![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why no discussion of the secrecy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.41.252 ( talk) 18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely there should be some discussion of the delays and alleged secretiveness in the treatment of the Scrolls? Grover cleveland ( talk) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Re "De Vaux chose not to publish a definitive archaeological report for his work at Qumran despite worldwide interest, though he left behind him copious notes, which have been synthesized into a single volume and published in 2003.", can you give the book and author names? Ofrahod ( talk) 09:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The following comment was a HTML comment following the lede. I have moved it here for better exposure, and removed it from the article.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
<!-- Polemical comment out of place in a biog. entry: The association of the archaeological site, the caves and the scrolls with the [[Essene]] sect of [[Judaism]], long held to be warranted, is now under re-evaluation by a number of biblical scholars and [[archaeologists]]. -->
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why no discussion of the secrecy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.41.252 ( talk) 18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely there should be some discussion of the delays and alleged secretiveness in the treatment of the Scrolls? Grover cleveland ( talk) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Re "De Vaux chose not to publish a definitive archaeological report for his work at Qumran despite worldwide interest, though he left behind him copious notes, which have been synthesized into a single volume and published in 2003.", can you give the book and author names? Ofrahod ( talk) 09:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The following comment was a HTML comment following the lede. I have moved it here for better exposure, and removed it from the article.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
<!-- Polemical comment out of place in a biog. entry: The association of the archaeological site, the caves and the scrolls with the [[Essene]] sect of [[Judaism]], long held to be warranted, is now under re-evaluation by a number of biblical scholars and [[archaeologists]]. -->