Jump to content

Talk:Damascus Document

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Discovered Copies of the Damascus Document

[edit]

In December 1896, Solomon Schechter, a reader in [Talmud]at the University of Cambridge, was sent to retrieve the remaining manuscripts in the [Geniza]of the one thousand year old Ben Ezra Synagogue in the Cairo suburb of Fostat.The Jewish community associated with this synagogue were [Karaite] Jews. It is believed that they were a revival of the [Sadducees]who were in existance up to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. These Karaites appeared to have had a relationship with the beliefs of the Essene sect, responsible for the writing and hiding the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran.

At this Geniza, Schechter made an important and remarkable discovery during his difficult three month period spent there. This was the finding of two manuscript copies written in the 10th and 12th centuries, which he later called a "Zadokite Work." Schechter correctly identified these documents as having been written by a group of breakaway Jews who saw themselves as the "True Israel". The members of this community appeared to have been led by priests decended from Tzadok, the High Priest of Kings David and Solomon,and hence were known as the "Sons of Tzadok." They were later recognised to be the Essenes. Schechter could never have realised that these manuscripts were the first discovered copies of a Dead Sea Scroll which later famously became known as the "Damascus Document".

References:Stefan Rief, Taylor-Schechter Unit Cambridge University, 'The Damascus Document from the Cairo Geniza: Its Discovery, Early Study and Historical Significance.'

The Ben Ezra Synagogue was Rabbanite, of the defunct Erets Israeli, or Jerusalem rite (as opposed to the Bavli, or Babylonian rite; Reif explains this quite well). The Karaite Synagogue Genizah is most closely associated with Abraham Firkovich. The Damascus Document was discovered by Solomon Schechter and is housed at the Cambridge University Library with the classmark T-S 10K6. It is also known as "Zadokite Fragment "A"" and "Covenant of Damascus from Cairo." Jerchower 20:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

better version?

[edit]

I'm not exactly sure if the newer version of this article (which was extensively rewirtten by user bigsam) is better than the original. Seethis oder version for a comparison.--Narayan (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to fix this with a merge.--Narayan (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Damascus Document. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Damascus Document. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Judaism's post-exilic 'Enochian'-Essene majority" = ??!!

[edit]

"Judaism's post-exilic 'Enochian'-Essene majority"

1. What does "Enochian" in "'Enochian'-Essene" mean?

2. What is the theory claiming that 'Enochian'-Essene Judaism was the majority post-exilic stream?

Never heard of it, certainly not a mainstream term, possibly coupled with a fringe theory. Clarification urgently needed. Arminden (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mening lost through editing glitches, pls clarify

[edit]

1. "Section III, VII:5–VIII:19 outlines the strong warnings given to the people who stray from the law, and gives vivid critiques of the Prince of Judah, and also three nets of Belial."
a. Poor English ("gives critiques, and also three nets"). Fixed what possible according to source (no "Prince of Judah", etc.)
b. There is no mention in the source of any "three nets of Belial". Made up? Sounds like a movie title, no source, no explanation. Mentioned here for the first time, cannot drop in the term w/o a minimal explanation, at least "see under...", or "see below" and explain more at the 2nd mention.

2. "Impurity of Idolators metal, corpse impurity, and sprinkling"
Nonsensical. Waht is "Impurity of Idolators metal"? Why capitalised? How does sprinkling fit in, is it a type of impurity?!

3. "Laws about reproof
"Reproof"? Meaning what?

4. "9.9–10.10a: Laws about oaths, lost articles and testimony and judges"
a. Poor punctuation/repeated use of "and", makes sense impossible to grasp: which concepts/terms are intrinsically connected, as opposed to just enumerated one after the other?
b. What is the meaning here of the "lost articles"?

5. "Teacher of Righteousness...... 4Q172"
The DSS list on enWiki has no 4Q172. Some details, both there and here, would be welcome.

6. "The document introduces the group led by the Teacher as having arisen 390 years after the first fall of Jerusalem (circa 200 BCE): "And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart." On the basis of that reference, historians date the Teacher to circa 150 BCE."
a. What now, 200 or 150? Two theories? Typo? "2nd c." misinterpreted as 200?
b. 587/586 - 390 = 197/196. So close to 200. Again, what is the 150 BCE date based on? Maybe they used another (traditional, non-historical) date?
c. The quoted text makes no mention of "390 years after the first fall of Jerusalem". Where does this figure come from? Poor choice of citation, an essential one for the dating is missing. Sorry, but especially in a less-than-perfect editing, going by faith in the editor is not an option.

7. The section "CD and the Community Rule" has 3 paragraphs, the last 2 of which lack any source. This is particularly bad, as they basically constitute the conclusion to the entire article. Arminden (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IZAK, Clinkophonist, Tobermory, Jerchower, Hardyplants, and Chauvelin2000: hi, I see you've been the main contributors to the article, apart from those who've been blocked (so many!) or have dropped out, so maybe you can help out with the mess. I've looked through the editing history. All, or maybe almost all of the problems arrived with [2011 double edit] by an editor who only registered for that very edit, Bigsam7787. His contribution is huge, as he introduced a list of what each section contains. I'm not sure he can be trusted, as he didn't offer any source, although his material looks as if it did come from a good analysis; I guess he was a student who took notes in class, made some mistakes in the process, and dumped it all into the article. Or read a good paper, took quick notes, and - see above. He also removed all the good material on the same topic ("Structure") he found here, cuckoo-style: his eggs in, all others out. Narayan (not active in 2021) has tried to merge the old and new content, with very mixed results. Arminden (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

@Tombah: It cannot have been "discovered as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls" if it was known beforehand from Cairo. Please reword. Srnec (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally right, thanks for fixing it! Tombah (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Damascus_Document&oldid=1204761949"