Talk:Shapira Scroll

Missing: section on physical description & content of the text(s)

@GordonGlottal, 175.37.202.190, Amplifysound, WindSandAndStars, Yoninah, LacrimosaDiesIlla, and Onceinawhile:

And it's essential! A separate, clear section on what the strips look(ed) like, are likely to be, and contain. This goes to the core of the topic, and is the very object of the article. As of now, the article is just a "whodunnit", a story of what happened (and even that without mentioning the 5 years they were kept in a safe before being reassessed and brought to Europe). Soon enough, only few people will care strictly about the detective story, and wish to know WHAT the strips actually WERE, as objects and the possible readings of the text(s).

1. Are the strips part of ONE scroll/manuscript? How many of the strips were sewn together, and how many were "loose"? Did the loose ones have stitch marks, or is there any other reason to believe that all the strips constituted one single scroll (physical appearance first, then text analysis)? => use singular or plural (scrol/scrolls, Ms/Mss)
2. It has been assessed that they were written by two hands. Is that the last position of current scholarship? How do they combine, two hands within individual strips, or each on separate ones? Does this distinction correlate to the content of the respective strips?
3. More systematic presentation of the content of the text(s).

Of course, this all with all the needed caveats, counter-theories etc., but the user needs to quickly understand what it's all about, not just "old stuff with some religious writing on it that doesn't fit what's printed in my Bible back home." As always, first clarify the WHAT, and only then the story & possible interpretations. Nobody really has the patience to read the whole article the way it's written now. If one does have the patience and curiosity, they'd go to the more systematic, online published sources. Wiki at its best has the advantage of giving a quick, well summarised essence. Here it doesn't. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No one knows what happened in that five years, there's nothing to say. Shapira decided to try again, that's all. There is some of this to do -- it's a massive project tho - but honestly there's not much of the internal evidence that's possible to explain in this manner, and as the consensus view of the field has always been that it's fake, not much point either except to study forgery. The original reports show at least two hands, probably more. None of the scroll really survives in a way to allow reanalysis of the handwriting, and much of it is completely gone in all forms. In terms of connection -- there's no overlap or conflict in what survives, and the pieces were all basically the same size/shape, that's why it was assumed to be one manuscript. Shapira talked about having two or three but it's not clear whether "the Shapira scroll" is one of them or all of them together, though he never presented any others. There must be translations that are now public domain -- Ginsburg's for example -- but I'm not sure the process for including them. If you think it's OK I can point you to one I think, but not worth my time to copy them out here by hand. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: You didn't get my point.

1. We have an article, that is a fact, and the user can't tell what it really is about, as definition & description are missing. Breaking the basic rule for an encyclopedic entry.
2. Dershowitz & others strongly disagree with you, so by now claiming it's a sure fake is POV, not consensus anymore.
3. There are lots of sources, Dershowitz only the latest.

I don't expect a long description for a start, but the basics: what did it consist of, why consider 15 strips as one scroll, and the content of more than just the famous 11th commandment. In short, not strewn among the pro & con arguments. Fair enough, don't you think?

Nothing happened in the first 5 years, but they must be mentioned, as that fact has been used as an argument for showing that not even Shapira was sure of the strips' authenticity (or that he was of their fake origin), or that he waited for the "Moabite" scandal to subside before bringing the strips onto the market. And mind you: if it hadn't been for the waves raised by Dershowitz, we wouldn't be discussing it here & now. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, (1) No, what I meant is no one knows the answers to these questions, and no one can find out because the scroll is gone. What is known is 1. the partial text, which no one has bothered analyzing un-emended in more than a century. and 2. the physical description, which is already in the article. I guess we could put in the dimensions? (2) is completely wrong, it has always been and remains an extremely fringe view, despite the fact that 2 people have argued it in the last 60 years, and no one has ever applied it to other analysis. Final point is correct in that there have been 2 rises in interest, one when Mansoor/Teicher tried to reopen and now, both given major NYT treatments. But encyclopedias are not guided by magazine features. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I should also add that some (e.g. Rabinowicz) suggest that Shapira revised the text in those years, after all no one actually saw it until 1883. There is some evidence to suggest this, if you think Shapira himself forged them, because the orthography is a little closer to the Siloam inscription, found in 1880, than it is to anything already found in 1878. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

notes

Arminden If you read the section below you'll see that, while Ginsburg took the longest (3 weeks) to issue a finding, everyone else denounced it immediately. By the time it reached the UK in the first place, Schlottman, Delitzch, Strack, Lepsius, Sachau, Schrader, Dillmann, Erman, Steinschneider, Guthe, Meyer, Noldeke, and Kautsch had already decided it was fake (though Guthe and Meyer wouldn't publish for another week). Fright (internally) and Neubauer published against in the first week of the exhibition, and Conder was known to think it fake from before the British Museum ever saw it. Even to British Museum visitors who wanted to see it, it was known to be suspicious -- Ginsburg was careful to note in his statements that he hadn't decided yet, and when he did reports said he'd been hinting for a while. Gladstone spent his visit interrogating Shapira. Ganneau denounced it as soon as he saw it, though by that point it had been exhibited for a while. In the entire history of it, the only one who apparently took any time was Ginsburg, who had a different responsibility as designated by the museum and was enjoying massive press attention.

And no one knows how Mason got it, as indeed no one knew in the nineteenth century. It's not true to say he was the "actual purchaser." The lede is extremely lopsided right now and includes uncited information not found below -- it is not the right place for historiography.

GordonGlottal (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GordonGlottal hi. I read everything, including quite a bit aside from the WP article. Fact is, the German ambassador or whatever he was who came from Beirut found it to be authentic (who knows what he had studied), the British Museum put two strips on display (the British Museum, not a freak show in the Dodge City downtown saloon; the BM didn't exhibit every ole' funny fake, that's a postmodern thing to do), Gladstone was impressed and so were large masses of people, and Ginsburg did take a while. So a discrete "almost" is fully legitimate. I'm not pushing a theory, I have & support none, just stating a fact.

I have no idea who wrote about Mason, it wasn't me. Arminden (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, Shapira claimed that Schroder thought it was legitimate when he got to the UK. He said the same thing about Guthe, which was quickly belied by Guthe's published analysis. He also said that Conder knew about them, which forced Conder to publicly refute him. I think "almost immediately" is fair for the UK scholars, who took a few days, but it's not true generally, the Germans had decided (after 90 minutes in Berlin or one night in Leipzig) weeks earlier. In any case, we shouldn't confuse taking time to publish for being unsure. Neubauer, for example, wrote that he had held it to be a forgery "from the very outset" and Clermont-Ganneau, whose decision is probably the most famous, or at worst second behind Ginsburg, said much the same. Ginsburg himself said "I was sure the first week of my examination that it was a forgery". Conder said "I had no hesitation in concluding that they were deliberate forgeries". Hope you'll forgive me re: not checking who made what changes. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

GordonGlottal So much back and forth for a tiny word of caution, "almost". You didn't address one thing: if everybody who mattered was so sure it's a forgery, did the British Museum, a very serious institution in whoever's book, go for a mega-cheat just for the sake of attracting more public attention? (I don't know if they charged entry.) It simply bugs me to read an unambiguous statement that everyone in the scholarly world knew from the get go these were fake, but the BM put up one of its most successful shows of the time anyway. I can easily imagine that many WP users would think the same. What's so aggravating to you about the "almost"? Are you on a crusade against reassessment? I'm certainly not on the counter-crusade. That's not something I care about. The logic of the presentation is. If you can figure out why the BM made the exhibit (free flow of information, "let ppl make up their own mind"? Pressure from biblical fundamentalists? Or simply "what if..."?), we can close the discussion based on facts. If not, I'll leave it up to you, it's not worth so much arguing. PS: I just found the BM Journal article by Reiner, where he quotes Ginsburg's letter to his daughter: "Though I was sure the first *week* of my examination that it was a forgery yet the extraordinary cleverness and skill displayed..." So not right away at all. Black on white. Even while showing off to his daughter, he admits it wasn't easy, that he almost went blind deciphering the ms, and that he would pay 200 pounds for it. Certainly not an "immediate rejection", now I see I had more of a point than I thought. Better drop it, please. And re. Mason, it really doesn't matter. Arminden (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is getting very silly. Ginsburg took by far the longest, in that he took less than a week. I won't engage with conspiracy theories about why they displayed it, which after-the-fact everyone in the UK, and especially Shapira, regretted. It certainly didn't do anyone except him any damage. I quoted Ginsburg, among others, in my comment. Not one of the German scholars took more than a day, nor did Neubauer/Clermont-Ganneau/Conder at minimum in the UK. "One of its most successful shows of all time" is an absurd exaggeration. To the extent that I have a "crusade" it is to prevent this page from being completely rewritten to reflect a WP:FRINGE magazine feature (or paper/monograph, if anyone here besides me has read them). Also I think you may have misunderstood something -- Ginsburg was designated by Bond to deal with the scroll, that's why Shapira blames him, there's no "British Museum" making an independent decision besides him. You can ask "why did Ginsburg continue to exhibit it for 2 weeks after he was sure it was a forgery" but not "how could Ginsburg be representative, the British Museum was still displaying it." To which Reiner answers, "Ginsburg obviously took great pride in his notoriety," but speculation etc. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

eleventh

Amplifysound Not having edited that part before, I don't think your version is quite right either? At first glance לא תשנא . את. אחך . בל[בבך] Do not hate your brother in your heart is in fact additional, it just combines 1+2 taam-ha-elyon-style (among other changes) so the number is the same. I thought "eleventh commandment" in quotes was OK. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• As you note, the number of commandments is structured as 10. The content is different, but it's not as if there's one settled list of "Ten Commandments" in the MT either! Dershowitz takes a very strong position on the matter (https://twitter.com/IdanDershowitz/status/1371182215330201614?s=20), but even if you think he's biased with regard to Shapira as a whole, I don't think it's reasonable to say there are 11 commandments in this text. If you did, you'd have to say there are ~18 commandments in the MT. Amplifysound (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Amplifysound, What I mean is, the basic form of the Shapira Decalogue is "the ten commandments" from the MT, somewhat altered, plus an additional line. Everyone knows the range of content implied by the phrase (well, except the ST), even if they don't agree on the breakdown. I don't think calling it "eleventh" implies anything false here. Dershowitz is definitely not the most Wiki-worthy resource here, but BTW he agrees. Anyway who cares, I'll try some new language. He is right about the photograph thing in that thread, gonna fix it. "God, thy God" comes straight from Gisnburg. I don't agree with him on Elohim Elohekhah, it's a slight jump to assume Elohism in the scroll (even if you think it's genuine) and no one else has done so to my knowledge, plus it confuses the etymological connection for no reason. I'm going to try "God, your god". GordonGlottal (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

One additional point on the last: The redundancy comes up a fair amount in commentary, don't want to disguise it. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm but Delitzch says "Elohim bein Gott" GordonGlottal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

To do

Still necessary on this page IMO: The debate over whether Shapira forged them himself. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Amplifysound Which exactly are consistent? This hasn't been covered except by Rabinowicz and Goshen-Gottstein but I don't think you're right that it's subjective. (1) makes the unique claim of a tomb, (2) makes the unique claims that Selim was involved and that they were offered and left for him at the shop, (3) makes the unique claims that they first met at the Sheik's house and that they were hidden in bundles of rugs, (4) makes the unique claims that they were thrown into fire and that they were acquired through an unnamed intermediary "who would sell his own mother-in-law", (5) makes the unique claim of a reward offered, (6) makes the unique claims that a mummy was found and they came from the same site as the Moabitica. Each is in conflict with all the others, even without discussing the conflicts that are 3-3 etc. instead of 1-5. GordonGlottal (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• These six "accounts" are from different sources, with different levels of detail, none of them claiming to be a perfect account of everything that happened down to the millisecond. Some of these are from Shapira's pen; some of these are later reports of what others say Shapira told them. Memory, hearsay, and other factors must be taken into account. For example, Re 1: A "tomb" could be an intentional construction, or it could be a cave with a body. Nothing about this contradicts the other accounts. 2: Selim is not unique; he seems to appear in 4 and 5, just to start. His presence is not contradictory with other stories. 3: Your claim that they "first" met at the Sheik's house does not seem supported; describing an important meeting at a house does not mean that the earlier meeting did not happen. 4: This does not claim it was thrown into the fire, it claims something *may* have been thrown into the fire. 5: A "reward" could be a a bounty advertised, or it could be a promise to buy an object. I don't see how this is contradictory with anything else. 6: I scanned this source and didn't find anything about a mummy -- I'm sure I'm missing what you're referring to, but what I read on that link was consistent with the other stories. Regardless, a partially-preserved body is certainly consistent with Dead Sea caves, and I don't see anywhere in the other sources that claim there wasn't a body found. A unique claim is not inherently contradictory with other reports that don't mention the unique claim. For example, if the following happened:

A) There were scrolls in a cave with a body

B) In the 1860s, some Arabs hid in a cave and found the material

C) A Sheik meets Shapira on other business and mentions that he knows other people who know about the strips

D) The following day there's a dinner in which Shapira presses for more information and makes clear that he wants to buy these manuscripts

E) After the Sheik told people he knew that Shapira wanted to buy them, a man from Adachaje approached Shapira's store and left some of the manuscripts

F) Later, the man dropped off the rest of the manuscripts.

Then nothing of that is contradictory with the six citations here. Honestly, it reads like you're intent on proving that this is a forgery, not analyzing the evidence dispassionately. I think the line "Shapira's account of the discovery of the scroll varied at times and the differences between them have been used[1] as evidence of forgery" is fair and reasonable - if it has any imbalance, it tilts irrationally toward the forgery thesis.

Big picture, I don't really understand why this article has these 6 extensive quotations. It's very odd, and it imbalances the article. For example, there's nothing in the article about the content of the material, other than the Ginsburg translation. Considering that the content of the text is consistently the subject of major publications about the material, that's a massive gap. Amplifysound (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Still necessary on this page IMO: The debate over whether Shapira forged them himself. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC) " -- I think it probably makes sense to 1) have a whole section about the forgery history, it could even be the first section, 2) condense the "discovery" section into one single paragraph more or less laying out the A-F that I wrote above, with a note that Shapira told the story of the discovery at different times to different people in different ways, and that some people have used that as evidence that it's a forgery. Amplifysound (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Gordonglottal is undoing legitimate edits and is taking sides in a scholarly dispute. 2A03:C5C0:107D:EE68:8539:B6C9:E0EC:C14 (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Opinions held by chaired professors at highly regarded institutions, published by top academic publishers, and supported by world renowned scholars are not "fringe". The added material needs to be restored and the "fringe" judgement expunged.

Please sign your posts and please create an account so that all of your edits appear with the same signature. You may want to review WP:SOCK. Unfortunately the position that your edits made dominant to the page is a fringe viewpoint held only by a handful of minor scholars. Wikipedia probably isn't the place for detailed discussion of their position when there's such a clear consensus in the field, and certainly not without proportional discussion of counterarguments. You may want to review the sources cited on the page, and WP:RS for any future edits. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus in the field. The (post-Dershowitz) naysayers (Rollston, Knohl [who changed his mind], Richelle, Holmstedt, Hendel, and postdocs Press and Suchard) are no more highly regarded than public proponents of the theory (senior scholars Dershowitz, Pat-El, Sass, Gesundheit, Finkelstein, Bar Ilan, and others). It is not for you to declare one or the other “minor” and “decidedly fringe” and deprive readers of other points of view and sources. Mohr Siebeck and ZAW published Dershowitz after peer review; Semitica and BAR published both sides. This is scholarly debate at its best. Arminden also disagrees with your POV assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.12.122 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized again with the removal of citations of modern scholarship that don't jive with the subjective beliefs of one editor. If someone wants to add additional details about the debate, go ahead, but don't destroy the work of those with whom one disagrees. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Every sentence in the improperly deleted material was sourced. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

J. Philip Hyatt, Shemuel Yeivin, Helen Jefferson, Cyrus H. Gordon, Hartmut Stegemann, Na’ama Pat-El, Benjamin Sass, Israel Finkelstein, Shimon Gesundheit, Meir Bar Ilan are all very prominent scholars. Deleting sourced references to their views is groundless and biased. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, significant minority views must be properly represented, and it is altogether unclear which is the minority view here. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hyatt, Mansoor, and Teicher were all relatively senior in their own day, but it's impossible to deny that they definitively lost the 20th century argument. In terms of the modern claims -- none of those people are remotely senior or prominent. No one has ever -- ever -- made a secondary argument based on the scroll's authenticity. If authentic, the scroll should be a focus of every article on biblical history, but it's not even mentioned in any that aren't specifically about it. Senior scholars have generally ignored the Dershowitz fracas, as they ignored Gil, because they don't want to grant him legitimacy that he doesn't deserve. That's why responses have generally also come from junior scholars, though Hendel, Suchard, etc. are dramatically more respected/cited than any of their opponents. Goshen-Gottstein (a veritable doyen of the field) responded to Mansoor/NYT because he saw a threat. No one of his status has weighed in now because there isn't one. Wikipedia pages should not reflect fringe viewpoints just because they received magazine treatment. Most importantly -- you made extensive edits that were cited to no one whatsoever, editing cited sentences so that the content no longer reflected the citation. You also did exactly what you accuse me of -- edited the article to reflect your own view, denigrating the view you disagree with. It will be a long time before anyone can say for certain who "won," but for the moment your view remains fringe and you should stop trying to promote it via Wikipedia. I wrote this entire page btw, and I've read every argument each way. I've said elsewhere that the "modern scholarship" deserves significant expansion, but it should be expansion which focuses on the actual arguments, not polemic. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Shemuel Yeivin, Hartmut Stegemann, Benjamin Sass, and Israel Finkelstein are/were all very senior and extremely prominent. It is against policy to undo massively. There were no editorial opinions in what you deleted, only references to published and cited scholarly opinions. Your own opinions about the strengths of the pro/con arguments are irrelevant. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E937:E791:388B:D1B (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeivin died forty years ago, having, again, lost the argument. Also, he never published and never claimed it was real. It is undeniable that at the end of his life, if he still held that view, it was a fringe one. Stegemann the same if he ever weighed in? Though I don't think I've seen any comment of his before so I'd be interested in a cite. Sass is not at all prominent, I have no idea why you'd claim that. Finkelstein is in fact prominent and senior, but he hasn't published on this subject. A blog comment is not wiki-worthy, especially because the one argument he advances is definitely not true -- a hooked yod appears in the Moabitica. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Your definition of fringe is not WP's.

2. The Stegemann source was cited in the material you deleted.

3. Sass is Israel's foremost epigrapher. He has written 6 books. He contributed to the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. And any full professor at Tel Aviv U is prominent.

4. You misunderstood the hooked yod discussion.

5. It is not your job to evaluate scholarly opinions.

6. Your citations include Rollston's blog and others, but you reject Finkelstein's response therein.

7. You are happy to cite one side of the argument from Semitica and BAR, but deleted the citations of the complementary articles on the side you happen to disagree with.

2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:995F:D6A7:3CF3:A438 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Unlike you, even Prof. Ron Handel, who believes they’re forgeries, doesn’t consider the opposite opinion to be “fringe.” He writes (in Rollston’s blog): Idan Dershowitz shows in his book that he’s an excellent scholar. He has mastered the data and research, and makes a bold and plausible argument for authenticity. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:48DD:4941:93A6:495E (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal deleted this sourced sentence repeatedly without explanation other than claiming it's biased and unsourced:

Shemuel Yeivin supported reinvestigation.

81.5.56.95 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal deleted this sourced half-sentence repeatedly without explanation other than claiming it's fringe and unsourced:

as did John M. Allegro and Helen Jefferson.

81.5.56.95 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal deleted this sourced sentence repeatedly without explanation other than saying he disagrees:

Na'ama Pat-El, Benjamin Sass, and James Tabor support the claim of authenticity on linguistic, paleographic and historical grounds, respectively.

81.5.56.95 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Another example of @GordonGlottal deleting a sourced sentence without real explanation:

Cyrus H. Gordon averred their authenticity in 1974, and Hartmut Stegemann expressed the need for further investigation into their authenticity in 1978.

You're entitled to your opinion but not to delete what doesn't jibe, as in:

No one has ever proposed an alternative explanation for the frame, there is so s/c in the DSS, the grammar is incongruent, and the meanings are late.

All the sourced material needs to be restored now, regardless of any counterarguments. 81.5.56.95 (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This threat by @GordonGlottal at User talk:2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 is out of place and erroneously refers to well-sourced content as "uncited" (see above):

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Shapira Scroll, you may be blocked from editing. You use a lot of IPs so I can't imagine this will make any difference, but you MUST stop introducing uncited content to reflect your personal opinions. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

81.5.56.95 (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The Hebrew page on Shapira מוזס וילהלם שפירא has a lengthy discussion of modern arguments pro and con. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E890:25B2:296F:2E4D (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Refusal of third opinion. Good afternoon. I am Springnuts an uninvolved editor. I have at least for the time being - refused the 3O requested by 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:EC5E:2F28:2FFA:4887. 3O is suitable wherer only two editors are involved; however in this case one or more editors are editing as IP addresses or as (I believe) UUIDs. If only one other user is involved apart from GordonGlottal please would they create an account and re-submit the 3O request. Creating an account is good practice in any case. With all good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Springnuts: All the posts that are not GordonGlottal are by the same me. So this is a dispute between 2 actual editors. As I use a number of devices, I have no control over the IP addresses that the device and browser provide. I don’t plan on creating a user for myself; I am really enchanted by the way that wp allows anonymous editing. It would be great if you (about whom I read wonderful things) or another could help resolve this impasse. Thank you. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E437:3BB3:CE0A:9BCA (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. First, please read WP:ADVANTAGES; and I then encourage you to register a username. Apart from anything else it will stop editors cluttering up article talk pages as the only way to communicate with you. It will also reassure other editors that you are not a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Then stop talking about vandalism - this is a content dispute, not vandalism. Have a look at relevant policy incuding WP:SOURCES and WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. Then discuss here, with GordonGlottal, what the heart of the disagreement is. You may come to a compromise between you, but if not you will be in a good position to submit a new 3O request, following the instructions at WP:3O exactly, including and especially providing "a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side". With all good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have turned to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Shapira_Scroll, and tried to involve User:GordonGlottal in constructive discussion but that request has now been closed for lack of engagement. User:Nightenbelle suggests reopening my request for a WP:3o stressing that all the non-registered posts in this and following talk items are by me. Would you reopen, please? A third opinion would really be helpful. The main issues, as I see it, are (1) How much of the sourced scholarly opinions from the 50s-70s, suggesting that the scrolls may be authentic, to include. (2) How much of the very recent sourced scholarly opinions suggesting that the scrolls may be authentic to include. (3) Whether those opinions should be categorized as "fringe". (4) Whether in fact scriptio continua is "unknown" for the relevant periods. Thanks. 81.5.57.115 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Physical Appearance and Scriptio Continua

Chemical tests of the originals at the BM already determined that the black stuff was not in fact asphalt. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E45B:2C33:10B5:7553 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Tov gives a handful of examples of scriptio continua from Qumran, so the statement "a style never discovered in other Hebrew manuscripts" is erroneous. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E45B:2C33:10B5:7553 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There is not a single example of Hebrew scriptio continua in the dead sea scrolls. Not one. Tov has never made such a claim. I know from private communication with Dershowitz that he says there are chemical tests to that effect evidenced in the British Library file, but that's not enough to put in on the page unless you have an actual citation. Stop editing cited sentences without a new citation to back you up. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Tov (p 127): The writing in the scriptio continua in the tefillin and mezuzot as well as in the Copper Scroll. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E937:E791:388B:D1B (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The copper scroll is not a manuscript (that's why it's called "the copper scroll"). The phylacteries are sort of written continuously (a lot of lines are basically continuous) but most words have small spaces between and final letters are present. Also they're not designed to be legible, so they're also not "manuscripts" as such. The mezuzot are not written continuously, at all. You can see this for yourself if you look them up. Anyway Tov does say it about the phylacteries and mezuzot, so I apologize. He's wrong. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ross Nichols (p 57), quoting Dr. Walter Flight who tested them: The black colouring matter, taken from the back and front of the skins, does not appear to be asphaltum but rather wax, like bees-wax, of a very impure dirty kind. It leaves an ash amounting to 10 to 15 percent. It readily melts and, when destroyed by further heating, does not emit the smell of asphaltum. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E937:E791:388B:D1B (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Nichols has elsewhere made claims about archive materials that, consulting the archive, I failed to verify (e.g. the Meyer letter discussed in the Modern Scholarship section). He's a popular author with no relevant expertise, not a scholar, and not reliable so far as I can tell. Again I know this report exists -- Dershowitz told me -- but we'd need the thing itself or a secondary author with no agenda to add it. Literally dozens of contemporaries reported it was asphalt, including both Ginsburg and Shapira, including after Flight's investigation. In contrast to this quote, multiple sources report the smell of asphalt in addition to the look. There could be conflicting results in the file, or tests of other strips, and Nichols would not say so. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

First Temple examples of scriptio continua include: Gezer calendar, Lachish tomb, Ketef Hinnom, various ostraca. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:3094:1AD5:E37E:8291 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

None of these are manuscripts. The whole point is that it looks like inscription style (already discovered) and not like manuscript style (which we later found). GordonGlottal (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The "inscription" (Mesha) had word separators, so what is your point? There are no manuscripts to compare with. 81.5.56.95 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Millard [37] gives seven examples of early Hebrew continuously written texts, so saying there are none known is a misrepresentation. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E937:E791:388B:D1B (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, none of these are manuscripts except the phylacteries, none of which are entirely continuous, just some lines are squeezed but still have final letters. All have looser lines with clear gaps when there's space. These generally have a very poor quality of scribal technique -- misspellings, missing words, squeezed lines, etc. -- they were sealed inside boxes and never expected to be read. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Your opinions are not relevant. The fact is that Tov and Millard consider some relevant exemplars to be scriptio continua. There are altogether 2-3 papyrus manuscripts from First Temple times, so there is no basis for your argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.56.95 (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Fringeness

I see no justification for referring to the scholarly opinions supporting the possibility of authenticity as “fringe”. I suggest either justifying that assessment here by WP standards, considering the peer-reviewed academic publications in favor of authenticity (Dershowitz, Sass, and others), or else someone should remove the claim that they are “decidedly fringe”, and restore the inclusion of those opinions. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:4947:511B:A228:EFF4 (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Wikipedia policy: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Bar-Ilan's book fits this category. Blogs don't 81.5.57.232 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

And "Academia Letters" was not a peer reviewed journal but any means 81.5.57.232 (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Academia Letters was a peer-reviewed journal. I myself was invited to review some submissions, although nothing to do with the Shapira Scroll. Suchard is very talented and the arguments in his article are unique. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

AL advertised itself as "lightning fast", it asked for recommendations not careful reviews, final decisions were made by unknown editors, and articles may be arbitrarily modified after acceptance. That is not the same as "peer-reviewed publication". Your opinion of Suchard's talents is beside the point. 81.5.57.232 (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

GordonGlottal is violating his own criteria by including Rollston's blog entries, while deleting pro-authenticity blogs. 81.5.57.232 (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy to discuss. Since his retirement, Bar-Ilan is best described as a numerologist and pseudo-mystic, not as an academic scholar. It's hardly surprising that no academic press is interested in publishing his work. Rollston, by contrast, is cited by many of the other sources on this page because he is active at the top of his field. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

First things first. Should blog entries be cited or not? Generally, not. Here it is used mainly as a survey of scholars. One way or the other, the entry must be consistent. You can't have Rollston in and Finkelstein's reply out. You can't have Suchard in (published in the non-serious Academia Letters), but omit the reply by Dershowitz and Pat-El (on their Academia page), and then include Samuel's response to the response. Re. Bar-Ilan, he is neither a numerologist nor a mystic, though he wrote a book about numerology, a book that was positively reviewed in RRJ. Anyway, it's not contributors' job to evaluate scholarly output. There's no excuse for deleted Yeivin. If newspaper articles are out, then same goes for Knohl. 81.5.57.232 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Bar Ilan: The central feature of those books (מקראית and בראשיתית) is their use of numerology for Biblical exegesis, which is not an academic pursuit. I thank you for pointing out that review. I admire Hakham Faur, who was certainly likewise a mystic. In any case, it's a self-published book.
• Rollston: His blog is cited by a number of the best sources on this page as an authority. On wiki we take our cue from peer-reviewed academic sources.
• Yeivin never wrote an article to "argue that the scroll could be genuine" he just said it sounded reasonable to a reporter that called him for comment. Knohl published two articles in Haaretz arguing that it's fake, very different.
• Samuel: Academics sometimes punch down by writing peer-reviewed journal articles that engage with less respectable writings that are not wiki RS. There's no principle on wiki to demand or allow that we cite a self-published PDF someone uploaded just because a reliable secondary source says it's wrong.

GordonGlottal (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WP has no problem with citing unpublished material to ascertain the position of a scholar. You do. 81.5.57.232 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please restore all the citations to opinions of scholars (whether you agree or disagree) that you deleted, which meet wp criteria without bias (be they blogs or en passant). 81.5.57.232 (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If you don't then I will. If anyone else has an opinion, please weigh in. 81.5.57.232 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what rule you're talking about. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF 81.5.57.232 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is that these are all acceptable sources for the opinions of scholars. On the other hand the opinions of postdocs need not be reckoned even if published. 81.5.57.232 (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)