Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

Template:Edit extended-protected I would like to edit this article because I found a typo where "artifact" was spelled as "artefact" ThisGarbage1147 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Linktext is the British English spelling of the word, and is intentional. Remsense诉 22:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Arabic scrolls are not from second temple period

The mention of Arabic language scrolls needs clarification as the introduction to the article states that the dead sea scrolls date "from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE" while the Arabic scrolls in the provided reference date to 7th and 8th centuries CE. This is historically confusing to the reader. Maybe add a separate section for scrolls composed during this time period or just generally outside the second temple era. 2607:F720:1902:11:0:0:0:1C0 (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You are exactly right (as is confirmed by the source referenced). There were a few other misleading sentences in the intro (especially the confusion of BCE and CE!) which I have now corrected and reworded. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Typo: it's Masoretic, not Masoteric

I don't seem to have permissions to fix the typo myself. Fvictorio (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Respond, thanks for catching that. Remsense ‥ 论 16:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Not Bile, But (plant) Gall

In the "Physical characteristics" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Ink_and_parchment the text reads "Galls were sometimes added to the ink to make it more resilient." with the word "Galls" linking to the article on the physiological secretion, bile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile -- this is incorrect, and was not the "gall" used in ancient inks. The correct link should be to this article/section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_gall_ink#History

10 Apr 2025 50.107.129.186 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing it. Zero^talk 13:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Recent AI-based updates to dating of the scrolls

So there has been some recent research which re-dates some of the scrolls as being older than previously thought.

News:

• https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-06-05/dead-sea-scrolls-ai-dating-palaeography/105374410
• https://www.sci.news/archaeology/dating-ancient-manuscripts-13964.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jun/04/many-of-dead-sea-scrolls-may-be-older-that-thought-experts-say

Scientific journal article:

• https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323185

Was thinking of adding something about this, maybe into the "origin" section, or there might be somewhere else more appropriate. TheJosh (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)