Slashdot Mirror
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Information Paranoia
jfruhlinger writes "Today Google and the Israel Museum have made the famed Dead Sea Scrolls available for online viewing. This is a great step forward for scholars and those curious about the oldest known copies of many biblical texts. But why has it taken nearly 50 years for the contents of this material to be made fully public? Blogger Kevin Fogarty thinks the saga of the scrolls since their discovery — along with the history of religious texts in general — is a good example of how people seek to gain power by hoarding information. In that regard, it holds some important lessons for the many modern debates about information security and control."
Obviously to track and identify those with an interest in this material so they can sell that information, complete with maps and street view, to ancient aliens intent on probing and implanting their mind control chips. Don't be evil! What a joke.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
to make the articles fit, please save yourself the effort
Actually, that took 5 years, and the negotiations with Bethesda, 45.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
It's worth noting that the Scrolls are the original pieces of paper, penned by Jews living in Jerusalem before, during, and after the time that Jesus is said to have done all those amazing things.
Yet you won't find even a hint of an oblique reference to anything that could possibly be mistraken for Jesus or the events of the Gospels.
Nor will you find anything in the collected works of Philo. Philo was the brother-in-law of King Herod Agrippa, who was king during Jesus's alleged ministry. Philo was the Jewish philosopher who first integrated the Hellenistic Logos into Judaism -- that would be the "Word" of John 1:1. He was a prolific author who mentioned a great many of his contemporaries. His last work was his first-hand account of his participation in an embassy to Rome to petition Caligula about the mistreatment of Jews at the hands of the Romans; this was in the mid 40s, well after the latest possible date for the Crucifixion.
Also silent are all other contemporaries, including Pliny the Elder (who was fascinated with all things supernatural) and the Roman Satirists (whose stock in trade was the humiliation Jesus was said to have heaped upon the Roman and Jewish authorities in Jerusalem).
Indeed, the oldest record of Jesus comes from the author of the Pauline epistles, writing decades after the "fact," and who made a point to record that all his experiences of Jesus were spiritual and that he never saw Jesus in the flesh. Those responsible for the Crucifixion were "the Princes of that age." And that's the closest record we have of Jesus.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
How, exactly, would you "ultimately prove" anything about life? I'm a very religious person, and I love science, but I also know that humility is the biggest key to seeking understanding about the world. Not every religious person is anti-science. Many of us fully embrace both.
You don't, you take it on faith and track record. Which is vastly superior to faith and no track record.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
They had to wait for the copyrights to expire...
That would be Moses. The baby Jesus would walk on it.
My brain is overly lubricated
From what I could see, that article only had links to other articles that didn't have links to the actual museum website. Its a pretty weak website but still would hav ebeen nice to have a link somewhere.
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/
Could you illumine us as to just what that damaging information is? Probably the most surprising thing in the dead sea scrolls is how closely they agree with the much later manuscripts we had when they were found -- the Isaiah scroll for example. Yes, there are transcription errors resulting from repeated copying, but they pretty much boil down to spelling mistakes/changes...
I don't know what font they used to print those scrolls, but it's so distorted it doesn't even look like English.
Thou just can't giveth up thy esoterica, canst thou?
Let's try again, shall we? In actual English this time, not Ye Olde Worlde Beardspeake.
"You made the seed grow on the day it was planted, and the next morning made it blossom".
Harder to build a cult around prose, isn't it?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
In other news, Bethesda sues the Jews for use of the word Scrolls in the Dead Sea Scrolls, while the Jews cite prior art and challenge Bethesda to a match of Quake 3 to determine who gets to use the term.
The scrolls were first found in the 1940s, so it's 60+ years.
The primary cause of the delay (as I understand it) is that there is a universal presumption among scholars that whoever is working on it has the right of first publication, and they generally work on it 'till it's done.
However, these scrolls could be considered are world treasure, and the scholars who worked on them weren't the people who actually found them, so it doesn't seem to me to be the same circumstances as (say) waiting for whoever dug up some bones to announce a new hominid species.
And 60+ years seems excessive under any circumstances. Scholars have been born, educated, had their careers, and died while waiting for this stuff to come out.
FWIW...
Back maybe 20 years ago the Biblical Archeology Review (big critics of the delay) published the text of some of the material, which they obtained by reverse engineering a concordance that had been published by the team working on the scrolls.
There's an old photo (which I happened to see in a BAR article) of one of the priests who was working on the scrolls, sitting in front of a pile of small papyrus scraps, holding a lit cigarette in his hand. Makes you wonder how much of the material ended up in the ash bin before it got analyzed.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One of the final nails in the coffin is when you realize (or are told) that you can apply scientific methods to religious questions, and hence that nothing is sacred.
This statement is a direct result of the loss of true scientific method today. When science becomes essentially nothing but religion, people start trying to apply it to religion itself. No, you cannot apply true science to religions questions. There are no experiments you can perform in that venue.
(Not all science, but several of the major public scientific "debates" are nothing more than religion -- faith in things unseen. "Nobody saw the universe created, but we know that it happened via...". )
I think religious people can be scientific, but scientific people cannot be religious. Doubting Thomas was right to doubt.
People who understand the difference between the concepts of science and religion can easily do both. Gregor Mendel was, IIRC, a monk. Religious man doing good science. It's harder finding opposite examples because some scientists have the same belief that you do -- that they can apply science to religious questions. When they fail they deny religion altogether (because it isn't SCIENCE!) and ridicule those of their fellows who can differentiate science from faith.
scientific people cannot be religious
Why not?
Science has debunked many of the screwier claims and dogmas of many religions, such as the idea that the Earth is only 10000 years old. That's the kind of testable, falsifiable assertion that science rests on. Scientists have even explored such questions as why humans are religious. But as to the supernatural, that is unprovable. How do we know that an omnipotent being didn't just magically create the Earth any old time, complete with all sorts of evidence that suggests a different age? We don't. It's not a testable hypothesis.
Then there's the old "what's the meaning of life?" and "why are we here?" sorts of questions. Does life have a meaning, and if it does, what is it? What's the point of the universe? One popular idea suggests it's all a contest between good and evil, with God and Satan competing for our souls, and the contest to be ultimately decided when Armageddon happens. It could be true. The trouble with any explanation of an issue like that is it merely begs the question. Why is there a contest at all? What's the point? Another popular one is the notion that we just don't know, and can't know. Whichever idea appeals, we are free to speculate, free to create a religion and have faith in whatever we want. Science does not answer such questions.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Because releasing damaging information about current religious denominations is dangerous not only to the releasers but also to the psyche of their followers. Many preconceptions and interpretations about the original biblical text will have to be changed.
Same problem with proof of aliens and disproving gods. If you can prove we weren't the "chosen ones" or you can ultimately prove what actually created the universe and create life from nothing in a scientific way, a LOT of religious people will be disappointed.
Oh, come on, people are way past that.
The ones who aren't can't read well enough that even translations would get them excited.
It took 400 years for Copernicus's revelation to sink in, but sunk in it has.
Neither the Church nor the state is going to become unhinged if/when the content of the scrolls became known.
Anything important would have leaked out. But, contrary to those who delight in attributing monumental
secrets to ancient knowledge, there was nothing of earth shattering significance that wasn't already preserved
elsewhere.
This was largely a technical issue (the web is new) with a bit of turf strutting thrown in.
Over six hundred scrolls and thousands of fragments have been discovered in the 11 caves of the Qumran area, above
and beyond the 11 original scrolls. Its a huge job with fragile documents in a language dialect not widely studied.
Still, If you had the credentials to weigh in on this field of study you could always wrangle an invitation.
Its not necessary to don the tin foil hat just yet.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
That seems impossible to truly do. They are mutually exclusive - to accept one requires a sacrifice in understanding or acceptance in the other.
I understand that some people are willing to do that; I however, am not.
Also, what Obarthelemy said.
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
Ah, my only gripe really is that atheism is neither the obvious solution, nor a scientific one. It's just another (minimised) system of faith.
Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief of lack. In that regards it is not a faith at all.
You don't have to go back to the flippin' Dead Sea Scrolls to see how people try to gain power through hoarding information.
Today I switched doctors.
I have a new Dr. appointment Thursday (relatively soon). Both the destination clinic, and the origin clinic state that it takes 5-7 days to transfer my medical records completely.
I've said that I'd be willing to physically go and pick up my records, and transport them. But I CANNOT.
Oh I can, for a FEE.
It will cost in copying charges around $50 if I want to pick up my records myself. It's done for free if it's being transferred to another clinic.
My records. About me. The accumulation of which were services for which I'm sure I or my insurance company already paid quite handsomely.
And yet this medical clinic clearly has emplaced a fee to discourage people from getting their OWN medical records.
No, it's not the Dead Sea Scrolls but it's power-through-information-hoarding.
Another example?
I was adopted. The agency that holds my adoptive records offers the 'de-identified' record for $50. Fine, it takes some labor to accumulate this. (Never mind that this might contain critical medical information needed by the adoptee.)
However, to advance that, and see if my birth mother is reachable, is $250.
Regardless of effort. If it's a matter of opening the file, finding her name, and calling the number - it's $250.
To me, that's information hoarding. I don't object to paying $50/hour or whatever for research services. I don't object to paying for the labor and legwork involving tracking down and contacting a person in what might be a very delicate situation. I have no issues there. But to have to pony up $250 for what might be 5 minutes' work for no result, from an agency which is the SOLE source of critical information?
-Styopa
No modern has tried to suppress the Dead Sea Scrolls, as the summary might have one believe. Hell, many of these and like texts have been on Ph.D. comprehensive or qualifying exams for years (my own exam had the Nag Hammadi corpus on it which, far from being subject on modern day oppression, is available in multiple translations).
It is certainly true that for part of the past few decades, the scrolls have been in the hands of a few specialists. This is not for the purposes of power in some grand sense, however, but for the sake of publications for those who have control over them. The information wasn't being hoarded so much as disseminated slowly for the benefit of those scholars who work on them. On this note, I might be tempted to join in the rant of the article but that points to a deeper lack of open culture in higher education. Even so, the fact remains that they have been published.
Indeed, they have been subject of more than normal publication (see postscript). The gentleman who wrote this article complains, "why has it taken nearly 50 years for the contents of this material to be made fully public?" He fails to understand the simplest reason: the public doesn't really care enough. That is to say, some members of the public might care enough to read parts of a translation. A few might even now some languages from the period. But how many of the public are going to read it in the original in scanned versions rather than critical editions when even academics like myself only undertake paleography when we are trying to produce something for publication? I cannot therefore fathom a man who is daunted by a little Latin (see quote above) in type complaining that he cannot have the opportunity to practice his Aramaic paleography skills. Yet, in spite of the fact that the general public will not make much use of it, and the fellow who wrote this article certainly won't, Google and the Israel Museum have made high quality scans of them public. I, for one, and more inspired to speak of how great a thing this is; how much the internet has changed things (it takes decades in my field for a scholar to produce a critical edition of a text); and finally how the optimism and kindness (and probably interest in good publicity) of the people involved in this project have made this possible.
p.s.--I say "more than normal publication" because in most pre-modern fields it is extremely rare to find copies of relevant manuscripts online. The only hope typically is a) to use critical editions, b) to order microfilm, though many places will not provide this, or c) to go to the archives which, for an American, generally means thousands of dollars in travel costs. There have, however, been some efforts to make more manuscripts available online and they deserve some praise. The British Library should have a special note in this regard. Quite a few others may be found here. Mr. Fogarty need not visit these sites however. The open access of many of them will spoil his fun and, besides, he shouldn't bother unless he can read Latin and Greek written in a fancy script.
Epicurus put it this way:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
. Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
. Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
. Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
. Then why call him God?"
--Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE)
I think I like how Epicurus asked his question.
There was no physical evidence for Pontius Pilate for almost 2000 years, leading many biblical scholars to argue that he was a mythical character.
This changed in 1961, when the pilate stone was discovered.
(And Pontius Pilate was way more famous than Jesus in his time.)
Physical evidence for Buddha was not found until 1895.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that there is a probability of Jesus being a fictional character? That's fine, it's a fair point. There's a non-zero probability that Jesus was a fictional character.
But it's not the important part...
The assertion, without demonstration thereof, of the falsehood of claims of divinity is every bit an assertion of faith as is the assertion that such claims of divinity are true, due to the lack of empirical evidence in both positions.
Without such evidence, the opinion becomes one of faith; faith in the assertion itself.
The athiest doesn't assert that claims of divinity are false. The athiest asserts that they do not believe such claims are true. A subtle but important difference. There is a difference between have a belief in a lack, and having a lack of belief. You seem to be referring to what some call the "strong atheist" - someone that does actively claim that there are no gods. Not all atheists hold that position though. If you don't believe in any gods, then you are an atheist. That's not a statement of faith, it's a statement of lacking a particular kind of belief.
I don't need evidence to say "I don't think there are ants on the moon". I do need evidence if I were to say "There are no ants on the moon". Both are two subtly different positions. The former is not one of faith, the latter is.
Because releasing damaging information about current religious denominations is dangerous not only to the releasers but also to the psyche of their followers.
Israeli Jewish culture is mostly secular -- about 80% of Israeli Jews. There is a lot of conflict between the secularists and the 20% or so of the religious minority. The academics are usually from the secular side. If the concern were about upsetting religious folks, the secularist majority would not have had a problem with releasing the material.
A lot of folks think that the delay for currently unpublished scrolls is academics wanting to be the first to be able to publish papers based on the material. I'm in this camp. Greed makes a lot more sense to me than a vast conspiracy.
Yep. I have (somewhere) in my library the gospels of Peter, Thomas and Mary. (No, not Paul - definitely Thomas). These were 'excised' from the canonical bible over the last two thousand years or so. Were this the middle ages I'd be posting as an AC to avoid being burnt at the stake.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Sounds to me like you're describing an agnostic. To me, "atheist" is no different than "strong atheist".
Not to knock Google and the Israeli Museum because the more information the better but wasn't the content (the text) already released some time ago? The scholars who were hoarding the Dead Sea Scrolls for the better part of a CENTURY had been releasing short fragments to the public from time to time a part of their work (gotta keep those research grants flowing). I heard someone wrote a program that took all these fragments together and, using the overlapping words, pieced together a "complete" version.
Sort of like shotgun gene sequencing where you blow apart the DNA with enzymes, sequence the short fragments and then use a computer to put it all together. Except this time the DNA is cultural (shotgun meme sequencing?).
I realize that this is frames with regard to a specific religion, so I will answer from that context. (Said religion being the major offender in this regard. For religions outside the scope of this reply, it would naturally not hold, and should not be construed to do so.)
It is outright stated in the foundational work of that particular religion that mankind has absolutely no power over "the divine" (meaning through direct application of the axiom, that if it can be tested, it is not divine), thus any result tendered by science is an apple to that religion's orange.
Further, that same body asserts (rightly or wrongly is anyone's guess) that the nature of the creator is not only unknown, but also unknowable. From the perspective of a scientist, this poses an intractable situation, because it would be something that no tool or process could validate as either true or fase, and thus of no profit or value to pursue. A total non-starter of an issue, and not worthy of serious discussion, since the discussion would serve no purpose.
From the perspective of the adherent of said religion, the pursuits of scientists should be seen as the direct observation and dedication to the "divine edict" to subdue the "earth". (Earth used metaphorically to describe mundane reality, with its testable and verifiable conditions) Mankind is presumed to have been given power and authority over said creation, and the systematic observation, analysis, and application of such phenomena should naturally follow.
In these contexts, I see no reason for either camp to hold the other in any contempt or animosity. Such animosity appears to arise when religious humans who presume to have "divine knowledge" assert to posess "absolute truth", and claim divine authority as the basis of their assertions. When scientists find contradictory evidence to these claims, the defacto authority wielded by the leaders of these religious groups is fundementally undermined, causing contempt on both sides.
As far as the strictures of this specific religion are concerned, the truthfulness of any proclamation of divine knowledge is indeed empirical testing. (Specifically, when asked how to tell if a prophet is a true prophet, the described answer was to verify the prophecies of said prophet. If even ONE assertion is found to be false, ALL assertions are to be viewed as such, because there is no truth in them, by virtue of such testing, QED.) Further, latter doctrine in this religious faith asserts that one should adhere only to scripture, and vetted prophets, and to otherwise shun the doctrines of men. (Eg, "every sperm is sacred", "the earth is only 6000 years old", "jesus needs you to give me your money" et al.)
The issue would then appear not to be with the specific religion fundementally, but rather with specific methods associated with that religion. The religion itself, as written, appears perfectly adaptable to anything science can discover.
The dead sea scrolls also contain parts of the Book of Enoch, IIRC, which validates the copy handed down through the Ethiopian Christian tradition, in which it is still canon.
I find it funny that the reasons used to discount this book (written at the wrong time, pseudepigraphical, themes related to the coincident political situation etc etc) are not applied to the other books, but that's religion for you.
It's interesting stuff, full of giants and angels and hell.
The Pantelgraph, invented in 1865 and commercialized as a telefax service that year, predates even the telephone. I imagine some time in the ensuing century and a half a pack of religious scholars might have gained access to this commercial service if they wanted to.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Many preconceptions and interpretations about the original biblical text will have to be changed.
And when you find that the main conception that needs to be changed is the idea that there is some material in the scrolls that has been hidden from the public or horribly distorted is simply false, I'm not sure anyone will take the time to amend their preconceived notions. I think the larger disappointments will come when the people who read an article that hyperlinks to a history of the Council of Nicea that immediately contradicts the author's assertion that "the early church dropped most of the languages and most of the text when it decided what Christians would consider "true" from then on" at this council.
I am sure that all of the bishops at this council were just itching to start a government conspiracy to lie to all the people that they sacrificed their body parts for in order to speak news of hope and salvation. It must really take a lot of work to get so many people to be burned in pitch on the sides of streets for their testimony about Jesus Christ in order to help the one burning them spread a huge conspiracy through the ages.
Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief. A theist is someone who believes in gods, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. It's a common mistake to make - many who say they are agnostic are actually atheist.
It's the latter definition that's the correct one (in my opinion):
The "A" in front of "atheist" means "not a theist". If a theist is someone with a belief in gods, then a atheist is someone without a belief in gods. Not, as some would claim, someone who believes there are no gods (which is "strong atheism").
Newborn babies are all atheists because they do not believe in any gods (to be sure, they cannot as they wouldn't even be aware of the concept).
From "atheism.about.com":
Agnosticism is about knowledge. You can have agnostic theists and you can have agnostic atheists.
You didn't read deep enough. If god is all powerful, why require a learning process? Why not just create perfect beings that also had free will. Or is he not all powerful? And if he is, then why is there evil?
You absolutely CAN apply the scientific method to religious questions, at least for any serious religion that makes concrete claims. You CAN experiment, and in fact if you are religious and you don't, then you are an idiot. Some religions even encourage you to apply the scientific method in some form or another. Here is a post I made earlier examining how to apply the scientific method to various religions.
Religions are falsifiable (science is an un-falsifiable thing: it is a tool, not a proposition. How do you falsify a hammer? How do you falsify science?). Any decent religious system has ideas of the type, if you do X, then Y will happen. Let's investigate a bit, and see what some religions say: Buddhism: if you follow the eight-fold path, your suffering will end. Extremely testable. If you follow the eight-fold path, and you are still suffering, then man, they led you astray.
Tantric yoga: do these exercises and meditations and eventually you will have a kundalini rising (enlightenment). So if you do them, and you don't have a kundalini rising, then you know tantra is worthless (either that or your teacher sucks).
The Bible: Those who believe shall be able to do miracles, such as drink poison and not get hurt, or heal the sick (Mark 16:17). So if you follow Christ and you can't do those things, then......yeah, you've just falsified it.
Daoism: 99% of the battle of daoism is figuring out what you are supposed to do. That is an ancient Chinese way of teaching.....but, if you ever do figure out what it is you're supposed to do, then you will be able to tap into the mysterious power of the Dao. If you figure out what you are supposed to do, and do it, and still can't tap into that power, then you've just falsified Daoism.
Mormonism: fast and pray oft, grow in humility, and you will be filled with joy and consolation. Mormonism is interesting because it is even more specific: it says all over the place things like, "if you have faith, God will give you anything that is good." It gives examples of people who became good enough that God gave them anything they asked for, and it says that you can do it too. It even directly gives an example of how to test these claims, and verify/falsify them. I like it because the more clear the promises, the more easily it is falsifiable.
See? If all you are saying is that some being out there exists who affects life on earth in some undetectable way, then yeah, it's pretty pointless. But any preacher who preaches that doesn't know his religion.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'd disagree on that one. We didn't have a choice to be created. God, at least the one I learn from the western religions, gives a long list of rules and says if you screw up once you are condemned. That is unless you decide to grovel at His invisible feet for mercy and are lucky enough to pick the right flavor of christianity/islam/judaism and He chooses to forgive you. We are created to find sin pleasurable and then condemned to hell for doing it once. In order to get our life back we need to become God's slave. No thanks, not happening until you give me empirical evidence you exist.
Here's my personal take.
Agnostics think they can't prove it (now/ever), but they don't rule existance (because they already acknowledge one can't know, so they place it entirely in the real of Faith - it exists or it doesn't with equal probability) so it makes as much sense to believe that it makes to not believe. So it's not that choosing isn't valid, but that all positions must be respected but never enforced. Atheist have faith in the lack of God's existence and would love an atheist universe. Theists know (/believe they know) IT exists and many or most believe there is proof (personal, logical or even physical), and see benefit in a theist universe.
My favorite analogy (which i just made up) is thinking about luck. Does it exist? A scientist can point out to many scientifically challenged people that luck is about either preparation (he/she wasn't lucky, he/she knew better) and randomness (there is no preference at all in ANY outcome). A non prepared person may have faith in their chances without any logical basis for it. We can never know if there's any force influencing how dice are rolled - we just know that on average they conform to some rule. The reality is that we can never prove it (it would prove that Faith is physical in some way). So you must go with your hunch, not caring about proving it: yet, the act of thinking you are lucky has a profound implication in how the world influences you, and how you influence the world, with material changes. So the Agnostic would be the one that acts as if he/she believes in luck, but tries to rely as little as possible in it. More like someone that is a bit superstitious, but knowing it doesn't make any sense.
For me, I decided that Faith with 10 grains of salt to particular versions of religions, along with a genuine respect for non-believers is what suits my conscience best. So I am typically against radical theists and radical atheists, which behave as if they knew something even though they have no proof, trying to impose their ONE TRUTH.
unfinished: (adj.)
People can spend hours logic-chopping the definitions, but fundamentally words are socially defined. And generally, if you say "I believe there isn't a God" (ie, you think P(God) is very small, with high confidence), you'll be tagged atheist; whreas if you say "I'm not yet convinced there's a God, but I'm open to the possibility" (ie, you think P(God) is 0.5ish, with low confidence), you'll be tagged agnostic. A lot of the definitional logic-chopping appears to be atheists wanting the latter category, of which there are vastly more people, to be re-labelled "atheist" -- "hey, they said they don't affirmatively believe in God [yet]" -- to bulk up the numbers.
It'd be evil to, say, rape a child every night. Or murder them.
You've got one hell of a definition of the word 'Evil' if you think it's comparable to indulgences and accidents.
The only reason you can't apply science to religious questions is because religious types keep telling us "you can't".
No, the reason you can't apply science to religious questions is because science-types keep telling you you can't. The test for relevance would be in conflict with the test for evidence. Science relies on independently repeatable (somewhat mechanistic) experiments. God could turn up tomorrow, perform a dozen miracles for you in front of a dozen of your closest friends, and you still wouldn't be able to publish a scientific paper on it as it's not an independently repeatable experiment. Likewise it is extraordinarily hard to design a scientific question for the fundamental religious question of an afterlife!
For all religious questions that truly cannot be researched by science, neither is religion able to answer them.
Wrong. "Are all men created equal". The scientific answer "well, some are a bit shorter than others..." doesn't really capture what the philosophical and religious question addresses!
I don't think that is true unless "religion" is something that categorically has no interaction with the real, physical world. For your statement to be true religion (or religions) must make no claims that relate to reality, they must be entirely metaphysical (in the supernatural sense). I do not think that is the case in practice. When science and religion butt heads it is mostly because religion is making claims about the natural, not because science is overreaching and being applied to the supernatural.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I'm studying ancient Christianity and Judaism at Harvard, have published on one of the Dead Sea Scrolls and work with them regularly (I'm procrastinating on translating a bunch of fragments for my homework right now actually).
It's taken this long partly for bureaucratic reasons, but mostly because there are thousands of fragments that are basically shredded wheat that had to be put back together, reconstructed, translated, categorized, edited, and published. This was also around the time the State of Israel, and the cluster**** that was caused a lot of delays and red tape.They have not been kept secret, they have been steadily published in the DJD series (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert) for the last 50 years as this tremendous task has been accomplished. As someone said above, yes people were not very careful with them by today's standards, people smoked around them, drank coffee, and used the handiest invention that had just come out-"scotch tape"- to piece them together. All that said, with the exception of fragments in private collections, the last of the Dead Sea Scrolls were published in the early 90's.
This is not publishing anything new, or secret. It is being scanned and put online for the public, who doesn't have a clue what to do with them, can look at them. Scholars have known how to look at them, in the DJD, and in a half a dozen other widely available publications that have been around for decades.
Facts the dilettantes have said in these comments that have made me [face_palm]:
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS hereafter) were composed in Qumran, not Jerusalem. (some of the stuff is clearly copies of other documents that circulated elsewhere however)
The Qumran community responsible for the scrolls existed between the 2nd century BCE and ca 70CE during the Roman war.
There is nothing in the DSS about Jesus because they probably never heard of him, they probably lived a monastic style life and kept to themselves.
There are, however, certain strong affinities between things we find in the DSS and the New Testament, including the method of scripture interpretation, some apocalyptic ideas, as well as some apparently common expressions like that found in 4Q521 and Acts.
There is nothing damaging or threatening to the modern religions of Judaism and Christianity. To be sure, the DSS are of tremendous importance for contextualizing their origin and telling us what life was like back then, but this is not a conspiracy to keep them hidden.
Anyone that has any questions please feel free to ask me, and stop giving those asshats up there 5 points for 'information'
Take that to its logical conclusion, and we all about an infinite number of faiths in all sorts of stupid stuff that nobody believes, but is impossible to prove wrong. Like teapots orbiting the sun, or elephants on distant planets.
Only if you are happy with that stupid assertion, can you ever say atheism is a form of faith.
2000 years ago or so, "gospel" was an extremely popular form of political essay and very important genre of the time. There were probably new forged gospels popping up all the time. The first Nicene Council is attributed as having attempted to filter out the ones of the political genre, the forgeries, and keep the "real" ones, the literature that came from oral tradition, for the canon, in order to standardize the literature of the different ministries, temples and churches, though it, the creation of the standarized canon, probably didn't take place then. The canon was lists of books made by the early Church Fathers.
Prior to lists made by Irenaeous and other Church Fathers, there was no canon... every ministry/church had their saint and a gospel attributed to that saint. There were many different versions of some of the same gospels (which is proven by the existence of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
They did a great job of excising the obvious forgeries, but the Fathers made mistakes. A few of Paul's Letters could not have been written by Paul, but were surely forgeries written long after his death. Also, the author of the Gospel of Thomas (very interesting read, btw) which was indeed very early second century gospel, had a very distinct gnostic agenda that promoted the idea that we are all gods, or that in the same way that Jesus was God, every person had the divine within them: we are all God. The Gospel of John was a very specific reaction to the Gospel of Thomas, an attempt to squash this notion to maintain the divinity of Jesus. So John's Gospel was necessary to the early Church in order to help standardize what it meant to be Christian, to help lay out what the Christian beliefs actually were which was quite different from what the Gnostics believed. John very clearly elevates Jesus to the divine in a way no other gospel does.
Point is, the creation of the canon didn't really take place over the next 2000 years... for the most part it pretty much happened within a couple centuries. And it was more about revealing the Christian identity and removing the obvious forgeries than anything else. If you read about the people involved, they were not attempting anything nefarious by creating the standardized canon. They were actually trying to find legitimate testimony, but also standardizing who they were in the same way any organized group of people do, whether Americans, or Hell's Angels or some little league team.
The existence of these other, non-canonical gospels does not mean what you seem to insinuate. Nearly all of the non-canonical gospels are quite obvious forgeries. Most of the literature that made it in the canon is just as likely forged as not, and there are very few books that we know are legitimate (most of Paul's letters). But the Fathers earnestly attempted to chose books whose authors recorded the oral traditions of (who were believed to have been) the original legitimate witnesses.
The Admin and the Engineer
To nitpick a bit:
Daoism: 99% of the battle of daoism is figuring out what you are supposed to do. That is an ancient Chinese way of teaching.....but, if you ever do figure out what it is you're supposed to do, then you will be able to tap into the mysterious power of the Dao. If you figure out what you are supposed to do, and do it, and still can't tap into that power, then you've just falsified Daoism.
There are many interpretations of Daoism, from purely philosophy to batshit crazy superstitions that sometimes pass as religions, and sometimes various traditional Chinese folk-mysticisms are labelled under Daoism.
Don't quote me on this.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
* God doesn't prevent "evil" for the same reason you allow you child to fall sometimes. Kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk.
Does it sound reasonable to allow a child to fall if you know that, once it happens, they will never be able to get up again?
. Then he is not omnipotent.
* The only thing that can stop him is himself - just like a child's view of a parent.
If we are as children then I fail to see how we can to any extent understand his plans and his wishes for us. It's like a parent who communicates exclusively with their children by having post-it notes written by third-parties left in the room of the house that most of the children will never visit. For added fun, the post-it notes are written in languages that most of the children cannot understand, and most of the post-it notes are fake or and/or contradictory of earlier messages. Consider the problems inherent in the way canonical scripture was delivered to us - the tip of the iceberg. What about the vast majority of scripture that is equally well evidenced but is not considered to be God breathed and profitable for teaching?
Is he able, but not willing?
. Then he is malevolent.
* Is it malevolent to not give your child candy before dinner? To let your child play soccer and get his leg broken? To fail a math exam because he didn't study?
Is he both able and willing?
. Then whence cometh evil?
* "Evil" is unfortunately a prerequisite for learning. One of the most important things to learn in this life is that many things a child sees as "evil" are in fact "good".
You're asserting knowledge of God's ways in order to support the claim that we can't really understand his ways. Which way is it? "The Lord works in mysterious ways" has long been an excuse wheeled out when the world behaves just as if there is no divine overseer managing the fortunes of its inhabitants. It's handwaving piffle employed in lieu of having a rational position from which to argue. Perhaps I don't fully understand the big picture; I fail to see how allowing a 10-year-old girl to be imprisoned and repeatedly raped should be considered a lesson learned. I don't know what God wants, and I'm sure that neither do you.
Is he neither able nor willing?
. Then why call him God?"
* Like most parents, I doubt he really cares that much what you call him. But he does occasionally need to swat your bottom...
Drowning in a tsunami, contracting AIDs from your mother, being born without eyes, or being killed by some nutter who decided to fly your plane in to a building in God's name is hardly "swatting". This religious belief is a vain attempt to anthropomorphize nature. Given nature's indifference to human suffering it's not surprising that the resulting deity turns out to be a mess of contradictions. With one hand nature (and God) sustains life and provides us with pleasures, while on the other hand it afflicts us with pointless suffering and the lottery of genetics.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[1]
Frankly, that is the only moral position you can take once you see priests of major religions blessing tanks and artillery (which you know will be used against civilians), soldiers marching with religious insignia on their uniforms and flags and wars based on religious beliefs.
Not to mention the political disenfranchisement of those who do not belong to major (and ruling) religions. In secular democratic countries no less.
And let's not even start on major religions' position on gay individuals - while they protect child molesters in their own ranks.
That's all besides the fact that in our day and age only two kinds of people (given that they had at least elementary education) can actually preach ANY of that religious claptrap.
Utterly naive and gullible OR completely unscrupulous liars.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Or isn't it? You can't pick and choose, keep moving the goalposts.
Personally, I see it as more evidence that it's just a bunch of stories cobbled together.
They were defined as being arbitrary, capricious, with a capacity to do cruel things to people. Thus when stuff happened, we understood, it was consistent. They also weren't all-powerful, so if they couldn't do something good for us, we understood.
But then this new tribe comes along and defines its god as absolutely benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, and ensuing generations go crazy trying to reconcile those traits with reality.
Your example from the Bible is fallacious because nowhere in the Bible (your passage included) does it promise that every believer will be able to perform miracles let alone some percentage of believers from every human generation. In fact many believers consider miracles to be a thing entirely of the past reserved only for the special instances already mentioned in the Bible.
Moreover, you can't possibly disprove those miracles unless you can prove that their result never happened *historically* (e.g. prove that Jesus never rose from the dead) because of their nature as one-shot miracles defying the scientific method. Even then the most difficult stories to justify are often considered allegorical (though you can also take the Creationist approach and just deny the modern understanding of history).
The Bible, as many believers believe it, is extremely slippery. It goes so far as to say that God resists being tested in this manner. If you're going to disprove it you're going to have to work a lot harder than the cursory work you did.
Your Daoist argument also has a logical hole: perhaps what you thought you were supposed to do wasn't what you were supposed to do. Chances are in Daoism there's no other way to know for certain what you're supposed to do than if you achieve that power, and so the circle is closed and you can't disprove it with the method you described.
64 years is a pretty long time for the general public to wait (if they ever even cared), but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with information control. I don't know about the other scrolls, but many ancient manuscripts, both original Hebrew as well as Greek translations, of the book of Isaiah have been available for study since long before the Dead Sea manuscript was found. The DSS only corroborated the manuscripts found earlier. Actually, the fact that there are so many manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts that agree so closely with one another does two things: it helps to validate the accuracy of the completed text, and it effectively eliminates the possibility of any one party controlling the information content of the manuscripts. For those interested, this Wikipedia article has a nice summary of some of the manuscripts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript