Tag Info

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 ...

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. ...

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...