than re-date everything, science used the same system and changed the designation to 'before common era' and 'common era'. this way, jesus can be born somewhere between 7-5 bce, and we don't have to change all of the numbers.
3) read the wiki article again. it chooses neither, and says that bce/ce is the preferred scientific standard.
the purpose of changing it to bce/ce is to make scientific pages uniform. we can't just leave it. we're trying to make things on wiki uniform, like a respected encyclopedia...IsraelXKV8R (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Israel, oh I'm all for consistency, but I got my hand smacked on another article standardizing to ce/bce, and was shown the eras page. The gist is, pick one and use it, but don't fight about it.Tim (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Israel, The transition from King James English to modern English was the evolution of language, not a switch. The way I understand CE and BCE is that they have the same value so your point confuses me on #2. It still doesn't change the basis of the calendars creation. And on the last point you say the article doesn't chose a standard but chooses one ?? I was referring to the poll where people voted.
Tim, I agree no one should be fighting about it but I think it's worth the discussion. Maybe as a compromise, list both?
Thanks for both of your input. --Tehombre (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, my PERSONAL preference is context. In a Christian only article, ad and bc are far more appropriate. In a trans-religion subject like the Dead Sea Scrolls, ce and bce are far more appropriate. I wouldn't list both. If I had to pick one, I would definitely pick ce and bce HERE, as a means of reducing potential conflict. But that's just my personal preference.Tim (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel, The BC/AD system is the standard system applied to the Gregorian calendar the fact that the references are Christian do not in itself make it religious. They are signatures of historical context and by changing to BCE/CE and still using the Gregorian calendar you are in effect obscuring historical reference. Now with regard to Wikipedia policy, you are not to change the dating system of an article unless there is substantive reason. You have in no way shown such reason and it has been brought to my attention by a friend that indeed many articles on Wikipedia have had their dating systems changed for no substantive reason. Please leave your personal preferences out of Wikipedia when it comes to making edits. That is to say if you originate an article then by all means use the BCE/CE system and you will be supported by the honest application of Wikipedia policy. However when you change dating systems you are in the wrong and any honest application of policy will see that your edits are reverted.

Gerard Vance... (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

you are gaming the system.
the dss article is a scientific article that should follow scientific labels. but of course, that's been said.
sweet job on your formatting.
please sign your posts.

IsraelXKV8R (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel it is not Gaming the system to ensure that dating system changes are not Surreptitiously made with disregard to the original author. The way you choose to define gaming the system (and I read the policy) there would be no way to correct an errant dating system change that is in violation of policy. The policy is what it is for a reason, and that reason is that a great many people do not agree with you. The policy of not changing the dating system (as was done to this article) is a fair one. An articles original dating system should be followed throughout future edits. You for some reason choose to disregard this policy. You claim that this is the system accepted by science as though the notion is a concept. There are many religiously non-affiliated scientists who do not subscribe to this CE/BCE bastardization of the Gregorian calendar. I for one have never been affiliated with a religion but as a historical purest I do not like the idea of making changes to a working accepted system. However my personal view is not supported by Wikipedia policy and nor is yours. The fairest way to deal with this was for Wikipedia to show no bias and to accept both sets of dating nomenclature, which they have. Now in order to ensure that systems are not changed by those who champion one over the other we have a policy that makes it a violation to change the dating nomenclature of an article for no substantive reason. Now if some people ignore this policy and still change this system any fair and reasonable person would agree that the article should be placed back to the original system in the interest of fairness and enforcement of policy. Otherwise the issue is left to the activists and activists only work for their cause and not the cause of the general population.

i shake my head IsraelXKV8R (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition if you look above, under "CE vs. AD", you start by saying, "just so we're all clear" in an attempt to gain consensus. Looking further down you will find that you never gained consensus regarding this article, but you don’t care! Wikipedia is forum that is guided by consensus, when consensus cannot be reached policies are employed in order to be fair and unbiased. You with regard to the dating system have not been fair and un-biased; to the contrary your bias is clear. GV (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

see below. i'll let someone else. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thanx. peace. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel to Display the Dead Sea Scrolls on the Internet

FWIW, the beginning date of the process to display the scrolls on the internet: Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel, The BC/AD system is the standard system applied to the Gregorian calendar the fact that the references are Christian do not in itself make it religious. They are signatures of historical context and by changing to BCE/CE and still using the Gregorian calendar you are in effect obscuring historical reference. Now with regard to Wikipedia policy, you are not to change the dating system of an article unless there is substantive reason. You have in no way shown such reason and it has been brought to my attention by a friend that indeed many articles on Wikipedia have had their dating systems changed for no substantive reason. Please leave your personal preferences out of Wikipedia when it comes to making edits. That is to say if you originate an article then by all means use the BCE/CE system and you will be supported by the honest application of Wikipedia policy. However when you change dating systems you are in the wrong and any honest application of policy will see that your edits are reverted.

Gerard Vance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


I think the line right under 1.6 raises some interesting issues. It's the line that states: "Also Israel had placed sanction on the scrolls which are believed to mention prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H)."

The obvious things are first. The line, if included at all, should appear in the "Controversies" section, and not randomly under "Cave 11." A citation is needed, as are a few grammar corrections (including a period after the "H" in "P.B.U.H."). I would also like to see some links to articles referencing that specific controversy or broader related topics.

Despite the information itself seeming relatively pertinent (assuming it can be cited), the line seems a bit non-sequider given the overt continuity of the article, and would need some explanation to substantiate it as a standing issue. I would say this applies to relation of the Dead Sea scrolls to any ethnic or religious group outside of a Hebrew or Judaic context (i.e. Christian; Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints). That said, I think the element could be a viable topical issue surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as a noteworthy contention within Muslim apologetics.

In terms of principle, I would discourage overhead deletion of the line, if it can be referenced. Given the current socio-politcal atmosphere, open scholarly or even theological debate between Muslim and Non-Muslim groups is increasingly difficult. This results in limited understanding in the academic world into the rationale of Islamic thinking, as well disempowering the individual in Muslim society, due to both ingroup and outgroup biases. Especially since a key anthropological contingent within Muslim apologetics is the intentional and natural corruption of Abrahamic scriptures before the time of Muhammad, this deserves some attention as one aspect of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Finally, some academic issues.

I'm really curious to hear your opinions on the "P.B.U.H." (Peace Be Upon Him) used at the mention of the Prophet Muhammed. Using this line as an exemplar, I am interested as to the precedence and propriety of language that is exclusive to the qualification, belief, or universal view of an individual, religion, or ethnicity. Would "P.B.U.H." be deemed as biased terminology? A non-standardized title? Or could it qualify as an accepted title or moniker for the man within context? Ought use of such language affect legitimacy of an article among scholars? Rather, would the dismissal of such language emphasize established academia as exclusive to a Western or Judeo/Christian-derived mindset, thus limiting Muslim or other individuals from participating in scholarly dialogue in good faith? 武福希 (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)武福希.

I think it is vandalism (wikipedia article are vulnerable to such vandalisms). I have removed it. Regardless, according to wikipedia rules, one can not use P.B.U.H. --AAA765 (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, is there any foundation to the claim? or is it simply urban legend or propaganda? Also, in terms of academic writing, what are the standards of similarly exclusive terminology that doesn't carry the stigma that P.B.U.H. does? 武福希 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)武福希

I find it unlikely that there is a foundation to the claim; it is possibly a legend or propaganda. And there is no way to know since we can't find the person who added it. The guidelines of Wikipedia tells us that when you see something that looks suspicious and is not sourced, just remove it.
I'd like to clarify a few things: Wikipedia is not an academic encyclopedia like other encyclopedias. It is not written by experts, even though experts can (and sometimes do) contribute to it as anonymous editors, there is no guarantee that every one who edits Wikipedia is an expert. There are always both vandals & knowledgeable people of good faith. If a sentence is not sourced, it can be false or not entirely accurate. It is exactly like asking a friend (who seems to know certain stuff) about an issue; it can be a good start but it is not a good place to ultimately rely on. Even when a sentence is sourced; in case it is rephrased, there is always a chance that it is accidentally or deliberative misrepresented. Not that it always happens, it doesn't but it can happen because wikipedia articles are not seriously peer-reviewed. The idea is that if something is wrong, someone else will correct it in the future.
Regarding your last question, I don't know if I understand it correctly, but academic books do use terms like "Prophet Muhammad" or "Jesus Christ"; we don't use either in wikipedia. "P.B.U.H" is neither used by academics nor by wikipedians. Not sure if I have answered your question...--AAA765 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You basically answered my questions. I understand the mechanics you described about Wikipedia. My basic perspective of Wikipedia is as a grassroots movement that can potentially affect scholarly dialogue- one idealist's road to social change, I suppose. That's why I'm so interested in addressing issues of scholarship within Wiki: move the Wikis, move the scholars, move the world. 武福希 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)武福希

Capitalize "scrolls"

"Dead Sea Scrolls" is a proper noun, as it refers to a certain set of scrolls. Consider this. If you took a piece of paper, rolled it up, tied it with a string, and took it to, or tossed it into, the Dead Sea, you could create a Dead Sea scroll (common noun), but not a Dead Sea Scroll (proper noun), so for "Dead Sea Scroll" to redirect to "Dead Sea scroll" is backwards. Unfree (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

lol. agreed. i am in no position to comment on the use of capitalization. lol IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I had the exact same thought upon being redirected. Agree. /Ninly (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Can anyone confirm the Wall Street Journal quotation, or "The Torah According to the Essenes"? Unfree (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)