Author Topic: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?  (Read 1634 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« on: December 30, 2015, 01:21:08 pm »
 
Salam Aleykom,

I have observed some strange things in the so-called Great Isaiah Scroll. I'll put the first photo and just tell me what you can notice:


 
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2015, 01:37:56 pm »
 


Ok, let me help you...(the same photo with color inversion)



 

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2015, 02:31:29 pm »
 
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Idris,

Interesting find, akhi.  It seems that there might be a modification done to the scroll?  Is that what you're suggesting?  We know that the scroll had been kept by Israel.  

Regards,
Osama Abdallah

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2015, 04:52:16 pm »
 
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Idris,

Interesting find, akhi.  It seems that there might be a modification done to the scroll?  Is that what you're suggesting?  We know that the scroll had been kept by Israel.  

Regards,
Osama Abdallah
 
 

Salam Aleykom,

yes brother, that's what I'am suggesting. The Great Isaiah Scroll for over forty years was under lock and key, deep underground in Jerusalem. In 2008, for the 60th anniversary of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery, the Israel Antiquities Authority displayed the scroll. Why after 40 years ?? The Nag Hammadi Library – which contains much larger volume of documents than DSS of Qumran – was discovered in 1947. The Nag Hammadi Library within less than 3 years was completely translated and published into the world unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, over 40 years have passed since they were discovered, and they have yet not fully disclosed to the scholars (I've heard somewhere about 9 scroll that are still unopened!). There have been major complains made by Christian scholars from universities all of the world that the Israeli government in agreement with the Vatican Church did not allowed scholars to examine those scrolls (from some youtube video)! Why ? The answer is because they were afraid that some of those scrolls copies might contain the name of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) which would be a very dangerous news. Certainly, it's not in their business to show his description (after they silenced his advent for centuries). The qoutation below in arabic (I've posted before) is very interesting and in my eyes is a precious testimony proving that the Israeli government hiding the true Isaiah scroll from the world:


 
جاء في صحيفة" المسلمون" الشهيرة عدد 1229 الصفحة الخامسة بتاريخ الاثنين 1 ربيع الأول 1412 هـ الموافق ل 9 سبتمبر (أيلول) 1991 م، تحت عنوان" الدكتور محمد معروف الدواليبي- الذي كان عضوا في الحوار- يروي قصة الحوار بين الإسلام والمسيحية، كيف بدأ وعلام انتهى"- ونحن ننقل ما في هذه الصحيفة من كتاب د. شوقي أبو خليل" الحوار دائما.." ص 11. (دار الفكر) مع بعض التصرف- أنّه قد عثر في مغاور قمران شمالي البحر الميت على مجموعة من المخطوطات، نجد بينها سفر إشعياء الصحيح بكامله، في حين أنّ المنشور في العهد القديم هو جزء منه.
وفي سفر إشعياء المكتشف جاء حرفيا: " بعد المسيح يأتي نبيّ عربي من بلاد فاران- بلاد إسماعيل- وعلى اليهود أن يتّبعوه، وعلامته أنّه إن نجا من القتل، فإنه النبي المنتظر، لأنّه يفلت من السيف المسلول على رقبته، ويعود إليها بعد ذلك بعشرة آلاف قدّيس".
لقد أصدر البابا بولس السادس سنة 1965 م وثيقة هامة، كانت بمثابة اعتراف رسمي نصراني بالدين الإسلامي، ولأول مرّة، جاء فيها: " إنّ كلّ من آمن بعد اليوم بالله الخالق السموات والأرض، وربّ إبراهيم وموسى، فهو ناج عند الله، وداخل في سلامه، وفي مقدّمتهم المسلمون".
وبدعوة رسميّة سافر وفد إسلامي إلى الفاتيكان، واجتمع بالكاردينال بيمونللي وزير الدولة في حكومة الفاتيكان فيما يتعلّق بالعلاقات بين الإسلام والنصرانية، وبدأ الحوار على الرغم من طلب السفير" الإسرائيلي" في روما وقف الحوار، وبعد انتهاء اللقاءات المتعددة بين عدد من العلماء المسلمين وكبار مسؤولي الفاتيكان، وقف

Notice from the text: "...have been found in the Qumran caves in the north of the Dead Sea, a collection of old manuscripts, among them we find the true scroll containing the whole of Isaiah, while that given in the present Old Testament is only a small part of it."

Also a very interesting info gives Dr. Fred Miller, a Christian scholar who discovered some controversial editorial additions to Isaiah scroll of the Qumran:

In many editorial markings (added after the scroll was enscribed) and altered letters, there are numerals, and masoretic punctuation, and masoretic vowel marks and red ink marks that are controversial because they are anacronistic, if a date of storing the scroll is given as corresponding with the end of the Essene community to whom they originally belonged. Most of these markings are more consistant with the Middle Ages than with the Macabbean or Hasmonean period to which the scrolls have been ascribed 

See in detail: http://www.moellerhaus.com/Controversy/Controversy.htm

What do you think now ? Could really this Isaiah scroll comes from 200 years B.C. without clear mentions of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)? It is obvious that this so called-Isaiah Scroll was tempered with! And why Vatican always has something to do with the Israeli governement ? It seems they work together. 

 
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2015, 04:57:58 pm »
 

I will also put insha'Allah some another photos showing strange additions to the text ! I've included my objections to it.

Salam
 

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2015, 05:22:56 pm »
 
Great find, dear brother Idris!  Keep up the great work and research.  May Allah Almighty bless you, akhi.  Ameen.  

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2016, 08:05:20 pm »
 
As-Salam Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketu,

brothers I think I have found something which clearly shows that the Isaiah Scroll (or the scaned photos) was indeed manipulated ! I will insha'Allah presents here my findings and you will judge for yourself

Take care,
Ahmed
 

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2016, 01:07:54 am »
 
As-Salam Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketu,

brothers I think I have found something which clearly shows that the Isaiah Scroll (or the scaned photos) was indeed manipulated ! I will insha'Allah presents here my findings and you will judge for yourself

Take care,
Ahmed
 
 

Wa Alaikum As'salam Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh dear brother Idris,

May Allah Almighty bless you for your efforts, akhi.  Keep up the great work.  I look forward to your findings, insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2016, 09:22:39 pm »
 
As-Salamu Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

as I have promised I will post some interesting findings in regards to the manipulation of Isaiah scroll known as 1QIsa-a.
I was able to detect some alterations which are really difficult to observe because they are too small! It reaquire a sharp eyes to see those differences. Alhamdulillah, it is Allah Almighty let me to discover this things.

In Isaiah 42:20 we find a term בראה (bera’ah) located in Column XXXIV, line 26, as 1st word. Notice in the photo below how is written the letter ה (he) which was underlined in red:



+zoom in order to close-up the word:



http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

But what is weird here is that in Dr. Miller’s website the letter ה (he) from the same word doesn’t appear to have any tail on the inside! See the photo below:



+zoom in order to close-up the word:




http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-34.htm

However, in Isaiah scroll - from the Israeli Antiquities Authority website [http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah] – as you remember the letter ה (he) has a small visible tail inside (refer to the first two pictures included in the beginning).

In Isaiah 32:6, we find a word ידבר (yadbar) located in Column XXVI, line 14, as 6th word.



+zoom in order to close-up the word > on the right with inversion:

   

But, in Dr. Miller’s website ד (dalet) from the same word appears to have a little bit extended and curled tail which cannot be observed in the photographed scroll from the Digital DSS website [http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah]:



+zoom in order to close-up the word (+sharpness) > on the right with inversion:

     

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-26.htm

We know that before Isaiah scroll was scanned and officially published for viewing on the Internet, the scholars first got the pictures from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem to examine the scroll. One of them was Dr. Fred Miller. The question arises: Does someone manipulate photos or scroll between 1948-2008 ? Please refer the video below, 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpSy2R9KZdk

Watch all the video or turn it from 19:00 min and listen to what Dr. Robert Eisenman have to say. If the pictures of the so called ‘’James Ossuary’’ that have been published by the Jewish authority were not showing rightly the inscription engraved on it (as Dr. Eisenman states in the above video), it means that they (i.e. the Jews) even trying to corrupt the given pictures so you cannot see all of the details. The second thing is that they fabricated it. That is their strategy. Plan A and Plan B.
In the same way they could do with Isaiah Scroll e.g. they could scanned only those parts which were agreed with the present Old Testament and they mixed up - or compiled - in like one pile. And then, the Israeli Authorities says to the scholars : ’’here, now you can examine the scrolls’’ ! Yeah right, after almost 60 years ! Their removed the most controversial parts about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)! How many times Allah exposed the Jews for hiding the truth about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ? Allah revealed in the Quran:

Yusuf Ali Translation:

“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans”  (Quran 5:82)
How can we trust them ?

Now, personally I have no doubt that someone either manipulated the scanned photos or - even more probably – the Isaiah scroll itself. There is no other way ! If you will analyze carrefully the images from Dr. Miller's website and those published by the Israeli Antiquities Authority you will observe many differences. I will post other of my observations insha'Allah.

Take care,
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2016, 05:07:28 am »
 
Wa Alaikum As'salam Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh dear brother Ahmed,

May Allah Almighty bless you for your amazing finds!  Keep up the great research and work, akhi.  I will write a big article on this and give you all of the credit for the images and points, insha'Allah.  Very interesting indeed dear brother, and very clear!  The enemies of GOD would rather worship satan than embrace Islam.

Stay True, dear brother.  May Allah Almighty continue to protect you and bless you, akhi Ahmed.  Ameen.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah (from the USA)

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2016, 08:07:18 am »
 
Wa Alaikum As'salam Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh dear brother Ahmed,

May Allah Almighty bless you for your amazing finds!  Keep up the great research and work, akhi.  I will write a big article on this and give you all of the credit for the images and points, insha'Allah.  Very interesting indeed dear brother, and very clear!  The enemies of GOD would rather worship satan than embrace Islam.

Stay True, dear brother.  May Allah Almighty continue to protect you and bless you, akhi Ahmed.  Ameen.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah (from the USA)
 
 

As-Salam Aleikum dear brother Osama,

Jazaka Allahu khayran, and may Allah also bless you akhi al'aziz, Ameen. I'am glad that you will write an article based on my findings, it is a good idea, the people must know the truth. I will insha'Allah add more similar findings. Anyone who will find some strange things in Isaiah scrolls (and other MSS from DSS) should post it here. 

Take care,
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2016, 07:15:33 pm »
 
As-Salamu Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

I’ve done some another interesting observation. Alhamdulillah.
 
Comparison of the photo from Dr. Miller website vs the photo from Digital DSS website.

If you go to Column VI of the Isaiah scroll (the last eight lines) you will come acroos a big gap. When you compare the scanned photo from DSS website with the previously taken photo – available in Dr. Miller’s website - you will remark a lack of some elements between them in a specific area! The following photo is from Digital DSS website [http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah]. Observe the red line running through the edge of the scroll:



Now, if you refer to Dr. Miller's website, you will see that his photo of the same Column missing one piece of parchment, see below the traced line in red and the blue arrow pointing this detail:



Compare also the left side of both photos. Their edge shapes are not identical. The above case demonstrates the PHYSICAL violation - or manipulation - of the scroll material ! 

I will add more findings insha’Allah.

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2016, 03:14:06 pm »
 
Wa Alaikum As'salam Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh dear brother Ahmed,

Keep up the great work, akhi!  Your findings are extremely important.  I will Insha'Allah propagate it very aggressively on the website.  I will get to your work this week, Insha'Allah.

Take care, dear brother,
Osama Abdallah
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2016, 05:58:28 pm »
 
Wa Alaikum As'salam Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh dear brother Ahmed,

Keep up the great work, akhi!  Your findings are extremely important.  I will Insha'Allah propagate it very aggressively on the website.  I will get to your work this week, Insha'Allah.

Take care, dear brother,
Osama Abdallah
 
 

As-Salamu Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

Well, that’s what I’am doing akhi :) When you will get to my work, add your own comments to it, you can formulate my text in your own way if you wish but do not modify of course the sense of the context.

Here is another nice finding which looks like a correcting of some letters by the new ink addition.

Isaiah 38:11 
Column XXXII, line 3, 9th word = עם (im) as it is marked in red eclipse pointed by an arrow:



However, when we will refer to the black & white photos from Dr. Miller’s website, we will able to see that the very same word is actually blurred (+contrast and +sharpness was necessary to get a clearer view of an individual letters):



http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-32.htm

Such a kind of defects only indicates that the Isaiah Scroll was somehow manipulated (indeed in a very smart way), and thank's to Dr. Miller's photos which helps to identify the alterations that have been done to the scroll. More observation will be seen insha'Allah.

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2016, 10:19:15 am »
 
As-Salamu Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

Isaiah 9:6
Column VIII, line 26, 1 st word = במשפט (bemishpat)

See the first three letters (from the right), you can clearly read them as ב (bet), מ (mem), ש (shin). I marked them with yellow dashes line in the image below:



+zoom in order to close-up



If you look now at the black & white photo from Dr. Miller’s website you will see that the first three letters of the same word are blurred, and you cannot read them ! Refer to the two photos below:



+zoom in order to close-up



Conclusion ? 
It is obvious that after the publication of black & white photos - before digitally scanned photos - they erased these three letters: ב (bet), מ (mem), ש (shin) and then someone wrote them again! In the same way they erased ח (chet) and ד (dalet) from the original word אחמד (ahmad) in Isaiah 42:1 and wrote אתמך (etmak/atmak) so that you can’t argue that it is a proper name. Who the hell gave them the right to do so ? And, they're shares this stupid video in which a Jew named Adolfo Roitman trying make us believe that the published Isaiah Scroll is the authentic one by saying “take a look…this is the real Isaiah scroll. It has 2000 years!” Come on, doesn’t that sound suspicious for you ? They intentionally say in such way to make sure that those who are watching this video will pay attention especially to these particular words i.e. “take a look…this is the real Isaiah scroll. It has 2000 years!” 

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah_video

More findings are coming insha'Allah.

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)

 
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2016, 10:26:38 am »
 

Salam,

Sorry, I forget to include the links to the photos from the above post.

link to the last two black & white photos from Dr. Miller's website:

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-8.htm

link to the first two color photos [as always]:

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah
 
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2016, 08:33:24 am »
 
As-Salamu aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

my next post will confirm insha'Allah in 100 % that the Isaiah scroll - which is claimed to have 2000 years - is actually not authentic !

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2016, 12:25:44 pm »
 
As-Salamu aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

my next post will confirm insha'Allah in 100 % that the Isaiah scroll - which is claimed to have 2000 years - is actually not authentic !

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

Wa Alaikum As'salam Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh dear brother Ahmed,

Keep up the great work, akhi.  May Allah Almighty greatly bless you.  Ameen.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2016, 07:35:20 pm »
 
As-Salamu aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

here is my post which shows in details a controversial differences in text between the two photos of Isaiah scroll.

NOTE: Lines of reference points have been marked as "RP1" and "RP2" [they are not to be confused with the regular or standard lines, which are related only to the text]. Those lines of reference role-play here an essential factors and will prove to be very important in the following analysis, since they will allow us [by following the hashtag] to observe the curvature of the text on both photos.
The photos have been very carefully captured [their size is almost identical and covers the same space]. Instead of scrolling up and down I suggest to download or simply copy the photos and [while browsing them on your PC screen] change one picture with the other, since it is the fastest and the most convenient way of comparing the details.

Isaiah 41:23-41:29
Column XXXV, lines 1-9

Photo from DSS website [inversion color]



link: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Black & White photo from Dr. Miller's website [inversion color]



link: http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum35.jpg


Observation 1

a) Line 1: Notice the difference in writing between the letter ל (lamed) and the 5th word אלוהים (elohim). Compare it on both photos. In the black and white photo ל (lamed) has a curved head, while the same ל (lamed) from Digital DSS website has a straight head. The differences are underlined in green.

b) Line 1: Notice a small point of the ink above the final-form ם (mem) in the 5th word אלוהים (elohim). In the black and white photo there is no trace of any point or dot of ink. I have indicated it by a yellow cloud in the photo from DSS website.

c) Line RP #1 and RP #2: Notice these two dashed lines in red and observe how the text goes in both photos. You can clearly see that the text in the photo from DSS website goes straight ahead, while the text from the black and white photo [in Dr. Miller’s website] runs awry, in result the dashed lines RP #1 and RP #2 overlap through the text.

Observation 2

Line 3: Notice how the third letter is written together with fourth letter of the last word ויבואו (veyabo’au). In the black and white photo ו (waw) from the same word is different, since is not glued with ב (bet) and it appears to be a separate element. The differences are underlined in green.

Observation 3

a) Line 4: Notice the difference in writing between the letter ד (dalet) in the ninth word הגיד (higid). Compare it on both photos. Its tail has a different shapes. Underlined in green.

b) Line RP #3: Notice this dashed line in red and observe how the text goes on both photos. You can see the similar case as in line RP #1 and RP # 2, i.e. the text from DSS website goes straight ahead, while the text from the black and white photo runs awry.

Observation 4

a) Line 5: Notice the distance between the point of ink and מ (mem) [i.e. the first letter from the first word מלפנים]. Compare this distance in the same line from the black and white photo. You can see that the distances from both photos are not the same [marked in an area with blue outline]

b) Line 5: Compare ד (dalet) and ע (ayn) from the word שומע (shome’a). The differences are underlined in green.

c) Line RP #4 and RP #5: Notice these two dashed lines in red and observe the location of the word אמריכםה (amerikemah)* [line 6, first word] inside of these two previously mentioned lines. Notice that both red lines in both photos are marked in accordance to the same particular points of the same particular letters. RP #4 is set down according to ן (nun) i.e. the lowest point of the word אין (ein) located in line 5, fifth word. RP #5 is set down according to ל (lamed) i.e. the highest point of the word ומאלה (ume’elleh), located in line 6, the last word. You will see that the word אמריכםה (amerikemah) in the photo from DSS website is out of it’s position, passing through the dashed red line RP #5.

* put this Hebrew word in Google translator and see the result (but do not take it seriously, perhaps it is some kind of joke)

Observation 5

a) Line 9: Notice the distance between the word ותוהו (vatohu) [the first word] and the word יואמר (yo’amar) in the same line, from the previous Column. Compare this distance from both photos. The distances are not the same [marked in an area with blue outline].

b) Line 9: Notice the fragment of (lamed) In the photo from DSS website, lamed passes through the line RP #7, while lamed from the black and white photo do not even touch this red dashed line [marked in an area with blue outline].

Conclusion ?

The text from both photos is not the same (despite the fact that is written very similar, but as you have seen still not identical). Let me share with you now something interesting. Yesterday I had an email conversation with Dr. Miller, and when I showed to him some examples of strange alterations, he has answered me the following:

“There are many problems with the DSS differences in different publications of the scrolls that are never answered!. Neil Altman of Philadelphia is the true expert on this subject. No email, but has a listed phone, also see my page on differences etc. herehttp://www.moellerhaus.com/Controversy/Controversy.htm   Dr. Fred P. Miller

I was surprised that he knew about it and admits that indeed there are many problematic differences between various publications of DSS in general (not only Isaiah scroll !). Respect for that Christian scholar!

You should know that the passages that were analyzed comes from Column XXXV, where begins the 42 chapter of Isaiah (where was mentioned Ahmad). The details by no means are not end here. I will explain you in my next post to what I strive. I apologize if I forgot about some details concerning the photos.


Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2016, 05:40:09 pm »
 
As-Salamu Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh, 

Regarding my last post here, if somebody still does not understand what those analysis supposed to mean, then realize that the same text from both photos was REWRITTEN at least twice! It is so obvious. And this is what they called the Great Isaiah Scroll from 2 century B.C. Liars ! That’s why Allah has revealed about some group of the Jews:

Sahih International Translation:

“So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.”  (Quran 2:79)

They do it again... they will never learn. Also in sura 6:91 Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala have exposed them:

Muhsin Khan Translation:

They (the Jews, Quraish pagans, idolaters, etc.) did not estimate Allah with an estimation due to Him when they said: "Nothing did Allah send down to any human being (by inspiration)." Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Who then sent down the Book which Musa (Moses) brought, a light and a guidance to mankind which you (the Jews) have made into (separate) papersheets, disclosing (some of it) and concealing (much). And you (believers in Allah and His Messenger Muhammad SAW), were taught (through the Quran) that which neither you nor your fathers knew." Say: "Allah (sent it down)." Then leave them to play in their vain discussions. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, Vol.7, Page 37).

If you wish you can make your own comparison between the black & white photos (in Dr. Miller website) and those digitally scanned in DSS website. You will see that the texts are simply not the same. The Christian scholars themselves agree with me that indeed there are many unexplained differences in different publications of DSS. The Jews don’t want to answer such uncomfortable questions, since they know that if the people will discover the truth, they - the Jews of Israel - will face the biggest scandal ever! Certainly, this would be unforgivable.

The below videos shows in few steps how to make paper looks very old. Every amateur could do it at home:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fFKRciZYLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBZ6VoMW_r0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBcD-8QSWpw


Now, imagine the effects of a professional team specialized in papyrology, conservation and restoration of ancient manuscripts. Couldn't they fabricate it by using advanced technics of aging the papers ? My response: Yes, they could do it, and indeed they do it! Why ? The Answer is because they needed an evidence which will attest or confirm the text of their Book of Isaiah (since before 1948 the scholars were in doubt as to it’s credibility), and when DSS were founded, they have a chance to prove it, and the idea was to prescribes the Masoretic Text (of course sometimes they intentionally made errors so that it would not appear suspicious, but on the other hand they made also an accidental errors, totally out of their control). For instance, in Isaiah 43:4 (Column XXXVI, line 13) there is an example of error where final-form ך (kaph) was corrected into standard כ (kaph) in תחתיכה [third word from the last word]:



NOTE: the fact that the scribe primarily has wrote final-form ך (kaph) and then change it to standard כ (kaph) shows that he must have known the Masoretic Text, since the same word in MT is ended with final-form ך (kaph): תחתיך (tachteika). But, how it is possible when the Masoretic Text is dated about 10 cent. A.D. and the so-called Great Isaiah Scroll allegedly comes from 2 cent. B.C. ? Also, I didn't notice such strange cases of correcting individual letters in other Qumran scrolls besides Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a). 

[The above case was exclusively taken from my polish book concerning prophecies about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Old Testament. May Allah help me to finish it. Ameen !]

Insha’Allah I will make an analysis of the next 9 lines in Column XXXV and you will see that the text of Isaiah 42 was prescribed at least twice.

Take care, and Salam,
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2016, 04:54:28 pm »
 
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Idris,

I love you work, akhi!  Keep up the great research and work.  May Allah Almighty bless you for your hard efforts.  I will go through all of your posts and make article(s) from your work and heavily propagate them on the website, insha'Allah.  Your account and other brothers' accounts here are on my list.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2016, 08:30:36 pm »
 
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Idris,

I love you work, akhi!  Keep up the great research and work. May Allah Almighty bless you for your hard efforts.  I will go through all of your posts and make article(s) from your work and heavily propagate them on the website, insha'Allah.  Your account and other brothers' accounts here are on my list.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
 
 
Wa aleikum as-Salam wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

Ameen brother, insha'Allah the people will know the truth. And I challenge every Christian in this matter who would like to show me that I'am wrong and that my allegations are false! The proofs which I have presented in my earlier posts here, are sufficiently clear and even are supported by Christian scholars. More analyzed cases are coming insha'Allah.

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2016, 06:51:15 pm »
 
As-Salamu Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

Brothers, this topic is going to be really hot !

On Monday, February 28, 2016 I had an email conversation with Professor Eugene Ulrich, a leading Hebrew scholar of Theology, and a well-known Qumran researcher at the University of Notre Dame:

Link: http://theology.nd.edu/people/emeritus-faculty/eugene-ulrich/

Most probably a Jew from Germany or Belgium.

Anyway, listen very carrefuly to this

I’ve asked him: “Why the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) have kept Isaiah scroll for over 50 years ?”

He answered: “It sounds like you have read some unreliable books. The IAA has kept 1QIsa-a for 500+ years legitimately.” !!!

I was amazed after this response, and then in my curiosity I’ve asked him:

“The scroll 1QIsa-a was kept for over 500 years ?? From where you have taken this information ? What a minute, how 1QIsa-a was discovered in 1947 when it already have been kept by IAA from the Middle Age period (500+ years ago) ? I do not understand. Why the Jews then claims that 1QIsa-a was founded in 1947, and that was hidden in the Judean caves for over 2000 years ? I ’am really confused now. Can you explain it to me Sir ?”

And now guess what he said ? In his last message from Saturday, March 12, 2016 he answered: That was a typo; it was 50+ years
 
What ? A typo ? Or perhaps you want to tells us something ? Notice what he said in his last reply: “…it was 50+ years”

Well, that's what exactly I’ve said in my previous email, when I was asking him: “Why the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) have kept Isaiah scroll forover 50 years ?”

But, then as if he felt some oppurtunity to correct me in his reply by saying:

“It sounds like you have read some unreliable books. The IAA has kept 1QIsa-a for 500+ years legitimately.”

After that, as you remember I’ve asked him: “The scroll 1QIsa-a was kept for over 500 years ?? From where you have taken this information ?....”

OK, and now he says that “it was a typo” …and that he correctly meant 50+ years ? Hello, we have just returned to the exit point! 
Just think. When someone attempts to hide the truth, his psychological reaction sometimes plays tricks that are out of his will, I mean.. human could admit the truth with his own tongue (either by saying or writing), even if he carefully keeping the truth. Allah knows our nature better than we ourselves!

Therefore, his last answer "That was a typo; it was 50+ years” I personally consider as a "masking behavior" through which he was trying to correct and hide his accidentally admitted truth. I’m afraid it’s too late Professor. And, that what has happened to this scholar, i.e. he inadvertently have revealed the true account of Isaiah Scroll story [he accidentally admitted the truth and then he was trying to correct his mistake by saying that it was only a typo during writing]. 

Now you will understand why, since such number of years will make sense when you recall Dr. Miller’s statement that in Isaiah Scroll there are:

“many editorial markings (added after the scroll was enscribed) and altered letters, a numerals, and masoretic punctuation, and masoretic vowel marks and red ink marks that are controversial because they are anachronistic, if a date of storing the scroll is given as corresponding with the end of the Essene community to whom they originally belonged. Most of these markings are more consistent with the Middle Ages than with the Macabbean or Hasmonean period to which the scrolls have been ascribed.”

Link: http://www.moellerhaus.com/Controversy/Controversy.htm

This would explain the character and origin of some markings invented to the Isaiah Scroll. They manipulated the Scroll several times during last 500 years ! Allah is the Witness and He knows best. I would like also to quote some interesting historical evidence about the corruptions of the Vatican Church. The reason of that is because according to many scholars the Israeli government have plotted with the Vatican Church when DSS were found, and it seems they have some business together.

The "Expurgatory Index"

As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early "Church Fathers" modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed. Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545–63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a). In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine. When Vatican archivists came across "genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index"(Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328). This Church record provides researchers with "grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public" (The Propaganda Press of Rome , Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182). Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: "Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released". It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died. In a chapter titled "The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication", he said this (in part): "The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history ... her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first second or third centuries." (How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46) Supporting Professor Bordeaux's findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, "Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account" ( E n c y c l o p é d i e, Diderot, 1759). Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot's E n c y c l o p é d i e, and it reveals the reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758–69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.

Tony Bushby, an article from “NEXUS Magazine”, vol. 14, No. 4 (June/July, 2007), pp. 58-59.

Take care, and Salam,
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2016, 12:47:33 pm »
 
As-Salamu Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

In regards to my last post about my conversation with Professor Eugene Ulrich

- of course IAA (Israeli Antiquities Authority) exists for less than 68 years, and one could not say that they has kept Isaiah Scroll for over 500 years, but I was really wondering why this scholar tried to correct me in his reply that "IAA kept 1QIsaa 500+ years." if he already acknowledges that I've said "over 50 years" ?? Did he actually read what I've said ? Surely did. Maybe he was a little bit confuzzle, but on the other hand it is possible that he accidentally gives us a hint, i.e. it was not necessarily IAA who kept Isaiah scroll for so long, but e.g. some group of earlier Jews lived in the Middle Age. I swear that this scroll is involved with a big intrigue, and I hope Allah will expose them someday, so the people will know the truth.

I have found a nice book for free in which you might find interesting informations about the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Link: https://archive.org/details/TheDeadSeaScrollsDeception

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2016, 07:09:27 pm »
 
As-Salamu aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

here is my post which shows in details a controversial differences in text between the two photos of Isaiah scroll.

NOTE: Lines of reference points have been marked as "RP1" and "RP2" [they are not to be confused with the regular or standard lines, which are related only to the text]. Those lines of reference role-play here an essential factors and will prove to be very important in the following analysis, since they will allow us [by following the hashtag] to observe the curvature of the text on both photos.
The photos have been very carefully captured [their size is almost identical and covers the same space]. Instead of scrolling up and down I suggest to download or simply copy the photos and [while browsing them on your PC screen] change one picture with the other, since it is the fastest and the most convenient way of comparing the details.

Isaiah 41:23-41:29
Column XXXV, lines 1-9

Photo from DSS website [inversion color]



link: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Black & White photo from Dr. Miller's website [inversion color]



link: http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum35.jpg


Observation 1

a) Line 1: Notice the difference in writing between the letter ל (lamed) and the 5th word אלוהים (elohim). Compare it on both photos. In the black and white photo ל (lamed) has a curved head, while the same ל (lamed) from Digital DSS website has a straight head. The differences are underlined in green.

b) Line 1: Notice a small point of the ink above the final-form ם (mem) in the 5th word אלוהים (elohim). In the black and white photo there is no trace of any point or dot of ink. I have indicated it by a yellow cloud in the photo from DSS website.

c) Line RP #1 and RP #2: Notice these two dashed lines in red and observe how the text goes in both photos. You can clearly see that the text in the photo from DSS website goes straight ahead, while the text from the black and white photo [in Dr. Miller’s website] runs awry, in result the dashed lines RP #1 and RP #2 overlap through the text.

Observation 2

Line 3: Notice how the third letter is written together with fourth letter of the last word ויבואו (veyabo’au). In the black and white photo ו (waw) from the same word is different, since is not glued with ב (bet) and it appears to be a separate element. The differences are underlined in green.

Observation 3

a) Line 4: Notice the difference in writing between the letter ד (dalet) in the ninth word הגיד (higid). Compare it on both photos. Its tail has a different shapes. Underlined in green.

b) Line RP #3: Notice this dashed line in red and observe how the text goes on both photos. You can see the similar case as in line RP #1 and RP # 2, i.e. the text from DSS website goes straight ahead, while the text from the black and white photo runs awry.

Observation 4

a) Line 5: Notice the distance between the point of ink and מ (mem) [i.e. the first letter from the first word מלפנים]. Compare this distance in the same line from the black and white photo. You can see that the distances from both photos are not the same [marked in an area with blue outline]

b) Line 5: Compare ד (dalet) and ע (ayn) from the word שומע (shome’a). The differences are underlined in green.

c) Line RP #4 and RP #5: Notice these two dashed lines in red and observe the location of the word אמריכםה (amerikemah)* [line 6, first word] inside of these two previously mentioned lines. Notice that both red lines in both photos are marked in accordance to the same particular points of the same particular letters. RP #4 is set down according to ן (nun) i.e. the lowest point of the word אין (ein) located in line 5, fifth word. RP #5 is set down according to ל (lamed) i.e. the highest point of the word ומאלה (ume’elleh), located in line 6, the last word. You will see that the word אמריכםה (amerikemah) in the photo from DSS website is out of it’s position, passing through the dashed red line RP #5.

* put this Hebrew word in Google translator and see the result (but do not take it seriously, perhaps it is some kind of joke)

Observation 5

a) Line 9: Notice the distance between the word ותוהו (vatohu) [the first word] and the word יואמר (yo’amar) in the same line, from the previous Column. Compare this distance from both photos. The distances are not the same [marked in an area with blue outline].

b) Line 9: Notice the fragment of (lamed) In the photo from DSS website, lamed passes through the line RP #7, while lamed from the black and white photo do not even touch this red dashed line [marked in an area with blue outline].

Conclusion ?

The text from both photos is not the same (despite the fact that is written very similar, but as you have seen still not identical). Let me share with you now something interesting. Yesterday I had an email conversation with Dr. Miller, and when I showed to him some examples of strange alterations, he has answered me the following:

“There are many problems with the DSS differences in different publications of the scrolls that are never answered!. Neil Altman of Philadelphia is the true expert on this subject. No email, but has a listed phone, also see my page on differences etc. here http://www.moellerhaus.com/Controversy/Controversy.htm   Dr. Fred P. Miller

I was surprised that he knew about it and admits that indeed there are many problematic differences between various publications of DSS in general (not only Isaiah scroll !). Respect for that Christian scholar!

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

As-Salamu Aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

I would like to add some important information as to the possible objections to my comparative analysis on two photos posted here:

Firstly, one can’t argue that the scroll from the black & white photo - that available in Dr. Miller’s website - perhaps was slightly undulant or wavy, and later on was straightened by curators of Museum, so that it would supposedly explain why the text from DSS photo is running straight ahead. The big problem lies in the distance between a small dot and ב (bet) located in line 5. If the scroll was indeed wavy - i.e. before IAA has published 1QIsaa in their website - then naturally this small dot would appear on farther from ב (bet) after its straightening. Paradoxically in the photo from DSS website this small dot instead of being farther is even closer to ב (bet). 

Secondly, the material of the scroll is made from animal skin, and it is “incredibly delicate” [as it was claimed by Professor Ulrich]. It would be all the more amazing to think that this leather was straightened - or even capable to be straightened in any way - since each single touch could cause a damages to such a delicate, fragile material.

The conclusion is then inevitable: the text from Column XXXV was re-written (possibly on two different leathers). There are many places in which the edge shapes of the scroll is not identical in both photos [those published by Dr. Miller and those digital by IAA]. Also, I didn’t mentioned that Professor Eugene Ulrich has totally ignored my comparative analysis on two different photos [see my post here] and started to talk about some Chinese symbols in the scroll which was refuted by their scholars. Since he is a Jewish scholar (Eugene is a Hebrew name) he will probably do his best in order to defend the authenticity of Isaiah scroll, as opposed to Dr. Fred Miller (a Christian scholar) who openly admitted that there are many problems with the DSS differences in different publications of the scrolls that are never answered! For me, it is sufficiently enough that while this Jewish scholar was answering on me questions, he get mixed up and lost the thread at a certain moment, most likely was not fully aware about what he just said to me (I don’t know how and why).

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2016, 08:05:05 pm »
 
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Ahmed,

Amazing research and posts, dear brother.  Keep up the great work, akhi.  Really, you are on to something very dangerous for the enemies of Islam.  It is very important.  May Allah Almighty guide you and protect you, akhi Ahmed.  Ameen.  You and your family.  Ameen.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2016, 02:09:55 pm »
 
As-Salama aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

Some news from my last conversation with Professor Eugene Ulrich regarding my comparative analysis of two different photo of 1QIsaa [see my postReply #18 on: February 12, 2016, 07:35:20 pm]. If you remember, in the beginning of my conversation with Professor Eugene, I told him that he should follow carefully the curvature of the text in both photos, but he has ignored that. However, when I started to insist, he finally answered:

The upward or downward slope (the red dashed lines) of the lines of script is not a function of the manuscript but of the angle of the camera taking the photographs. Most of the differences you mention in your “Observations” are simply due to different cameras making different types of and levels of accuracy.  Prof. Eugene Ulrich

The argument about the angle of the camera and its level accuracy is logical, but it has nothing to do with my comparative analysis. The curvature of the text  is not a matter of angle setting of the camera, since the character of writing itself is physically different in both photos, and it is not depending on level accuracy of the camera. The text in the photo (e.g. first line) from Dr. Miller’s website has a clearly visible convexity while the same text from DSS is physically more straight, and you can't say that it is due the angle of the camera during taking the photographs. This simply will not work here. Moreover, such argument conflict other substantial details which I’ve included in my previous post here.

Therefore we have another example of critical objection which I’ve successively refuted above. This is the last point that should put to the end any attempts to disprove my comparative analysis. 

Take care, and salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2016, 02:36:25 am »
 
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Ahmed,

May Allah Almighty bless you for your research.  I had added this thread's link to www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm.

Keep up the great work, akhi!

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2016, 09:12:32 pm »
 
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Ahmed,

May Allah Almighty bless you for your research.  I had added this thread's link to www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm.

Keep up the great work, akhi!

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
 
 

Wa aleikum as-Salam wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

Thank you dear brother Osama, I hope that people finally will get to know about the dubious reputation of these scrolls. I'm going to discuss insha’Allah other notes and observations concerning this topic if only I'll find some spare time to do it. The Jews are afraid that someone will discover someday those alterations in DSS! And I ’am sure that one of the reasons that they changed 1QIsaa is because they’ve found the prophetic name Ahmad and other evident descriptions about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). They hate this truth so much that they would rather die than to tell you about it.

Take care, and salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 

Offline Abdullah Almadi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2016, 10:55:33 am »
 
" Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Jews and Christians) recognise him (Muhammad SAW or the Ka'bah at Makkah) as they recongise their sons. But verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it - [i.e. the qualities of Muhammad SAW which are written in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)]." 2:146
 

Offline Abdullah Almadi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #30 on: April 26, 2016, 10:57:50 am »
 
 "My Father met a man called Professor Hugh Schonfeld who along with others interpreted the Dead Sea Scrolls.   They were each given every 3rd page.  My father said Professor Schonfeld was sad about it  "I fear it will never all be made known"  And that it was very disappointing it was being supressed."

                                      -Some person on a youtube video about the Dead Sea scrolls confirming Islam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeBvI08i2SQ
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2016, 08:22:10 pm »
 
As-salamu aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

 
"My Father met a man called Professor Hugh Schonfeld who along with others interpreted the Dead Sea Scrolls.   They were each given every 3rd page.  My father said Professor Schonfeld was sad about it  "I fear it will never all be made known"  And that it was very disappointing it was being supressed."
 

Interesting quotation brother, from where did you get it ?
 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2016, 09:16:09 pm »
 
Salam aleikum again,

It is commonly known that after the discovery of DSS only a small group of "international" scholars in Israel were given exclusive access to them and the rest of the world was obliged to wait or – as you wish - totally barred from gaining even the slightest glimpse of the texts.

Prof. Robert Eisenman in his book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" have said: 

"In the spring of 1986, at the end of his stay in Jerusalem, Professor Eisenman went with the British scholar, Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield, to see one of the Israeli officials responsible for this - an intermediary on behalf of the Antiquities Department (now 'Authority') and the International Team and the Scrolls Curator at Israel Museum. They were told in no uncertain terms 'You will not see the Scrolls in your lifetimes'" 

R. H. Eisenman, M. O. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1994), p. 3.

Prof. Richard A. Freund states that the Dead Sea Scrolls influenced Reform Judaism (I don't remember which book exactly)
It is highly probable (I 'am even almost sure) that the Dead Sea Scrolls played key role in the whole
drama that finally lead to the creation of Israel state in 1948, just after the discovery of DSS in 1947 ! Why they do not wanted to entrust those scrolls to the scholars when Israel governement gained control over them ? Because they have found the most hated truth that they made them afraid.

There is a beautiful narration mentioned by al-Tabrani in which Allah himself speak to Muhammad in the Torah that "his name was always there" ! (I can't remember where I read that)

This is the truth they hate ! I have a proof which clearly shows that the name Ahmad was mentioned at least twice in 42 Chapter of Isaiah. Probably we will never see the original scrolls (since either they burned it or hiding it from the world), but we have a precious testimony e.g. from Anselmo Turmeda, Kab al-Ahbar, Seyf b. Dhi-Yazan and others.

Take care, and salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
 

Online AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
Re: Is something wrong with the Great Isaiah Scroll ?
« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2016, 11:55:22 pm »
 
The above quotation is apparently a comment at the YouTube video by user "The".
 

 

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
As-Salam aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

here is an article which supports my view about the forged origins of DSS. While reading it I must to admit that Shapira’s case is a pretty cute example of faking documents to make them appear as an authentic. It’s all about money of course (and how otherwise!). Read it carefully and pay attention especially to the text which I stressed by thick font.

"The Lying Pen of the Scribes”: A Nineteenth-Century Dead Sea Scroll
  by Michael Press – Published September 11, 2014 


Moses Shapira claimed to have recovered a rough draft of the Bible—but what did the experts think?

The original version of Deuteronomy.

That’s how the newly-discovered text was billed in August 1883. Several fragments of a 2,800-year-old scroll had made their way into the hands of Moses Shapira, an antiquities dealer in Jerusalem. According to Shapira, a group of Arabs had hidden themselves, in the time when the Wali of Damascus was fighting the Arabs, in caves hewn high up in a rock about an hour east of Aroar, near the Modjib. They found there several bundles of old black linen. They peeled away the linen, and, behold, instead of gold, which they expected to find, there were only some black inscribed strips of leather (called Nekesh, which means some signs or scratches), which they threw away (or I believe he said threw into the fire, but I am not certain); but one of them picked them up and kept them in great honour as charms, and he became a rich man, worth three hundred sheep.

Now Shapira offered the scroll to the British Museum provided they pay one million British pounds. It was an enormous sum at the time—but a small price to pay if the text was authentic.

To find out, the British Museum enlisted the services of an expert Hebraist, Christian David Ginsburg. But in Shapira’s eyes these tests of authenticity were mere formalities: he seemed convinced of its antiquity. In the meantime, the Museum put two of the fragments on display. Soon crowds were thronging to see it, including Prime Minister Gladstone himself. The original Deuteronomy was a sensation. 

Another face in the crowd was Charles Clermont-Ganneau: archaeologist, biblical scholar, explorer of Palestine. He had been on Shapira’s trail for over a decade. Ten years earlier, Shapira had sold a set of roughly 1700 figurines and pottery vessels to the Old Museum in Berlin as remains of the ancient Moabite civilization. Clermont-Ganneau played a crucial role in revealing the “Moabitica” to be forgeries, their script copying the recently discovered Mesha Stele, aka the Moabite Stone, which Clermont-Ganneau himself had been instrumental in publicizing and preserving. (Whether Shapira had any role in the fiasco beyond selling the artifacts was, and remains, unclear.) Now Clermont-Ganneau was closely scrutinizing Shapira’s newest discovery. Not surprisingly, Shapira refused him access to the scroll. Ginsburg let him briefly inspect a couple of the strips, but for the most part Clermont-Ganneau was forced to catch glimpses through the crowds like any other member of the public. Despite these difficulties, Clermont-Ganneau rapidly reached his conclusion: the manuscript was a forgery.

What’s more, he implicated Shapira himself in the forgery. Clermont-Ganneau noted that Shapira had previously sold the British Museum a series of medieval Torah scrolls he had acquired in Yemen. According to Clermont-Ganneau, Shapira had formed the Deuteronomy strips by simply cutting the bottom margins of some medieval scrolls, then applying chemicals to the surface to give them the appearance of antiquity.

The public rejections of the scholarly community followed en masse. Adolphe Neubauer, rabbinic Hebrew scholar at Oxford, and Archibald Sayce, eminent Assyriologist and tutor at Oxford, had already had letters published in The Academy proclaiming the manuscript a forgery. Claude Conder, co-director of the Survey of Western Palestine, also published a letter in the Times denouncing the fraud. Then came the verdict for which everyone had been waiting: Ginsburg wrapped up his three-week analysis and declared the manuscript a forgery. Ginsburg, who was perhaps deliberately drawing out the process in order to build suspense and interest. Ginsburg, who in the past had approved of Shapira’s sale of medieval Hebrew manuscripts to the Museum.” On top of all of this, it soon came out that, before he arrived in London, Shapira had brought his strips to Germany, offering them for sale to the Royal Library in Berlin but meeting rejection from a series of distinguished scholars.

More than simply rejection, this was a public humiliation. Apparently it was too much for Shapira. He continued to argue for the genuineness of the manuscript, or at any rate for his innocence—even suggesting that if forged it must have been the work Clermont-Ganneau himself, in an effort to frame him. But Shapira quickly fled England for Amsterdam, then Rotterdam where he checked into a hotel, and, on March 9, 1884, shot himself.

As for the manuscript itself: Shapira had left it with the British Museum when he fled England in haste. It was bought by the bookseller Bernard Quaritch in a Sotheby’s auction in 1885. Quaritch himself offered them for sale two years later, for a sum of £25. The manuscript that had once been valued at a million. It was subsequently lost: Alan Crown’s research suggests that it was likely acquired by Sir Charles Nicholson, an important figure in the founding of the University of Sydney, and likely burnt in a fire in Nicholson’s study in England in 1899.

And so ended the story of the ill-fated Shapira Deuteronomy.

There’s a good reason why the story of Shapira’s scrolls might sound familiar, despite its obscurity. The tale of their discovery is remarkably similar to that of a far more famous find related to the Bible. Six decades later, in the winter of 1946-47, an Arab shepherd named Muhammed edh-Dhib followed a stray goat into a cave at Qumran, near the Dead Sea. There he and two friends discovered seven fragile scrolls of animal hide, wrapped in linen and stuffed into an ancient jar. These were the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls: a series of texts including the oldest manuscripts of most of the books that would eventually make up the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, as well as many other lost writings. It was a discovery that would capture the world’s attention, ignite considerable controversy, and revolutionize our knowledge of ancient Judaism and Christian origins.

Looking back today, the similarities between the two narratives of biblical finds at the Dead Sea must give us pause. Many of the original objections to the Shapira scrolls now seem obsolete, even humorous. For instance, several eminent scholars were convinced that no sheepskins could survive for thousands of years in Palestine. Archibald Sayce dismissed the find in this way: 

It is really demanding too much of Western credulity to ask us to believe that in a damp climate like that of Palestine any sheepskins could have lasted for nearly 3,000 years, either above ground or under ground, even though they may have been abundantly salted with asphalt from the Vale of Siddim itself.

Meanwhile, in the publication of his results in the Times, Ginsburg listed a series of criteria by which he could conclude that the strips were forged: external criteria (relating to the format of the strips themselves, and echoing Clermont-Ganneau’s arguments), and internal criteria (relating to the script, the language, and the text). These include the short height of the strips (only 8-9 cm), the vertical lines serving as margins for each columns (but with text extending beyond them), the use of dots as word dividers.

Yet these feature, as identified by Ginsburg and others, are matched on at least some of the actual Dead Sea Scrolls. While Shapira’s manuscript may not work as a ninth or eighth or seventh-century text, in several respects it does resemble texts from the last two centuries BCE. By that time, the old Hebrew script of the Iron Age—what Shapira’s manuscript is written in—had been replaced in most writing by the square Jewish script adapted from Aramaic writing. However, there was a revival of the old script, referred to as paleo-Hebrew, in some special cases. These include coins of the second century B.C.E. through the second century CE—and a few of the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially books of the Pentateuch (like Deuteronomy), presumably because they were seen as most ancient. This would also account for some of the late (post-biblical) forms and vocabulary identified by Neubauer and the German biblicist Hermann Guthe.

Not only that, but as has been widely observed, the discoveries of the 1940s and 1950s were not the first time that scrolls were found in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. In the last few decades, scholars have traced a long history of reports of scroll discoveries in the region. As early as the third century C.E., the church father Origen described manuscripts found in his time in a jar (or jars) near Jericho; the report was repeated by Eusebius, Athanasius, and Epiphanius in the following centuries. Around 800 C.E., Timotheus, bishop of the Eastern Orthodox church in Baghdad, wrote about a similar discovery of non-canonical scrolls; the story he told is again eerily similar, of an Arab hunter who followed his dog into a cave. Meanwhile, in the tenth century, Yaʽqūb al-Qirqisānī, a Karaite scholar (Karaism being a breakaway Jewish movement, originating in the Middle Ages, which did not recognize the authority of the Talmud), discussed an ancient group of people known as al-Maghāriyah (the “cave people”) because they left books in caves.

In light of these sorts of considerations, several scholars lobbied for the case of Shapira’s Deuteronomy to be reopened. These included Menahem Mansoor, professor of Hebrew at the University of Wisconsin; and the eccentric Dead Sea Scrolls publication team member John Marco Allegro, perhaps best known for his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. In fact, the parallels occurred to more than simply those who wanted to reevaluate the Shapira case. The most prominent critic of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ authenticity upon their initial discovery, Solomon Zeitlin of Dropsie College, dismissed them as either medieval texts or modern forgeries—arguing in part because of their similarity to the Shapira strips!

So should we reconsider the authenticity of Shapira’s nineteenth-century Dead Sea scroll?

In my opinion, we must still conclude that Shapira’s scroll was a forgery. Beyond any external or internal criteria, consider this simple fact: we are dealing with a manuscript that can only be traced back to an antiquities dealer, whose story about their discovery has never been verified—a dealer, moreover, who had previously been involved in the sale of forged artifacts. Especially since the strips themselves are lost, we must adopt the position that they are a fraud as our default. Beyond this, of course, some of the objections raised by Ginsburg and others are most certainly legitimate: certain lexical items, forms, and spellings are bizarre in any period. There are also various aspects of Ginsburg’s facsimile, such as the form of the letters themselves: they are typical of monumental inscriptions in stone, not of paleo-Hebrew manuscripts written in ink.

The text, in short, is almost certainly a fake.

In the nineteenth, twentieth, and even twenty-first centuries, the Shapira manuscript has provoked a particularly hostile reaction: invective, hyperbole, ridicule, and more, directed both at the manuscript and at Shapira himself.

William F. Albright opined shortly after the announcement of the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Since several scholars have compared the new Scrolls to the so-called archetype of Deuteronomy, offered by the notorious forger Shapira to the British Government for a million pounds, it should be emphasized that there is nothing whatever in common between them except the fact that texts of the Hebrew Bible written in ancient scripts are involved [emphasis in original]. 

A similar dismissive tone, but even more hostile, can be found in the responses of scholars like Moshe Goshen-Gottstein and Oskar Rabinowicz. The articles of Goshen-Gottstein and Rabinowicz include quite personal attacks against those asking for a reevaluation of the evidence, specifically Mansoor and Allegro—attacks based on no more than a cursory presentation of the evidence.

More recently, consider the discussions by Kyle McCarter and André Lemaire in the more popular magazine Biblical Archaeology Review. Lemaire welcomed the opportunity to revisit the episode, but then simply affirmed the objections of Ginsburg and Clermont-Ganneau—even though many of these apply just as much to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most remarkably, he asserts (and repeats in a letter to the editor in Biblical Archaeology Review in response to Mansoor) that het/kaf and tet/tav confusions do not occur in ancient texts. This is simply wrong: both confusions are attested multiple times in texts from Qumran (???).

Meanwhile, McCarter claimed that interest at the time in Britain, in the Shapira manuscript and in the Bible and religion more generally, was due largely to the work of biblical critic Julius Wellhausen (the second edition of his seminal Prolegomena, and the first edition under that title, was published in German that same year). While some British accounts of the affair (by both scholars and journalists) refer to the work of biblical critics generally, many do not, and biblical criticism is never a major focus of the responses; Wellhausen and his work are never named; and the second edition was not translated into English until 1885. And in Germany there was no similar reaction when Shapira brought his strips. Even in Guthe’s book on the Shapira manuscript, published in Germany in 1883, Wellhausen’s name is limited to three footnotes on minor points, and none is to the Prolegomena. Certainly, we would do better to contextualize the public excitement in England in the religious climate of the day, and natural interest in an ancient (and possibly “original”) manuscript of Deuteronomy.

I do not mean to call into question the integrity of these biblical scholars and archaeologists and epigraphers. My point is a different one: even prominent, important scholars have been quick to dismiss the Shapira strips, often with sloppiness and hostility. Even those expressing interest in a reevaluation have done so without proper analysis or context. Most, however, have been swift to reject them, often without careful consideration—and in fact to condemn or ridicule both the scroll and Shapira personally, in decidedly non-scholarly language.

The same is true, as we have seen, for the original response to the strips. Personal attacks are widespread in the public letters of Clermont-Ganneau, Neubauer, and others. Neubauer, like Goshen-Gottstein later, explicitly rejected the need to waste much time with a comprehensive review. In particular, consider the comment of Sayce quoted above. Or Clermont-Ganneau, in his first letter to the Times: 

Let there be given me a synagogue roll, two or three centuries old, with permission to cut it up. I engage to procure from it strips in every respect similar to the Moabitish strips, and to transcribe upon them in archaic characters the text of Leviticus, for example, or of Numbers. This would make a fitting sequel to the Deuteronomy of Mr. Shapira, but would have the slight advantage over it of not costing quite a million sterling. LOL!  8)

As the London newspaper The Echo put it at the time, “From the moment that the discoveries were declared to the world there was an eagerness in many quarters, quite inconsistent with the true spirit of criticism or scholarship, to stigmatize them as forgeries.”

What is the reason for this reception? What accounts for such an unfavorable ratio of scholarly care to overheated rhetoric?

I think we can offer a series of answers for the particularly hostile response to Shapira’s exhibition of the scrolls in 1883. One, of course, is that Shapira had already been revealed once as a seller of forged objects. In particular this may have animated Clermont-Ganneau, and it may have led to a personal vendetta on his part against Shapira. (It is worth noting that there may also have been tension between Ginsburg and Clermont-Ganneau, as Ginsburg had previously implicated Clermont-Ganneau’s actions in inadvertently contributing to the dismantling of the Mesha Stele.) But this is not enough. After all, the revelation of the Moabitica forgery did not stop Ginsburg’s approval of the medieval scrolls Shapira sold to the British Museum. Nor did it affect the opinion of other scholars concerning these manuscripts: In a letter published in the June 11, 1881 edition of The Academy, Sayce praised a collection of such manuscripts Shapira was bringing to London, concluding: “It would be a pity if the collection were allowed to go to Berlin like its predecessor.”

Another answer is racism. Several responses to the Shapira affair highlights Shapira’s Jewish heritage (he was born Jewish but had converted to Anglicanism). Walter Besant, secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund, recalled Shapira this way in his autobiography: “a Polish Jew converted to Christianity but not to good works.” Of particular interest is a cartoon appearing in the British humor magazine Punch in September 1883. 

The cartoon depicts Ginsburg apprehending Shapira, with the latter caricatured in a stereotypically anti-Jewish manner, particularly with a large nose. Of course, not only was Shapira a Jewish Christian convert, but so was Ginsburg—who is not negatively stereotyped in any way. In fact, this differential treatment of the two converted Jews is typical of the British press, which (as Fred Reiner has discussed) lionized Ginsburg as protector of England from the scheming Shapira. (In this narrative, the earlier critiques of Neubauer and especially of the Frenchman Clermont-Ganneau are forgotten—a fact that Clermont-Ganneau complained about at length in his Les fraudes archéologiques.)

It may be that Shapira was targeted specifically as an eastern Jew: born in Russia and, even worse, living in Jerusalem. Thus W.J. Loftie wrote at the time in the literary magazine The Manhattan: “It seems strange, however, and not easy to believe, that anyone living at present in the semi-barbarous Levant can write in the letters of the ancient Phoenicians with such ease and accuracy as to deceive.” (Actually, Loftie scored a two-fer: just before this he had criticized Clermont-Ganneau for his “truly French self-complacence.”) Compare a quote from a later review of the affair by John A. Maynard: 

In these Eastern lands, blessed with intense sunshine, there is no such thing as a cold fact. The sheen of romance which has escaped so many of our scholarly Bible critics makes fiction very real to its creators. There the liars come very soon to believing their own lies.”

But all of these reactions to Shapira postdate the rejection of his manuscript. In that light, they may be better seen as a symptom of the rejection and not as a (major) cause.

On the other hand, what if we look at the Shapira scroll and its reception in the context of other scroll discoveries, or claims of scroll discoveries, and their reception? The ancient reports generally do not even hint at suspicion of genuineness: Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Timotheus, al-Qirqisānī, all accept the reports at face value.

What accounts for the difference? The answer seems simple enough: the rise of modern critical scholarship. The development of linguistic competence in both language and script, and the ability to provide proper historical context, have revolutionized how we understand ancient texts, and how we understand the ancient world itself.

In “Why All the Fuss?” McCarter suggests that one reaction of the public to the Shapira manuscript would have been to question the validity of critical biblical scholarship. And to a limited extent we do see this reflected in newspaper article at the time; it is also echoed in the “scoffing atheists” in the Quaritch listing. But we must not forget that biblical scholarship itself is not an objective critical enterprise. It, too, is deeply rooted and intertwined with religious views. The Shapira manuscript, a purported original or ancient version of Deuteronomy with many divergences from the canonical version, could have been seen as a threat both to critical scholarship and its religious foundations. And in fact this view appears explicitly in the comments of Konstantin Schlottmann, Protestant theologian and scholar, who had responded to Shapira about the manuscript when Shapira claimed to have first received it, back in 1878: “How dare I to call this forgery the Old Testament? Could I suppose even for a moment that it is older than our unquestionable genuine Ten Commandments?”

We see the potential, realized with Schlottmann, for even scholarly response to be entangled with religious belief. This should not be surprising: modern biblical scholarship has been overwhelmingly Protestant, both in its origins and in its practitioners. Its roots are found in the two towering movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, with their mottos ad fontes (“to the sources”—not only classical antiquity but also biblical antiquity) and sola scriptura (“by scripture alone”). The Protestant background of biblical scholarship has been long acknowledged. But this is mostly a neutral observation, or a positive praise of its critical tools; it has rarely been acknowledged that this origin might have a negative side.

The development of historical context and perspective, from the perspective of “to the sources” and “by scripture alone,” has led to a near obsession with origins, and specifically with origins of Scripture. Discovering the original documents behind the Pentateuch, establishing the (single) original form of the biblical text, reconstructing the (single) source (Vorlage) of a biblical translation—these have been among the most important goals of modern scholarship. Perhaps this may explain how, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were first brought to the attention of scholars, before archaeological excavations at Qumran confirmed their authenticity, they were generally accepted by scholars: unlike the Shapira scroll, they did not claim to be original versions of biblical books but part of a later stage in the process of transmission. Consider the reaction of biblical scholar Harry Orlinsky to the Dead Sea Scrolls: he believed them to be of limited importance for biblical studies, because they had little bearing on the original form of the biblical text.

If we reconsider John Maynard’s statement above, we realize it may be quite helpful for understanding ancient modes of thinking. The focus on “cold facts,” on origins and linear evolution, on our Bible, can mislead us when we turn to the variety of sacred writing and the variety of textual forms for individual books throughout so much of antiquity. In other traditions, at other times, scripture did not necessarily equal Scripture. It is an illuminating way to consider things like pseudepigrapha, instead of as “pious frauds”—and of course the original “pious fraud” of the Bible, the book of Deuteronomy itself. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that the Shapira strips pretended to be the original version of a book that scholars think in some sense was “fake”: scholarly consensus holds that Deuteronomy is the ancient book of the law referred to in 2 Kings 22, claimed to be miraculously “found” in the reign of Josiah king of Judah, but in fact written at that time. 

While on the one hand modern biblical scholars stand apart from earlier readers of the texts in their historical and philological concerns, on the other hand we too have been thoroughly influenced by our environments—personal, cultural, or religious. We cannot simply draw a bright line between ancient and modern interpreters. Broadly speaking, our understandings are not purely “objective”: they are formed from a range of influences and agendas, as the Shapira incident demonstrates clearly.

In biblical scholarship in particular, those understandings, like the understandings of ancient readers, cannot be divorced from considerations of religion—especially when considerations of religion are intimately integrated into the very methods we as scholars use. I am by no means dismissing the importance of historical and philological approaches, or of the advances made by modern scholarship in understanding the ancient world. But those advances are ultimately limited by our distance from that world, and by the fragmentary state of its remains. The result is that the remaining pieces are filled in to some extent by our own imaginations.

Paradoxically, the study of the past always keeps one eye on the future. Historical research is important not simply for its own sake, but for what we can learn from it and apply to the future. More than that, our understandings of the past are always in flux, changing with the discovery of new data, and changing as we ourselves change and adopt new paradigms. In order to understand the past better, we need to accept a simple truth about ourselves: we are merely the latest in a long line of interpreters of texts—another chapter in the reception of antiquity. 


Link: http://theappendix.net/issues/2014/7/the-lying-pen-of-the-scribes-a-nineteenth-century-dead-sea-scroll

Here is an article written by Neil Altman according to whom The Great Isaiah Scroll is a medieval forgery as I also suspect:

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/03/31/dead-sea-scroll-mystery/121c7d28-aff8-47a4-893a-b94820204136/?utm_term=.4ad96d39db11

Link: http://web.stanford.edu/group/hebrew/events/conference2005/abstracts/parry_donald.pdf

Although Altman's theory was not generally accepted, but the strange markings in the text exist, and many differences between the old and new photos are clearly visible as I proved in my previous posts, in this topic. It is amazing how many controversies and intrigues surrounded DSS from the time of their discovery. And, If we are talking about the Jews, then be aware my brothers that the Quran exposes their deceptive nature, so that we cannot trust them anymore. Sura 6:91 is an explicit proof referring somehow to the incident of DSS (almost obvious hiding content of the real ancient scrolls etc.). I believe Allah Almighty is reminding us by the famous case of DSS through the allusion to the message of sura 6:91, and Allah knows best !

Take care, and salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
 
Modify message

Offline Idris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
As-Salam aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

In regards to the forgeries of DSS, here we have a very interesting fresh news under the title “Newly Dead Sea Scrolls are Skillfully Crafted Fakes, Experts Suspect” by Nina Burleigh 
On 10/18/2016 at 3:24 PM

While most Americans are riveted by a tumultuous presidential campaign, archaeologists and experts in ancient writing have been focused on some newly discovered bits of ancient history: 70 alleged fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fragments reference some of the verses found in the Old Testament, and antiquities dealers and owners claim they were created by a desert-dwelling, ascetic Jewish sect called the Essenes in the centuries just before the birth of Christ.
Like all archaeology in and around the conflicted, contested Holy Land, the story of the Dead Sea Scrolls is intensely political. Bedouins stumbled upon a trove of them in 1947, in a cave in a desert cliff high above the baked, sere shores of the Dead Sea, in what was then Jordan. A scholar at Hebrew University began looking at them later that year—in the same month that the United Nations voted to partition Palestine, effectively acknowledging the new state of Israel.
Eventually, many of the scroll fragments were collected into one public display in a Shrine of the Book on the grounds of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. The shrine is underground and capped by a massive cement cone that can be ratcheted down to protect them in the event of any attack or bombardment.
The origin of the newest Dead Sea Scroll fragments, some of which are being sold in batches for tens of millions of dollars, is unclear. Many emerged from a private collection of the descendants of an Arab collector in Bethlehem who acquired and sold the first set of scrolls. But even the private collectors in Europe and the United States who have bought them are uncertain of their provenance.
American Steve Green, the evangelical Christian heir to the Hobby Lobby craft chain fortune and the force behind the Museum of the Bible, an endeavor Newsweek covered earlier this year, has spent millions on the new finds. One fragment sold to the Southwestern  Baptist Theological Seminary conveniently refers to the biblical prohibition against homosexuality in the Book of Leviticus.
The problem is, experts suspect many of these sensational and pricy new fragments are expertly crafted fakes. For example, the fragment references passages in Leviticus 18 and 20 that contain the two strongest condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible. Such a strong coincidence is a flag of fakery.

Advertisement

“It is extremely unlikely that a small Dead Sea Scroll fragment would preserve text from both chapters” of Leviticus, says religion scholar Arstein Justnes, at University of Agder in Norway, who called the new fragments “amateurish” imitations that seem to have been copied from modern textbooks about the scrolls. “I think this fragment was produced for American evangelicals.”
Justnes is creating an international multidisciplinary research project called the Lying Pen of Scribes to bring together scientists and scholars to systematically analyze the flood of new fragments for authenticity. “There is a real danger that an increasing number of forgeries is accepted into the datasets on which we base our knowledge of the ancient world,” Justnes says. “There is an urgent need for the development of strategies and methods with which to counter this threat.”
In recent years, scholars have exposed many high-profile fakes in Biblical archaeology, including pieces in the Israel Museum, the James Ossuary (touted as the first archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ and covered in a book I wrote) and recently, the “Jesus wife” fragment, which an investigation traced to a Florida-dwelling German émigré.
While the newfound  fragments contain references to the Old Testament’s books of Leviticus and Nehemiah, none so far refer to a possibly pertinent passage in Job, specifically 13:4 which states: “But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value.”

Link: http://europe.newsweek.com/dead-sea-scroll-fragments-fake-experts-suspect-511224?rm=eu

Another article by Eibert Tigchelaar who suggests that a number of new DSS fragments are likely modern forgeries: http://www.livescience.com/56429-are-new-dead-sea-scrolls-forgeries.html

DSS experiencing a crisis in relation to their credibility !

Take care, and Salam
Ahmed (Poland, Warsaw)
Modify message