Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

Yes! The Dead Sea Scrolls are not themselves a unique set of content, but rather a collection --rather like someone's private library-- of various texts from the time period that were all preserved together and help us understand the state of those texts at a specific point in time. One example would be the Isaiah scroll, a basically complete copy of the ...


11

From what I recall, the major impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it validated the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament were dated around 920 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to around 100 B.C. With this gap of about a thousand years, ...


6

No, the Dead Sea Scrolls have no effect on the Protestant view of Old Testament canon. Let's take a look at what different books are included: Old Testament (protocanonical) books Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah etc. Deuterocanonical books Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom of Sirach etc. Other writings Book of Noah Book of Giants Testament of Naphtali Community ...


6

I think the other answers so far are missing the force of the question. Obviously we wouldn't include something in the canon just because it was found in the dead sea scrolls, or because it was written in Hebrew. But finding older, Hebrew-language copies of a text (Sirach, for example) whose canonicity is already in dispute could be an argument in its favor. ...


4

The Dead Sea Scroll find was not so much finding a copy of a book as it was finding a library. The texts found included canonical, deuterocanonical, apocraphal and other unrelated works from the time. The find had significant implications for dating other texts and verifying the integrity of some manuscripts, but did not hold any implications for the scope ...


3

For the New Testament, yes. Though Wikipedia may not be a "scholarly" source I find it good for this sort of thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings Also, in at least the UBS and NA, there is a list of manuscripts used to compile the "Greek New Testament." I think that the BHS contains something somewhat similar for the Hebrew ...


3

The books of Enoch, even The Secrets of Enoch which you quote here, are not as isolated and rarely consumed as the question suggests. In Scripture and Scholarship in Early Modern England, “Og King of Bashan, Enoch and the Books of Enoch: Extra-Canonical Texts and Interpretations of Genesis 6:1-4,” Ariel Hessayon writes: Far from being neglected, Enoch ...


2

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest Hebrew scriptures we have, predating the Masoretic texts by several centuries. They show that the Hebrew texts have altered very little since the time of the Qumran sect, although there are some exceptions. Robert Eisenman says, in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, page 38, that 2 Maccabees has a patently ...


2

Dead Sea Scrolls haven't changed the Protestant Canon. This is because Jewish Priest Josephus clearly explains about the Old Testament Canon used in first century AD. Against Apion, Book 1, Paragraph 8. "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two ...


1

The major problem with this question is the fact that the idea of "canon" is anachronistic to the first century. Even within the Christian tradition the "final" form of the canon didn't exist until the 4th century (see Athanasius' Festal Letter). Within Judaism, it was commonly held that the "canonization" of the Hebrew Bible took place at Jamnia (Javneh) in ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible