Talk:Copper Scroll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Pictures
This article could really use some pictures - or at least links to pictures.
> I strongly agree with this thawt re providing pix on the page in question (not just links).
[edit] Unnecessary opening statements
Since someone has eliminated the separation from the opening statements, it is better to lose them altogether. The attribution to "Henry de Contention" or whomever, leading the Bedouins, is from a very tenuous source. The statement "it was likely written by the Essenes" is completely unsubstantiated. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
[edit] Unsubstantiated paragraph
Paragraph on "Ben-Tzion Luria" is completely unsubstantiated, on Wiki and via web search. Recommend to delete within 14 days unless some documentation is offered.
Deleted the above-mentioned paragraph. There was no Third Temple and "some scholars" is not substantiation.
>What's this, no Third Temple? There was Solomon's (1st); there was Nehemiah's (2nd); and there was Herod's (3rd). There definitely was a third temple in Jerusalem and it was served by Levites (the tribal name of the priestly caste). So the statement given as an argument for deletion of the Luria paragraph (which I have never seen) is in an important challenged detail simply counter-factual. - Reformatikos
> As to Luria, I'm guessing (and only guessing) that this is a relatively early Kabbalistic writer. I don't know enuff about him either way to say whether the paragraph in question should have been removed, but the statement there was no Third Temple is so egregiously erroneous that I wonder about the knowledge of the anti-Lurist. This needs a knowledgeable third-party evaulation from someone without a tendentious sectarian stake in the quarrel. - Reformatikos
[edit] Why Wolters title excluded?
> I also find it h+ly questionable that the work of Dr Albert Wolters on the Copper Scroll has not been included in the resources for this article. The Wolters book, at least, should be included in the resources. At the same time, I don't think the Wolters article proper should be merged into this article on the Scrolls. I'm voting to keep unmerged the Wolters article as a separate Wiki article in its own r+t and with its current form largely complete (I will be recommending two minor changes), but to include citation of his work on the Copper Scrolls in the preent article with a link to the Wolters article. - Reformatikos
