• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If the Bible was first discovered in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea...

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
.... then what exactly did the medieval Catholic Church have , and how in the world did they get the Bible if nobody hadn't discovered the Bible yet?

Also why isn't the first discovery of the Bible attributed to the Catholic Church but instead later on in the 1940s when the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
.... then what exactly did the medieval Catholic Church have , and how in the world did they get the Bible if nobody hadn't discovered the Bible yet?

Also why isn't the first discovery of the Bible attributed to the Catholic Church but instead later on in the 1940s when the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered?

There was no "Bible" in the caves at Qumran.. There were scrolls and fragments of scrolls.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
We have the Old and New Testaments handed down to us.
The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS are long lost.
They were copied over and over.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are just much older copies of these.
And remarkably, people took a lot of care with ensuring they
were faithful to the previous documents.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
We have the Old and New Testaments handed down to us.
The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS are long lost.
They were copied over and over.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are just much older copies of these.
And remarkably, people took a lot of care with ensuring they
were faithful to the previous documents.
So the Catholics actually had the original Bible.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
So the Catholics actually had the original Bible.

Like most things - it's complicated.
The "Catholics" became the dominant Christian group in the
2nd and 3rd Century AD.
The earliest "Catholic" I can figure out was actually in the
New Testament was Diotrephes, the pagan-convert who stood
up to the Apostle John. He is probably the Diotrephes mentioned
in the list of Roman Catholic Bishops as the name was quite
rare.
If so then he had the New Testament (just copies of letters, some
Gospels etc..) as his starting point. He didn't invent these, nor did
those who formed the Catholic church. By the time the bible as we
know it was assembled there was widespread agreement on what
is and what is not authentic documents.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Like most things - it's complicated.
The "Catholics" became the dominant Christian group in the
2nd and 3rd Century AD.
The earliest "Catholic" I can figure out was actually in the
New Testament was Diotrephes, the pagan-convert who stood
up to the Apostle John. He is probably the Diotrephes mentioned
in the list of Roman Catholic Bishops as the name was quite
rare.
If so then he had the New Testament (just copies of letters, some
Gospels etc..) as his starting point. He didn't invent these, nor did
those who formed the Catholic church. By the time the bible as we
know it was assembled there was widespread agreement on what
is and what is not authentic documents.


christian idolatry became a tool of oppression when constantine made it the official religion of the roman empire.


Historians now debate whether "the first Christian emperor" was a Christian at all. Some think him an unprincipled power seeker. What religion he had, many argue, was at best a blend of paganism and Christianity for purely political purposes.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member

Speaks of the whore which sits on seven hills in Revelation.
I am sure the Catholics, if they wanted to edit the bible, would
have removed that verse.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So the Catholics actually had the original Bible.

No, of course not. We have the Hebrew Old Testament and the New Testament that evolved in a period between about 700 BCE to 400 AD. As far as the NT the Church Fathers compiled, edited and redacted the books of the NT from different sources, before the Roman Church (RCC).

The Old Testament evolved in this period pretty much among the Jewish Priesthood by either the 'Supplementary Hypothesis.' Documentary Hypothesis' over a period of time.

I like the following ideas:

From: The Making of the Pentateuch - Wikipedia

According to Whybray:

"Rendtorff has merely replaced the comparatively simple Documentary Hypothesis which postulated only a small number of written sources and redactors with a bewildering multiplicity of sources and redactors" (p. 21), while Blum's approach was, if anything, more complex and more dogmatic – not to mention less demonstrable – than Rendtorff's."

"Whybray's own, alternative hypothesis, is based not on the documentary model but on a fragmentary model. He suggests that the Pentateuch was the product of a single author (not the four authors and multiple editors of the documentary hypothesis) working at some time in the 6th century BC "[with] a mass of material, most of which may have been of quite recent origin and had not necessarily formed part of any ancient Israelite tradition" (p. 242). Whybray saw this author as a national historian, aware of contemporary Greek history and writing in conscious imitation of Greek models, with the aim of extending the existing Deuteronomic history backwards in time to create a national history of the Israelites from the creation of the world."

The Dead Sea scrolls just contain parts of the texts at the time. Based on the evidence large numbers of texts were destroyed in the various wars at the particularly centered around Jewish rebellion. Earlier texts than this are at present unknown.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
So the Catholics actually had the original Bible.

They are the ones that decided which books went into what we now know as the Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls are actually a collection of writings, some of which are canonical (accepted by church authorities) and others are not. But since they were written very early and not recopied (like most of the Bibles and most ancients texts we have), they form a clearer picture of the thoughts of some Christians at one particular point in time.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
.... then what exactly did the medieval Catholic Church have , and how in the world did they get the Bible if nobody hadn't discovered the Bible yet?

Also why isn't the first discovery of the Bible attributed to the Catholic Church but instead later on in the 1940s when the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered?

The Bible was not 'first discovered in the Qumran case' that were fragments of copies of the day.

There was 1) the Jewish Massorettic text 2) the greek Spetuagint and various other things like 3) the Samaritan Pentateuch all far far far predating Qumran

Nobody discovered the bible yet was just not true
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Such a bull**** OP. "...how in the world did they get the Bible if nobody hadn't discovered the Bible yet?" If nobody hadn't? Double negative. The second sentence sounds written to be misunderstood. The run on sentence doesn't even make sense.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
...working at some time in the 6th century BC "[with] a mass of material, most of which may have been of quite recent origin and had not necessarily formed part of any ancient Israelite tradition"... this author as a national historian, aware of contemporary Greek history and writing in conscious imitation of Greek models, with the aim of extending the existing Deuteronomic history backwards in time to create a national history of the Israelites from the creation of the world."

Bit like having it both ways. This author copies Greek history (!) but at the same time
might have had access to "ancient Israelite tradition."
Trouble is Israel stopping writing the bible after Babylon. And some Psalms and Deut'
show evidence of extinct Ugaritic translations. The mythical House of David has come
to light, so too other prophets, kings, cities and culture long lost to the post Babylonian
scribes.
I am happy with David writing the Psalms ascribed to him. I am to believe Solomon
compiled the wisdom literature. Why not? They were smart people, educated, literate,
wealthy and lived in a world some modern scribes never existed.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Bit like having it both ways. This author copies Greek history (!) but at the same time
might have had access to "ancient Israelite tradition."

Not clear what "ancient Israelite tradition" is. There were sources of known text available among the Hebrews, and among the early Hebrew Christians.

Trouble is Israel stopping writing the bible after Babylon. And some Psalms and Deut'
show evidence of extinct Ugaritic translations.

Actually, the Israelite literature was most likely compiled and written from various traditional sources beginning from about ~800-700 BCE, and yes parts of the Pslams, Deuteronomy and parts of Genesis originate from Ugaritic, Canaanite, and also Babylonian texts,

The mythical House of David has come to light, so too other prophets, kings, cities and culture long lost to the post Babylonian scribes.

Sort of OK, but needs more clarification.

I am happy with David writing the Psalms ascribed to him. I am to believe Solomon
compiled the wisdom literature. Why not?
.

Lots of reasons why not. First, no known texts from that period. Second the Psalms appear to a compilation from various sources such as Ugarit and Canaanite, and edited to include later additions. Third, by the evidence the extent, power, and sophistication of the House of David is exaggerated in the OT text..

They were smart people, educated, literate, wealthy and lived in a world some modern scribes never existed

Also needs clarification, because the mythical House of David is without documentation as you describe. By the evidence it likely existed, but on a much smaller scale than it is grandiously described.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The Bible was not 'first discovered in the Qumran case' that were fragments of copies of the day.

There was 1) the Jewish Massorettic text 2) the greek Spetuagint and various other things like 3) the Samaritan Pentateuch all far far far predating Qumran

We have absolutely no evidence any of the these texts predated the Qumran texts. If you have references to older known texts, please cite them.

It is referenced that older texts existed in the 'Second Temple Period,' but destroyed by the Romans, and the Dead Sea scrolls may be copies of a portion of these texts, but there is no objective evidence of earlier texts as we have today. I believe that the Pentateuch was edited, compiled, and redacted from different sources as possibly earlier about 700 BCE when the text of the Tanakh likely became the Jewish canon.
 
Last edited:
.... then what exactly did the medieval Catholic Church have , and how in the world did they get the Bible if nobody hadn't discovered the Bible yet?

Also why isn't the first discovery of the Bible attributed to the Catholic Church but instead later on in the 1940s when the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered?

If humans descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Maybe. But the Dead Sea Scrolls certainly were the central theme when people talk about its original discovery.

The “Original” Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls - Biblical Archaeology Society

The two manuscripts mentioned in the link hardly sound Catholic, which leads me to ask who first discovered the Bible.
It has been passed on and transmitted since the 300s IIRC. The reason the Dead Sea Scrolls are important is because they give us insight into how it was originally, before 2000 years of transmission and interpretation.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
If humans descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

No-one ever said human descended from monkeys.
Humans come from a line of hominins.
There are no monkeys in this image.

fadfa.jpg
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
So the Catholics actually had the original Bible.


The original was a compilation of selected sections of the Tanakh to make the OT and various fragments and stories about Jesus to make the NT. It was not compiled until late in the 300s, the catholic bible was not compiled until around 80 years later.

There is no complete original to compare with, so the catholic book, although the earliest complete bible, may or may not be accurate to the original.
 
Top