Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2023

I own the 2005 edition of The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation used in citation 301. I have noticed there are other citations using another editions of the book. Can someone clean up and refine the usage of A New Translation on this page? I can help, if needed. GoutComplex (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @GoutComplex - apologies this seems to have taken a while. There's now only two references to DSS:ANT, and I've corrected these to correspond to the correct page numbers in the 2005 revised edition, and stated as such in the reference itself. Stephen Walch (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The reference itself appears to show dates from the 1990s instead of 2005. GoutComplex (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've literally checked from the 2005 revised edition that the refs match up to those pages. Can even check it in the archive.org link I put in the reference (which is to the 2005 revised edition). I added a quote for the 101 (b) ref. I don't see an issue with these refs any more. Stephen Walch (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It's just that the book entry for it under General and cited sources shows a different date. GoutComplex (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah right. The whole "references" section at the bottom needs cleaning up (citations in refs don't need to be repeated). I've removed the entry for DSS:ANT under "General and cited sources". :) Stephen Walch (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Why does this page use "ce" instead of AD

Title. Someone should fix it but I know if I do, it will get reverted and I'll be banned for vandalism or something. Aceplante (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Aceplante AD stans for Anno Domini, after the birth of the Christian Jesus. This article is about the Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls. It is usual to use CE, (=Common Era) when the article is about a Jewish, Muslim or any other non-Christian subject, Huldra (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Never mind about "it is usual" (according to whom?), what does WP:MOS say? 182.239.145.186 (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

182.239.145.186: Well, WP:MOS says it in the very first section. OK? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Huldra's comments are very misleading and wrong. The policy governing this is WP:ERA, which says nothing at all about "any other non-Christian subject", and most articles on eg pre-Christian ancient Rome use BC, as do many other articles of all sorts. But those on Jewish, Muslim and perhaps East Asian & Pre-Columbian subjects do tend to use BCE. Like WP:ENGVAR it is a matter where the first choice must be modified by talk consensus. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Amendment required

The article is locked, so I cannot amend it.
Regarding the text "Archaeologists have long associated the scrolls with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, although some recent interpretations have challenged this connection and argue that priests in Jerusalem, or Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups wrote the scrolls."
Suggest amendment to "Some archaeologists have associated the scrolls with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, although some recent interpretations by Rachel Elior and Norman Golb have challenged this connection and argue that priests in Jerusalem, or Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups wrote the scrolls."
The Golb reference is now found here.
I would appreciate an editor making these more accurate changes, please. 14.2.198.12 (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"In Israel"

There appears to be a budding edit war on whether the scrolls were discovered "In Israel", and thus whether the tag applies. While it appears clear the site was not part of Israel at the time of discovery, (1) both Israel and Palestine lay claim to the area, (2) Israel manages it through its national park system, and (3) parallel articles on WP with appropriate citations appear to consider it sufficient to represent both claims on the site, including at Qumran Caves. Deleting the Israel tag, and thus implying the area only belongs to Palestine, appears neither factual nor to represent consensus on WP. Please discuss here rather than edit warring so the community can decide. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

See also Archive 3, in which the same topic was discussed in detail and resulted in the current consensus that is now being edited, for better or worse. My quick review of previous discussions seems to indicate the consensus that WP is not in a position to dictate which claim is valid and so should represent both. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I can only see you trying to edit against consensus. Israel might like to act as if the site is in Israel, but it has never made a formal claim of sovereignty. So "both Israel and Palestine lay claim to the area" is simply not true. And even if it becomes true in the future, we favor the international viewpoint on matters of disputed territory. If you are correct that other articles have the same error, then those other articles need fixing. Zero^talk 01:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why an edit made on April 2, 2021, and only deleted a couple days ago without discussion, is not the consensus? Or why you do not think WP:BRD should apply here? Isn't it longstanding WP policy that an edit that has survived for over two years without discussion is the consensus, and if edits to it are objected to, those edits need to be discussed before being repeatedly applied? Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The only relevant question is if this article should cover what was found at the Cave of Horror in 2021. If not, no Israel cat. If yes, yes Israel cat. Imo obviously. There is currently one sentence about it here, but Im not sure it should or should not be covered further. nableezy - 01:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

My opinion: either both Palestine and Israel need to remain as categories, or both need to be removed with only West Bank remaining. Anything else is WP:POV, given that Israel occupied the area at a time no state formally claimed it, administers it via the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, has named it an Israeli National Heritage site, has not ratified Palestine's sole claim to the area, and has an official policy that there are competing claims to the area (see embassies.gov.il for example). None of us have the right to accept Palestine's claim and reject Israel's, or vice versa. (Yes, I would also oppose removal of the Palestine category.) @The Kingfisher: Do you care to comment on the reasons for adding this category or the discussion which led to it? Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I am not trying to push a POV here. I truly don't understand how we can judge Palestine's claim to be valid but not Israel's on this area, without falling afoul of WP:POV, nor how an edit that lasted for more than two years is not considered the consensus. Per WP:BRD I have added topics to the Talk pages of both the Palestine and Israel Wikiproject pages to invite additional discussion. If new consensus is established here then I'm happy to abide by it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Due to a RL event I was just notified of, I am unable to participate for some time in further discussion. If editors in opposition to this deletion don't speak up then it's safe to say a new consensus is established. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason to include "in Palestine" is because Qumrun is "in Palestine". It is not in Israel. The only question is does this article cover the original scrolls found in the West Bank or does it also include the ones found in 2021 in Israel. If no to that question the in Israel categories do not belong. nableezy - 04:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The "discoveries in Israel" category does not belong here, but the scrolls are still part of the collection of the Israel Museum. Do not remove that category. Dimadick (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, collections of the Israel museum isnt being removed here. Just whether or not discovered in Israel is appropriate. Honestly, unless theres more material about the Cave of Horrors remnants added I dont think it should be. This is almost entirely about something discovered outside of Israel, that not even Israel claims is in Israel, and it would be bizarre for Wikipedia to be more expansionist than the government of Israel itself. nableezy - 05:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy has it right: a few scroll fragments have been found in Israel and if they get more than a passing mention in the article it will be appropriate to have the Israel category. But this is not justifiable on the basis of Qumran scrolls alone. Zero^talk 06:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like I’m the only dissenting vote given that the editors who originally chose to add it have not responded, nor has anyone from either Wikiproject. Very well. Thanks for being willing to take this to Talk - the deletion stands. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

According to my research, I found that the dates of discovery were 1947-1956. Usernamewikicode (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Could you please provide the sources you used? Tollens (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Cave 11 tables broken

I'm not sure what's going on here, but the table isn't rendering for me. I went back 2,6,20 revisions and it's still broken, so it might be a deeper tech issue. trysten (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Broken for me as well. I'm not sure, but it seems to have something to do with the embedding of List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11. That link directs to List of the Dead Sea Scrolls, unlike, for example, List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 2. That may also be why it is trying to render multiple tables under that heading when only the fifth appears to be correct. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure, but Stephen Walch recently made massive updates in the referenced pages that may have inadvertently broke this section. I posted on his Talk page about it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Jtrevor99 & @Trysten: I've rectified the issue now. Thankfully not caused by myself, but another user who turned the Qumran cave manuscripts list pages into redirects through to List of the Dead Sea Scrolls, hence messing up likely scores of wiki pages, and my inclusion of the cave lists on the prior mentioned page rather than relying on the separate pages. If you catch any other pages with similar issues, let me know and I should be able to sort them out as well. Stephen Walch (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for sorting that out. I'll ping you again if I see any others with issues. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That was my fault, sorry. I didn't realise the lists for the individuals caves were transcluded elsewhere. Thanks for the fixes Stephen Walch. I still think constructing complex nested pages like this is not a great idea (for exactly this reason), but I'm not going to attempt to change anything. – Joe (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Joe Roe: to be fair I very much see your point, and think it would probably be best if the entire list of manuscripts discovered was just on one page (that being List of the Dead Sea Scrolls), which now I've merged all the info from the separate pages into that one. Not entirely sure on the best way of showing that on this Dead Sea Scrolls page, or whether perhaps it should just include a link to the separate list page, which could also include the intros to each cave on it as well. Don't particularly think separate lists for each cave are entirely justified. Happy to discuss this and the best way of merging all the necessary info into fewer wikipages. Stephen Walch (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the tables listing each scroll is over the top for this article, especially since there is List of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think we can safely just remove the transclusions here, retaining the prose descriptions of each cave, which should make it possible to merge the individual lists for each cave back into the main list (I think??) – Joe (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've done the above. Makes page a lot more readable. Stephen Walch (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 2

List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 2, which is transcluded here (see above), has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 2. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

“Extra Biblical” bias

The deuterocanonical books are not extra-biblical. The Jews and Protestants consider them apocrypha, but all other Christians consider them scripture and part of the Bible. Clarification is need to not have a apparent bias. “Extra Jewish-Bible” or “Extra tanuhk” would be possible better phrasings. When you say “extra biblical” and put the deuterocanonical together you are taking a stance in this intra-faith disagreement, instead remaining neutral. Instead it would be better to put the deuterocanonical before the comma. “Biblical cannon and deuterocanonical manuscripts, along with extra biblical writtings. This way you put the Biblical cannon next to the deuterocanonicals, and then everything else that no one considers scripture. Ledex23 (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ledex23: The article does not say that extra-biblical and deuterocanonical are the same. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As tgeorgescu has noted, the article does not equate deuterocanonical = extra-Biblical; these 'extra-Biblical' writings mentioned in the article are the other writings found among the DSS that, in many cases, were unknown compositions before the discovery of the DSS. You've misread the wording of the article @Ledex23. Stephen Walch (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

I would suggest since so much of the Dead Sea of Scrolls is in the context of the times of Christ, the dates should be referred to as BC and AD.This is a more widely accepted. It is confusing when using the term CE and BCE when talking about Christ 96.42.83.118 (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not generally confusing, as both sets of era labels are universally known, and refer to precisely the same periodization of history. On Wikipedia, we reduce fighting over trivial things like this with WP:ERA, which states era names should generally never be changed once they are established one way or the other in an article. Cheers. Remsense诉 04:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Since this article is about Hebrew Bible manuscripts, dating from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, it puts the topic squarely in the Second Temple period (516 BCE – 70 CE) of Judaic history. And Second Temple Judaic history generally uses BCE and CE era style. Mojoworker (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

are you talking about the articles? while it is a bit odd when similar articles have alternating eras, it's generally not confusing unless one is rapidly editing all of them. Remsense诉 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Out of an abundance of caution, I'm simply refuting the IPs assertion that "since so much of the Dead Sea of Scrolls is in the context of the times of Christ, the dates should be referred to as BC and AD", lest someone think that the "reasons specific to its content" clause of MOS:ERA applies in this case. On the contrary – the subject of this article is much, much more closely aligned with Second Temple Judaic history and correctly uses BCE/CE as a reason specific to its content. Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)