Depending on what scrolls you are talking about. As for the Biblical scrolls found among the DSS, they are awesome. As for the extra-Biblical writings found among them, those are interesting because they provide us with ancient Jewish thought and interpretations of the OT, ritual laws, and apocrypal OT writings that had been lost for so long.Are these things relevant to Catholicism in any way other than being cute additions to general history? Every time I read about them the author talks in reverent tones about the things as if they are Important, or even World Shakingly Important. What good are they? Do they matter at all at the end of the day?
any item of scholarly value is going to be disputed, especially its ownership ($$$). If i recall correctly, they were found by a shepherd boy, and, naturally, a series of diputed claims to ownership ensued. They were hidden (in the place where they were discovered) because the Essenes, their authors and custodians, were a fringe Jewish group, perscuted by mainline Jewish groups as well as the Romans.Do you know why the Scrolls were hidden/suppressed/embroiled in legalisms over the past several decades, as I recall?
i’m not sure where you got this idea. Christianity, and especially Catholic Christianity, is, at its most basic, a historical claim (God incarnate; hypostatic union; founding of the Church; actual, physical death; actual, physical resurrection). These things either did, or did not happen. I happen to think that there are very good reasons to believe that they did. We don’t know conclusively, but that shouldn’t be a surprise. If we did, then we wouldn’t be choosing Christ, we would be merely acknowledging a natural fact, like gravity. God wants us to choose Him; not merely notice and respond him the way we notice and respond to falling objects.Having more confidence in the Church is, really, immaterial since such confidence is a matter of faith anyway and would be required regardless of evidence.
I disagree. Evidence is extremely important. The Dead Sea Scrolls testify to the tradition. This is especially important for the OT, since the oldest OT manuscripts we had before the discoveries at Qumran dated only to the 10th Century A.D. The Qumran scrolls showed that the texts had maintained remarkable consistency over the centuries.Thanks for the reply. Nothing, however, is effectively changed about Catholicism as a result of these discoveries, though, if I read you correctly. Doctrine remains the same, Bible remains the same. Having more confidence in the Church is, really, immaterial since such confidence is a matter of faith anyway and would be required regardless of evidence.
Academic jealousy.Do you know why the Scrolls were hidden/suppressed/embroiled in legalisms over the past several decades, as I recall?
You are correct, nothing changed as far as Doctrine in the Church, and nothing ever will change regardless of what is ever discovered. But just because Doctrine is not affected does not take away the value of a manuscript discovery. Archeology has been nothing but complimentary to our Catholic Faith. Immaterial is not really a good way to look at it because some things, though they may not be essential to the authority of the Church, are valuable because that does affect non-believers who actually are truth seekers.Thanks for the reply. Nothing, however, is effectively changed about Catholicism as a result of these discoveries, though, if I read you correctly. Doctrine remains the same, Bible remains the same. Having more confidence in the Church is, really, immaterial since such confidence is a matter of faith anyway and would be required regardless of evidence.
Do you know why the Scrolls were hidden/suppressed/embroiled in legalisms over the past several decades, as I recall?
Are you implicitly arguing that if absolute scientific proof of the historicity of Christianity is achieved, the Church would then suppress the evidence to avoid contaminating the faith of the masses?i’m not sure where you got this idea. Christianity, and especially Catholic Christianity, is, at its most basic, a historical claim (God incarnate; hypostatic union; founding of the Church; actual, physical death; actual, physical resurrection). These things either did, or did not happen. I happen to think that there are very good reasons to believe that they did. We don’t know conclusively, but that shouldn’t be a surprise. If we did, then we wouldn’t be choosing Christ, we would be merely acknowledging a natural fact, like gravity. God wants us to choose Him; not merely notice and respond him the way we notice and respond to falling objects.
I don’t see how you come to that conclusion about his post, I think you might be putting words in Dogface Soldier’s mouth.Are you implicitly arguing that if absolute scientific proof of the historicity of Christianity is achieved, the Church would then suppress the evidence to avoid contaminating the faith of the masses?
This could have big implications. Martin Luther threw out Tobit and other books, in large part, because they did not exist in Hebrew, just in the Septuagint. So, a Hebrew version of Tobit should mean that it is accepted into the canon for Protestants. This book helps show belief in Purgatory.It also gives us a Hebrew version of the book of Tobit as well as 4 Aramaic manuscripts of it, which is wonderful since all we had prior to that was Greek, now we have it in its original Semitic tongue!
Luther did not reject it because of the lack of a Hebrew version of Tobit, but he rejected it because the Orthodox Jews eventually rejected it from their canon after Christ came, which is actually a worse reason to reject it because those same Jews (Pharisees) rejected Jesus as the Messiah.This could have big implications. Martin Luther threw out Tobit and other books, in large part, because they did not exist in Hebrew, just in the Septuagint. So, a Hebrew version of Tobit should mean that it is accepted into the canon for Protestants. This book helps show belief in Purgatory.
Look for strong objections why this book won;t be accepted, in spite of it now meeting the biggest test Luther had for the canon.
On the contrary: If Jesus must be “chosen” in an absence of valid scientific proof of his historicity, then, it would logically seem that were such proof to be produced, no one could “choose” Jesus as Dogface Soldier has described. Thus, it would behoove the Church to suppress such evidence.I don’t see how you come to that conclusion about his post, I think you might be putting words in Dogface Soldier’s mouth.