I was just poking around technorati.com to check out the blogosphere's response to San Diego's Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit and stumbled upon this very helpful review from Pastor Walter Price in Beaumont.
If you were there a few months back for the Thursday night study on the preservation and reliability of Scripture, you will probably recognize some of Dr. Archer's examples.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As I understand it, there are several other reasons the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important for evangelicals scholars beyond just the text critical issue. Historical biblical backgrounds is my weakest area so anybody is free to correct me if I am wrong here.
1. The scrolls have given us many writings that are closer to Judaism contemporary to the NT. As a result, it is now realized that Judaism of that time was not monolithic rabbinic Judaism. This gives us background for understanding the gospels and Jesus' interaction with the Jews.
2. The eschatological and messianic orientation of the writings is very interesting. For a long time it was thought that the NT authors totally mangle the OT Scriptures but this can be a supplementary argument that others were reading the OT messianically and eschatologically. (Ultimately I think the more important argument has been a more literary, canonical, and wholistic/final form approach to reading the OT).
3. Some argue that the writings are important for doing biblical theology. Many will trace themes through the OT and the intertestemental period and then into the NT. They argue that the OT is like a train passing through a tunnel that when it comes out the other side that it has baggage. I am hesitent about that but there may be some value for biblical theology. I am undecided on that issue.
4. There is quite a bit of variation in the ordering of Psalms in the Qumran scrolls. Sections that were thought to be held together are separated and there is even a different version of one of the canonical Psalms along with some extra ones. Some argue that this shows that the canonical form of the book of Psalms was still shifting. This raises an important question for evangelicals. We speak of the focus on the original manuscripts and the original author's intention but which one? Should it be the composer of the original Psalm or should it be the one who pulls together the final canonical form? This is a significant issue, because it is much easier to see how a Psalm can be Messianic. David may have composed a Psalm thinking about himself, but by the time of exile, the Psalm could have come to look forward to the future Messianic Davidic king. If we think of the composer of the canonical form it is much easier to see that location of the Psalms now in a book headed by Psalms 1 and (especially) 2 now take on a very Messianic and eschatological orientation. This is a question that I don't think enough evangelicals realzie and there has not been enough work done on it.
Anyhow, just thought I would throw out some broader perspective because among evangelical thinkers the scrolls are also important for many additional reasons.
Post a Comment