Should all of the dead sea scrolls be considered scripture?

[Jim Langston]

I have a friend that uses the DSS to prove that scripture is authentic.
That's all fine, but he refuses to accept the fact that they also gave us the Gnostic writings and the Book of Giants as well.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "DSS" and the Gnostic writings?

Edit: Book of Giants as wall

 

[JackRT]

DDS = Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered 1946-47 at Qumram near the Dead Sea)
Gnostic writings = Nad Hammadi Library (discovered 1945 preserved in a jar in a cave in the Sinai)
Book of Giants --- I have never heard of

 

[Jim Langston]

Generically scripture comes from the Latin scribe, 'to write". If you mean divinely inspired scripture, I use the texts my Church has handed down to me. The litmus test was simply those books that everyone from antiquity always agreed upon in most places and eventually these were endorsed in council and became standard. So a newly discovered text regardless of the content would not be added, because divinely inspired scripture also presuppose's that it was known and accepted by the prior generations in antiquity.

So, your judgement as to what is God inspired and what is not God inspired is to listen to the men before you, not judge for yourself. Therefore I can not ask for your judgement as to whether these are God inspired or not because, by your own word, you let other men judge for you.

1 Corinithians 2:15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,

 

[Jim Langston]

Generically scripture comes from the Latin scribe, 'to write". If you mean divinely inspired scripture, I use the texts my Church has handed down to me. The litmus test was simply those books that everyone from antiquity always agreed upon in most places and eventually these were endorsed in council and became standard. So a newly discovered text regardless of the content would not be added, because divinely inspired scripture also presuppose's that it was known and accepted by the prior generations in antiquity.

These dead sea scrolls were preserved with our canon. It is quite obvious to me that all these scrolls were venerated by those who kept them. At one time the book of Enoch was canon until the time of Jesus, because the book of Enoch foretold his coming as the Messiah, so they removed it. The Israelites who moved to Africa, however, didn't get the notice to destroy their copy. So here we have, as I see it, a God inspired book that was once canon but is no longer considered canon because the Pharisees decided to remove it. Jesus comes and admonishes the Pharisees, yet here we are 2000 years later still taking their judgement for what is inspired by God and what is not.

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Instrument150]

I am not interested in their opinion because I have found many scripture outside of canon. If you don't want to bother thinking for yourself why even come to forums? I do not venerate any man, and neither should you.

Seems the man you venerate is rather local, could be wrong.

 

[buzuxi02]

Jim you can believe whatever you like. If you judge them to be inspired then feel free to compile your own books and/or accept whatever you like.

In my Church the sole litmus test has always been if the content of the books were familiar to the overwhelming majority of bishops. If it was popular in one province but not so much anywhere else it was eventually put aside as apocrypha, likewise with books that contained some familiar truths but also held gnostic sounding or spurious teachings. It's based on precedence and consent.

 

[buzuxi02]

These dead sea scrolls were preserved with our canon. It is quite obvious to me that all these scrolls were venerated by those who kept them. At one time the book of Enoch was canon until the time of Jesus, because the book of Enoch foretold his coming as the Messiah, so they removed it. The Israelites who moved to Africa, however, didn't get the notice to destroy their copy. So here we have, as I see it, a God inspired book that was once canon but is no longer considered canon because the Pharisees decided to remove it. Jesus comes and admonishes the Pharisees, yet here we are 2000 years later still taking their judgement for what is inspired by God and what is not.

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So if you feel that strongly join the Ethiopian Tawhedo Church. Their canon still contains the book of Enoch and a few others.

 

[Vicomte13]

I am not interested in their opinion because I have found many scripture outside of canon. If you don't want to bother thinking for yourself why even come to forums? I do not venerate any man, and neither should you.

Ok. Then why, exactly, does "canon" really make a difference? What is "canon" anyway? It's a set of Scriptures that early bishops, priests and scholars decided were particularly important, contained particularly important information. It's tradition that makes more of it than that, and later tradition that elevates the canon of Scripture above the authority of the leaders of the Church.

Jesus taught directly, from his own authority, and made laws and changed laws directly on his own authority. He sometimes quoted various Hebrew Scriptures (including, importantly, some Hebrew Scriptures that various Christian traditions and Jewish traditions consider "apocryphal"), but he did not do so to establish law, but to recount familiar stories, as examples, as reminders.

It's interesting to read these ancient texts, but "canon" is not central, the direct authority of God is central, and that is conveyed in the present by consecrated men empowered by God to do that, at least in some traditions.

Why elevate scrolls and books above the Church? Jesus didn't. Neither did the early Christians. Why should we, then, do it differently than they?

 

[Vicomte13]

I accept the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library and other non-canonical scriptures in exactly the same way that I accept the Bible itself. They are all human documents. I approach all these documents like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to spend a lot of time and effort searching for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them.

Seems like a prudent approach.

I find the Scriptures that Jesus directly quoted to be the most interesting. His favorites seem to have been Isaiah and Enoch.

 

[Jim Langston]

Seems the man you venerate is rather local, could be wrong.

Do local do you mean someone near me? No. I venerate God and my life with Him in it. I know God because I am beyond your comprehension. <self REDACTED explanation>

If you meant the Spanish word "Loco" then that is true in some ways, I have PTSD and recently discovered I have Autism. Autism means I am very smart but don't comprehend emotions well.

 

[Instrument150]

<Staff edit>
Thank you, before that I had often wondered what Autism actually meant. This information is very useful. I leave my words up for interpretation so that they can benefit anyone that it applies to in any interpretation. Speaking of the original intent takes the power of the words into my own hands, and that I will not do. PTSD is very scary, I was under this bondage for a long time as well.

 

[Instrument150]

I know God because I am beyond your comprehension.

This is very dangerous thinking. I would err on the side of caution.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Amongst the dead sea scrolls there were some manuscript fragments that are not a part of our canon. Since the scrolls that we consider canon matches what we know today, can we as Christians say they are false in good conscience? The most we could say is we are not sure, I believe, to say they were wrong on the face of it seems illogical.

An example, and case in point, would be the manuscript 11Q13. This scroll does appear to be commentary, however, and am not sure how to classify that. Can commentary be inspired?

11Q13 - Wikipedia

There is a lot more that went into a general determination of what is scripture or not than what the writings claim about themselves or that some people of groups consider something scripture. There are many great people of God and not so great ones that have dedicated their lives to it in a very scientific fashion.

Isaiah 29:18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. 19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. 20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: 21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. 22 Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. 23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. 24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

 

[dqhall]

Amongst the dead sea scrolls there were some manuscript fragments that are not a part of our canon. Since the scrolls that we consider canon matches what we know today, can we as Christians say they are false in good conscience? The most we could say is we are not sure, I believe, to say they were wrong on the face of it seems illogical.

An example, and case in point, would be the manuscript 11Q13. This scroll does appear to be commentary, however, and am not sure how to classify that. Can commentary be inspired?

11Q13 - Wikipedia

I read a book a long time ago: The Dead Sea scrolls : a new translation, by Wise, Abegg and Cook, 1996. It contains sectarian and religious scrolls/fragments that were not part of the Bible. One theory states the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essenes and the Essene community was all male. There was an all male cemetery found on ground near the mud brick structures at Qumran, below the caves where the scrolls were found. There were community rules in the scrolls. There were verses stating the communities ambition to become better than the Jerusalem priestly establishment. There were some literary texts. Qumran is a national park where tour buses stopped. They have a theater with a movie about the place.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

An example, and case in point, would be the manuscript 11Q13. This scroll does appear to be commentary, however, and am not sure how to classify that. Can commentary be inspired?

A lot of things can be divinely inspired, such as songs, missives, poetry, etc. I would even argue that they could be just as inspired as the Bible. However, that does not make them canon. The canon is a reed. It is a measuring rod. It is a standard against we compare other writings and ideas. A lot of stuff out there may be inspired, but those things also might not be inspired. Your standard for comparison is the canon. It doesn't have to be fully fleshed-out to encompass every single issue. It only needs to be absolutely reliable, and it needs to be complete enough to give us a full understanding of the nature of God's truth.

A lot of people argue that the canon is closed, and I fully agree with that, but a standard is there to act as a basis for comparison, against which all other claims of inspiration must be regarded. If we're not making that comparison, then we're not even using it as a canon. We can disagree on anything else, but the canon makes a backbone for our faith that we can all accept. Whatever comes along, I don't care if it was locked up in a cave with the oldest copies of the Bible. That doesn't make it canon. That doesn't even make it inspired. If you do find a spark of truth in it, and you do think it might be inspired, then that's your decision to make.

You might even be right, but it still isn't canon.

 

[Vicomte13]

Because I have teachings that need to be taught NOW and can not teach them because the forum gods declared that anything not in the canon can not be taught. I can not tell you what it is because then they'll just delete this post too. But the teachings are in the dead sea scroll 11Q13 which the current church does not accept as canon so stifles it, as the Pharisees stifled the book of Enoch. If the church leaders here do no come up with a solution then I will put it in God's hands once again, as I have had to do before with this board when they banned me for not agreeing to their man made theories of Calvinism and Dispensationalism.

We are soon entering the end times and .... <self REDACTED>

Then teach me in a private thread. I'll listen.

 

[Shempster]

Who exactly is "they"? If the Gnostic writings you mention are the Nag Hammadi Library, then you should be aware that there is no connection at all between them and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have never heard of the Book of Giants --- can you give me a source?

Very sorry. I was confusing two different things. The DSS were written before Christ. The Gnostic writings were after. The book of giants is really strange and interesting. It can be found online. Of course, it is not complete. It sounds alot like Greek Mythology.

 

[FireDragon76]

Remember, the dead sea scrolls are the writings of a small religious sub-group of Second Temple Judaism. Maybe Essene, maybe not. So their writings aren't necessarily representative of Second Temple Judaism at all.

This begs the question of whether there actually was something like a monolithic understanding of Judaism during the time period. Even in the New Testament, we do not see evidence of this, we see a variety of interpretations of what it means to be Jewish and how to be Jewish (Sadduccees, Pharisees, Zealots, etc.). Which makes treating the Dead Sea Scrolls as uniquely authoritative, even more problematic.

 

[Mountainmike]

But there of course is the problem:

Unless you trust the catholic church and the infallibility of councils, nor can you trust the canon of scripture, now called the new testament.

The canon was chosen at least in part because the doctrine aligned with oral tradition, which was the means of handing down faith "paradosis" for early christians.. Indeed - we are reliant on the church for rejecting some of the earliest canons as heretical, as indeed were some of the prevalent scriptures. If you do not trust the catholic church, how can you trust one canon rather than another?

All a catch 22 for modern day "bible christians" who want to deny the authority of the church " the pillar and foundation of truth", or who wish to claim the church apostasized!

The beliefs of the early fathers in council who determined the canon and creed would both surprise and horrify many - such as the belief in the intercession of Mary and saints, because that was tradition, even then, as visible in the writings of those fathers. Such as Ephraim was vociferous on that!

Indeed all those believed in the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist, only valid if performed by a bishop in succession or his appointee, which is true even of the first fathers taught by the apostles such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp.

How much some reformed churches have lost, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by claiming they don't trust the catholic church. They lose the new testament with that statement, and the tradition that says what it means.

I would not trust the Pharisees to know who was and was not a false prophet, and I definitely don't trust the Catholic church. So, who are the ones who called them false prophets and who were they so I can do my own research.

It seems everyone is basing their stance on someone else's opinion, although yours does seem to be verifiable.

That being said, it may be true that 11Q13 is from a false prophet. We can not know that for certain either way though without more information/proof. So, we can not say it is false, correct?

So if someone is teaching the ideas and concepts taught in one of these scrolls, is it righteous for us Christians to squelch them because it is not in our canon?

If you claim you are only allowing the canon to be taught, then I would state that you are/could be blocking God's will, especially in these end times.

We, as Christians, have every right to defend the canon as being the inspired word of God. We do not have the right to say historic scripture, such as the books of Enoch and other, non canon books. [Edit: ... are not inspired by God.]

 

[A Truth Hunter]

Amongst the dead sea scrolls there were some manuscript fragments that are not a part of our canon. Since the scrolls that we consider canon matches what we know today, can we as Christians say they are false in good conscience? The most we could say is we are not sure, I believe, to say they were wrong on the face of it seems illogical.

An example, and case in point, would be the manuscript 11Q13. This scroll does appear to be commentary, however, and am not sure how to classify that. Can commentary be inspired?

11Q13 - Wikipedia

And I thought I was the only one who studied those! I've had those same questions too. Especially after reading Enoch and seeing it quoted by Jude in the New Testament.