Which books in the Catholic Old Testament, precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible? I understand for example that the *Books of Maccabees* is not part of the Hebrew Bible Canon, but from what I heard, it follows it in time, rather than being rejected from it. So it wouldn't precede it. I know that the Protestant Old Testament Canon is the same one as Jews use today in their Hebrew Bible, and that the Catholic Old Testament Canon has all that plus extra books. So I am wondering if any books in the Catholic Old Testament are so old in origin that they precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible / canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today (which is in the masoretic tradition)? There is a complexity here also, but one that opens up a possible avenue that help address the question. The Septuagint is so old it even precedes Christianity, and it has a number of books not in the modern Hebrew canon. And furthermore, my understanding is that one skilled in biblical hebrew, and ancient greek, that studies the Septuagint carefully, sees that the underlying text it is translating is slightly different in some places, implying that there was a Hebrew version for it. Further backing that up, my understanding is that in the Judean desert, while there's lots of uniformity, (and particularly uniformity within the Torah), still there are different versions/variations of text for various Hebrew books of the bible, in places here and there, small variations. And it has been viewed(perhaps by Emmanuel Tov?), as there being hebrew proto-septuatint and (of course hebrew), proto-masoretic. Moving from that to books. If there were Hebrew proto-masoretic books not in the masoretic canon of today then perhaps we wouldn't know. But it'd be interesting to know if there are Hebrew proto-septuagint books in the Dead Sea Scrolls / Scrolls from the Judean Desert? And perhaps some of those books in Greek form might be in the catholic bible, so would fit what I am asking of any books in the Catholic Bible that precede the canonization of the Hebrew Bible. But perhaps even without considering the DSS/scrolls of the Judean desert, there might be an answer to if any books of the Catholic Old Testament are known to precede canonization of the Hebrew Bible used today?

Is there any manuscript among the Dead Sea scrolls, which foretold something that happened after the manuscript was written?

I understand that the 1946 discovery of almost a thousand ancient texts in caves on the West Bank has had a significant impact, I'm just trying to figure out what specific changes the discovery has had for apologetics. What do the Scrolls tell us about biblical authentication? As someone who wants to be competent in apologetics, what should I know about the Dead Sea Scrolls?

This question is about the rendering of some passages in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). This is a collection of verses that add or replace sections of the King James Version which was deemed to have been corrupted by apostasy in the early Christian Church. The introduction to the JST states (here ) that: > Following are selected portions of the Joseph Smith Translation of the > King James Version of the Bible (JST). The Lord inspired the Prophet > Joseph Smith to restore truths to the King James Bible text that had > become lost or changed since the original words were written. These > restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural > understanding. > > Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original > authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any > other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word > translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for > Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from > one language into another. Here I wanted to ask about differences in the rendering of Isaiah 42:19-23 in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) in comparison to the Great Isaiah Scroll. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in Qumran in 1947. The Digital Dead Sea Scrolls website says about it that: > It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical > scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns > contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of > Isaiah. According to an article at allaboutarchaeology.org the Great Isaiah Scroll has been carbon dated to between 335 B.C. and 100 B.C. The article (here ) states: > As far as dating, it appears that pieces of the Great Isaiah Scroll > (1Qls-a) have been carbon-14 dated at least four times, including a > study at the University of Arizona in 1995 and a study at ETH-zurich > in 1990-91. The four studies produced calibrated date ranges between > 335-324 BC and 202-107 BC. There have also been numerous paleographic > and scribal dating studies conducted that place 1Qls-a at a date range > of approximately 150-100 BC. For comparison, here is how Isaiah 42:19-23 reads **according to Joseph Smith Translation** (from here ): > 19 For I will send my servant unto you who are blind; yea, a messenger > to open the eyes of the blind, and unstop the ears of the deaf; > > 20 And they shall be made perfect notwithstanding their blindness, if > they will hearken unto the messenger, the Lord’s servant. > > 21 Thou art a people, seeing many things, but thou observest not; > opening the ears to hear, but thou hearest not. > > 22 The Lord is not well pleased with such a people, but for his > righteousness’ sake he will magnify the law and make it honorable. > > 23 Thou art a people robbed and spoiled; thine enemies, all of them, > have snared thee in holes, and they have hid thee in prison houses; > they have taken thee for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and > none saith, Restore. And this is how Isaiah 42:19-23 reads **according to King James Version** (from here ): > 19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? > who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord’s servant? > > 20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but > he heareth not. > > 21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will > magnify the law, and make it honourable. > > 22 But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them > snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a > prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore. > > 23 Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for > the time to come? Note that although verse 19 of JST seems to be similar to verse 19 in KJV, the verse 23 in JST seems to match verse 22 in KJV. Below text on another hand is the English translation of Isaiah 42:19-23 **from the Great Isaiah Scroll** (from here ). > 19 Who is blind but my servant or deaf like my messenger whom I send? > Who is blind like the one allied with me and blind like the LORD's > servant? > > 20 You have seen many things, but you do not observe. His ears are > open, but he does not hear. > > 21 The LORD had desired, for the sake of his vindication, that he > should increase his torah and glorify it. > > 22 Instead, this is a people despoiled and plundered. All of them are > trapped in holes and hidden in prisons. They have become prey whom no > one rescues, a spoil and no one says, "Restore." > > 23 Who is among you that will hear this? Indeed let him pay attention > and listen for the time to come. (Above translation is by Professors Peter Flint from Trinity Western University, Canada and Eugene Ulrich from University of Notre Dame) Based on the carbon dating, the scroll preceded the Christian era and the subsequent apostasy. Still the KJV follows this passage more closely than what the Joseph Smith Translation does. The question I had on this: **Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints view the Dead Sea Scrolls also as having been corrupted?**

In the future, I will learn Koine Greek and I will read the New Testament in it’s original language. I will also read the Septuagint. The Dead Sea scrolls are all fragments so They are defined not proper to read the Bible. But which is older? And when were the Dead Sea Scrolls finished being written? God bless you all.

Has the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had any effect on which Old Testament books should be considered canonical by Protestants? I didn't know this until yesterday, but the dead sea scrolls contained every book of the Bible in Hebrew, including fragments of Deuterocanonical books (except Esther, although most of that is in the Protestant Bible anyway) I may be operating under the hazy assumption that Protestants only discount the Septuagint because it has its basis in Greek instead of having its basis in Hebrew so correct me if I'm wrong. >That Sirach was originally written in Hebrew may be of some significance for the biblical canon. The book was accepted into the canon of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible by Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy but not by Judaism or Protestantism, apparently on the basis that no Hebrew original was thought to exist at the time the Jewish Canon was closed Wikipedia - Sirach I just wonder if this is a source of consternation for any Protestant groups or how/if they justify the texts with their own assumptions and scholarship into what the Jews themselves considered scripture at the time of Christ. --- I'd hope that an answer would include a scholarly refutation of the idea that the original books (at least Sirach and Tobit), being composed in Greek, lacked canonical authority for that reason and no other reason.

The Book of Moses is an extract from Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible and was originally recorded between June 1830 and March 1831 (source ). It was published serially in church newspapers and later included in the 1851 edition (and later editions) of the Pearl of Great Price (source ). The Book of Moses includes a great deal more about the Prophet Enoch than is found in today's bible (which gives us a mere 4 verses). >”And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” Genesis 5:21-24 Writers in the New Testament allude to the Books of Enoch which were evidently very important to the ancient Jews and to the early church. Though they are not canononical, the 5 books of Enoch have now been translated into English. The first was translated in 1821 and could have conceivably been sourced by Joseph Smith in his writing of the Book of Moses but the other 4 volumes either hadn't been translated or hadn't even been discovered in 1851. **How might we account, other than by the supernatural means claimed by Joseph Smith, for the parallels and points of contact between these books separated by at least couple of millenia?** 1. Mahijah. The Book of Moses says that the wicked men who opposed Enoch and his preaching sent a man named Mahijah to confront Enoch and ask him questions. Here is the text: > 39 And it came to pass when they heard him, no man laid hands on him; for fear came on all them that heard him; for he walked with God. 40 And there came a man unto him, whose name was Mahijah, and said unto him: Tell us plainly who thou art, and from whence thou comest? Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a fragment of a document speaking of Enoch which states: >” [Thereupon] all the giants [and the nephilim] took fright and they summoned Mahujah and he came to them: And the giants asked him and sent him to Enoch […] saying to him: Go then […] and under pain of death you must […] and listen to his voice; and tell him that he is to explain to you and to interpret the dreams.” Dead Sea Scrolls 4QEnGiants 1:20 2. In the Book of Moses, Enoch is shown the wickedness of mankind, and he weeps in sorrow >44 And as Enoch saw this, he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren In 2 Enoch, Enoch sees the wickedness of mankind and weeps >And I (Enoch) sighed and burst into tears, and I said concerning their disreputable depravity, Oh how miserable . 2 Enoch 41:1 3. The Book of Moses claims that Enoch foretold that God’s people would be established in “Jerusalem:” >For there shall be my tabernacle and it shall be called Zion, a new Jerusalem. Moses 7:62. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls and in a document called the Testament of Levi, it claims that Enoch prophesied that the chosen people would be called Jerusalem: >For the house which the Lord shall choose shall be called Jerusalem, as the Book of Enoch the Righteous maintains. Testament of Levi 10:4 (There's nothing amazing about Joseph Smith prophesying about Jerusalem in 1835 but to be able to accurately put those words into Enoch's mouth would be an incredible stroke of luck) 4. The Book of Moses states that Enoch possessed writings from Adam and the other patriarchs: >”And a book of remembrance was kept, in the which was recorded, in the language of Adam, for it was given unto as many as called upon God to write by the spirits of inspiration….” The chapter describes the gospel as revealed to Adam. Moses 6: 5, 51-68 2 Enoch also includes... >"For I will give you an intercessor, Enoch; Michael, on account of your handwritings and the handwritings of your fathers–Adam and Seth. They will not be destroyed until the final age. For I have commanded my angels to guard them and to command the things of time to preserve the handwritings of your fathers so that they might not perish in the impending flood." 2 Enoch 33:11-12 5. he Book of Moses claims that the animals roared and cried out during the ministry of Enoch: >”And …[Enoch] led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, … and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly. Moses 7:13 The Dead Sea Scroll fragment includes a very similar statement: >”Ohyah the enemy of Enoch) … by the strength of my power, [I had attacked] all flesh and I have made war with them . . . they live in holy abodes, and … they are more powerful than I. [Thereupon …] the roaring of the wild beasts came and the multitude of the wild animals began to cry out.” 4Q En Giants Frg 8 6. these similarities involve very unique and even strange claims about Enoch. Others include: - God shows Enoch all the people that would inhabit the earth - God shows Enoch the pre-mortal existence of mankind - God calls Enoch to preach, even though he is young and intimidated by older men. The Book of Moses calls Enoch “but a lad.” The Dead Sea Scrolls fragment refers to Enoch as a “mere youth.” - Enoch is placed upon God’s throne by God Himself - The writings of Enoch will be preserved and restored at a later time - Enoch is clothed with glory - Enoch is shown in vision the saints resurrected None of the parallels I chose came From 1 Enoch. I chose only those that were from the other four volumes, the ones completely unavailable to Joseph Smith. It doesn't matter that the Books of Enoch aren't canononical or even that they may be from a time much later than Enoch. It is sufficient that they are authentically ancient and unavailable to Joseph.