King's Business - 1953-05

Out of the Lab

ARCHAEOLOGY ' 'Truth

Out of the Earth”

Charles L. Feinberg, Th.D., PhD. Director, Talbot Theological Seminary THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (part two)

Dr. Donald S. Robertson, Ph.D. Chairman, Dept, of Science, Bipla

A s soon as the news of the finding of the Dead Seg Scrolls was released to the public in 1948, the im­ mediate questions were: What are the contents of the manuscripts? How nearly do they conform to the Biblical books of the Hebrew texts we now have? Besides the scroll on the entire book of Isaiah, a commentary on Habakkuk, a manuscript called the Sectarian Document (a manual of discipline for a Jewish sect like the Essenes), and a fourth scroll in Aramaic which has been identified as the Apocryphal book of Lamech (men­ tioned but once in a Greek list of apocryphal books), were found among the scrolls at the Syrian Convent in Jerusalem. Before long the scholarly world was in­ formed that the manuscripts already mentioned were only a portion of a considerably larger collection. The Hebrew University in Jerusalem had acquired through similar channels the following scrolls: (1) “ The War of the Children of Light Against the Children of Dark­ ness,” (2) a collection of Thanksgiving Hymns, and (3) another scroll with a portion of a later text of Isaiah. By the time the cave at Ain Feshka (spelled also Ain Fashka, about 11 miles south of Jericho) near the Dead Sea had been carefully excavated by reliable authorities, about 200 manuscript fragments were found in the cave. Among the Biblical material were found parts of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Judges, also fragments of the Biblical book of Daniel; the non-Biblical literature included the Lamech Apocalypse already noted, The Book of Jubilees, and The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Manifestly, it is too early for us to have final pronouncements on the contents of all the manuscripts, but considerable learning and pains have already gone into the intriguing labor on the contents of the larger scrolls. Study has shown from the beginning that the com­ plete Isaiah Scroll agrees in a remarkable fashion with our Masoretic Text (the Hebrew of our present Old Testament). There are differences in spellings of words and some forms, together with minor omissions, but these are not at all of the nature of the differences found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (begun in the third century B.C.).The Sectarian Document outlines the rules of a reactionary sect of Judaism which lived in the area of the northern end of the Dead Sea before migration to Damascus, and which utilized the Ain Feshka Cave and others for a library for their sacred literature. In this document are to be found many sim­ ilarities to the language of Deuteronomy. The scribe of the Habakkuk Commentary took much pride in his work, for his writing is the most beautiful of all the scrolls. The scroll itself has suffered badly from damage by worms. The method of the commentary is the well- known midrashic, a system of the rabbis both involved' and allegorical which sought hidden meanings in the text. The War Scroll describes the children of light as the Jews, while the children of darkness are the Edo­ mites, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Seleucid Greeks. Elaborate descriptions cover battle formations, continued on page 32

T oo often the Christian thinks that what the scientist has to say is of no importance to his faith but such a position is unsound. It must be remembered that the Christian faith stands or falls as a unit. An important cornerstone of this faith is the inspiration of the Scrip­ ture. One need only refer to the words of our Lord as recorded in Matthew 5:18 or to the writings of Paul, Second Timothy 3:16, to see how basic this concept is'in Biblical Christianity. Therefore the Christian experts that the Lord of creation" inspired an accurate account of things in the natural realm. Since science is con­ tinually checking on nature and since at the very heart of its work is the idea of accurately describing nature, the Christian cannot ignore the results of science. From science will ultimately come the confirmation that the Bible is accurate where it touches on things of nature. But apparent conflicts have arisen between science and Biblical Christianity. Why? These conflicts are in part the result of misunderstandings between the scientist and the theologian as to the methodology of the other. The scientist proceeds by performing experiments and collecting data. Then he analyzes these data and tries to formulate from them some conclusions (hypotheses) that will not only explain his observations but will enable him to predict the outcome of further experiments. If the results of further experiments confirm the hypo­ thesis, the scientist has more confidence in it and checks it further. If the results are not as expected then the hypothesis must be either abandoned or re-examined to take into account the later observations. The important thing to note about this procedure is its dual nature. There is on the one hand the collecting of data or re­ cording the facts of nature, and on the other hand there is the formulating of hypotheses based on these facts. These two phases of science are not recognized by most people. Too often the working hypotheses (or theories) are confused with the facts. The Christian should welcome this fact-finding phase of science because by this work he expects that science will find that which confirms what God has revealed in His Word. But he should always be alert to recognize the difference between fact and theory. The Christian cannot deny the facts but he does not necessarily have to agree with the explanation of them. If they can be legitimate­ ly interpreted in a way which is more in agreement with the Christian position then the theory proposed'by the non-Christian scientist need not be binding. It is here, in the field of interpretation,' where the real conflict is found, for at times there is an unwillingness on behalf of the scientist to consider a theory framed within the Christian faith. The reluctance of the scientist to permit an interpre­ tation of data that agrees with Christian teachings is not the only source of conflict between Biblical Chris­ tianity and science. Sometimes it is caused by the theo­ logian who cannot be persuaded to abandon his pet theories of scriptural interpretation. In many respects continued on page 48 17

MAY 1953

Made with FlippingBook Online document