B
Blackshirtproud
Guest
Do the inclusion Tobit and Sirach etc. in the Dead Sea scrolls make the case for the “Catholic version” of the Bible? If so why not and why would a Protestant claim otherwise?
- Status
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Who gives a hoot what the Dead Sea Scrolls have – they belonged to an extremist Jewish sect, not Christians.
The deuterocanon is part of the Bible because the Catholic Church canonized those books. The Catholic Church has the authority to do this because Christ guaranteed her infallibility (Mt 16:18-19), which St. Paul regarded as the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15). To talk about what the Jews considered canonical is pointless, because they didn’t consider Christ to be the Lord.
R
rfournier103
Guest
I think they would.
B
Blackshirtproud
Guest
I am just trying to learn more and do not know a ton about the DSS.
It would seem to me that the deutero canonicals were quite important to the ancients as well and would at least help the argument with the Protestant variety of them not being included, no?
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
AND WISDOM!
DON’T FORGET WISDOM!
What the Dead Sea Scrolls is that one of the Protestant arguments against the Deuterocanon
is faulty. The argument is that the other books found in the Greek Septuagint do not have any
existing Hebrew original. Dead Sea Scrolls prove otherwise, at least for three of the books.
Protestants claim otherwise to protect their smaller canon.
T
thistle
Guest
The Dead Sea Scrolls are important because they attest to the accuracy of the Bible we read today.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
It makes little to no case because there are tons of extra-biblical writings among the collection. The real arguement is the determination of the canon and the authority that was needed to define the canon.
S
sirach2v4
Guest
It was Martin Luther, himself, who doubted the canonicity of the books found only in the Greek Septuagint, because they were not known in his time to have Hebrew counterparts. So, if the language was a problem to Luther, he was wrong, but it took some hundreds of years to prove him wrong. Many if not all of the Deuterocanonical books had Hebrew versions.AND WISDOM!
DON’T FORGET WISDOM!
What the Dead Sea Scrolls is that one of the Protestant arguments against the Deuterocanon
is faulty. The argument is that the other books found in the Greek Septuagint do not have any
existing Hebrew original. Dead Sea Scrolls prove otherwise, at least for three of the books.
Protestants claim otherwise to protect their smaller canon.
Luther had an underlying motivation to keep Maccabees out, because it talks about praying for the dead. There are two issues about praying for the dead. One, it says in Maccabees that it is ‘good’ to pray for the dead. Two, God exists outside of time, so our prayers for someone who had died are as good a benefit for those deceased as prayers that we may have uttered before they died. In either case, we are relying on the mercy of God and his justice.
M
Mgray82
Guest
I believe so because some of them were written in Aramaic.
E
ezeekl
Guest
Not only that but if the Septuagint was the result of translating the Hebrew scriptures of the time into Greek as is claimed then it only stands to reason that the Deuterocanonical books were in the original Hebrew scriptures used for the translation and it wasn’t until later that they were expunged. The Jews never did have a sealed canon as we know it today.AND WISDOM!
DON’T FORGET WISDOM!
What the Dead Sea Scrolls is that one of the Protestant arguments against the Deuterocanon
is faulty. The argument is that the other books found in the Greek Septuagint do not have any
existing Hebrew original. Dead Sea Scrolls prove otherwise, at least for three of the books.
Protestants claim otherwise to protect their smaller canon.
- Status