I'm not GreekTim but these are actually good questions...which is rare...
didn't the Dead sea Scrolls "confirm/prove" that the OT has we have it preserved for us what essentially same as the original OT books wriiten under inspiration of God?
Not necessarily. For some reason there are a bunch of textual tradition fables going on around about the nature of some of the documents from Qumran. Many of them are overinflatations of reality.
What is helpful in Qumran (or the DSS) is the nature of fidelity in
some of the documents uncovered in the caves...but not all. While you can go up to the Isaiah scroll (1QIsa) and (if you are so equipped) read a very well transmitted later 2nd century BC/E document there are problems in underlying aspects of the text and within many of the other texts.
What is difficult is that so many of the other documents are fraught with textual issues and a unique exegetical method which is extremely confusing for the uninformed lay person. Also the eschatological/apocalyptic nature of the Qumranic community can bring in a lot of baggage for someone immersed in modern literary beliefs that are applied to the biblical text. This is dangerous.
So Qumran (DSS) is a mixed bag. It is infinitely helpful in understanding Second Temple Judaistic midrash and textual studies...but has many more areas of difficulty for some evangelicals than it is helpful. See below.
JesusFan said:
As they were MUCH closer to datingof the first copies than what had available until that time?
The discoveries at Qumran are HUGE for biblical studies. This is true but just because they are, largely 3-1 century BC/E documents doesn't make them more authoritative and it still acknowledges that they aren't extant. Be careful how you apply, again, a modern literary critical mindset to these.
JesusFan said:
In same fashion..
IF earliest copies validate thatour establish NT text was essentially same as original manuscripts, that jesus was who he said and calimed to be...
Again, how would that help prove Bart E case for unreliability o fthe biblical text?
Well the thing with the Markan fragment under discussion is that we need to authenticate it and we need to understand it in light of its alleged context.
Dr. Ehrman's issue with the NT is so ridiculous it is barely reasonable. He's asking for .0001% accuracy to the extant document that clearly isn't available. His standard is so high, and so hypocritical scholastically, that one can never know anything about any document from before 250 years ago. At that rate he'd probably suggest the Constitution (which is, in one form, on display at the National Archives) is not necessarily credible.
I understand, sort of, Jonathan.Borland's points and am sympathetic. However exciting the possibility of a first century Markan fragment is, we need to properly understand it and examine it. Just because it is from the first century (and still not extant) doesn't inherently make it better. (and I'm a Critical Text guy!) We need to see it validity, authenticity, and viability for proper placement. There is, potentially, a lot of damage which can still be done.
