These Dead Sea Scrolls resources are excellent. I've been waiting for them for a long time. The price is also very good. They will cost you more than double on Amazon. Let's move this into production!
https://www.logos.com/product/30251/princeton-symposium-on-the-dead-sea-scrolls-series
[Y]
They will cost you more than double on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-set/dp/1932792341
If you don't want Logos search and linking and mouse-over features - or if you want a 100% preview of what you'll get if you order these - someone has made them available here: http://josephprestonkirk.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls.pdf
I found this when I was looking for reviews of the 3-volume set.
I would think that if someone wanted to read these volumes in depth, the Logos edition would be essential, considering all the references in the text and footnotes.
I had no idea these were on prepub. Thanks. Purchased.
Ok, I'm in.
I downloaded the pdf that Eric mentioned. Charlesworth in the 1st chapter made me mad (sloppy, sloppy). But then the 2nd chapter really got busy with the Zadokite vs Enochian judaism (if indeed such existed; certainly in the NT).
Scannning Amazon was a disaster. Used? Forget it.
So I signed on to the prepub (cheap, but in Logos5 format unfortunately).
And a thank you to Randal: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/34628.aspx
Anxiously waiting for them to go into production.
Bump.
I wrote my M.A.Th. thesis using the printed version from 2006. Alas, the set is not for preachers or casual readers. Nonetheless, the 3 -volume set is excellent for the Second Temple Judaism scholars. [Y][Y][Y]
I'm a fan of these three books. Blogged about it here.
Nicely written blog article. Thanks!
I don't know--the scholars in this edition seem to represent all that is wrong in DSS scholarship imo (though volume two looks more worthwhile)--wish they would put the Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls into production instead and/or as well.
OK, Dean053 ... you want to expand on 'wrong with DSS scholarship'? I don't think we'll be violating 'theological' guidelines as to why this collection relative to Oxford.
My comments above largely relates to my background in operational statistics (i.e. where the curve, if such, is unknown). The western Dead Sea coast, plus some east sites, is largely 3-4 potential data points, to which a couple might be expanded backward in time. That is very limited sampling, to be drawing extensive conclusions on 'movements' (as is Josephus, etc). When the 'Zedokite fragment' was first found in Egypt, they were far more circumspect in their assumptions.
I'm not arguing the specific issues, but just to illustrate the problem ... I could be a wealthy jew with the zealots (assumption) about to bulldoze my Jerusalem mansion (which did happen). So I pay my servants to carry off my 'Logos library' until they calm down (on the side sending funds to Caesaria to get the situation in hand). One of my servants knows of some dry caves near Qumran that some crazied monks (modern adjectives) had used decades back.
Now, having read Jodi Magness' excellent books, there's probably enough data to say 'no' to the above. But only 'no's are statistically feasible (negative evidence).
That's why I prefer words like 'is similar to', 'may be', 'logically could be', etc vs 'probably', 'very likely' (how so?), and Charlesworth's 'is'.
I think they were far more accurate in their assumptions after the Egyptian find too. Let's just say that this set seems to represent the old Essene consensus, and that the application of form- and redaction-critical approaches to the question, with its subsequent creation of 'Enochic Judaism' tells me that they haven't learned anything from the collapse of the Essene hypothesis which was built upon numerous faulty interpretations, speculations, and leaps of logic. I'm not particularly enamored with the whole 'rewritten scripture' bandwagon either, though I admit I need to examine this more closely to try to determine what makes me uncomfortable with regards to that. I'm not so fond of Jodi Magness' work--just struck me as more 'let's make the data fit the hypothesis'--she dismisses Pliny as confused in his chronology because his statements do not fit the Essene hypothesis (he has the Essenes settle above En Gedi after the Jewish War, not before). Yet Pliny is supposed to be one of the major planks of that hypothesis.
As an aside, I noticed that the Oxford handbook has been substantially reduced in price, and the Kindle edition can be had for thirty some dollars--I just ordered a copy.
Agree with your points (will have to follow up on the Jodi/Pliny issue; I was mainly referring to the analysis of fabric types, pottery, etc).
This was shipped?
Yes. I'm reading an essay now.
George can you please tell me what the .logos4 filenames are for these 3 vols? Thanks.
In case George doesn't see this right away, they are:
BBLDDSSCRLLSVLM01.logos4
BBLDDSSCRLLSVLM02.logos4
BBLDDSSCRLLSVLM03.logos4
Just curious, why are you interested in the names?
Ah. Nice idea!
What was the earliest pre-pub price for this set? (I got in at $99.95.)How are You doing, Denise?
See The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls and more Oxford Handbooks.
