Welcome to Summit Theological Seminary
"Teaching God's Word to God's World"
2766 Airport Road, Peru, Indiana 46970, (765) 472-4111
The Gospel Of Mark And The Qumran Caves
J.L. McKinley
In
1972 Spanish papyrologist Jose O’Callahan made an astounding discovery. This
discovery was so significant that it made headlines around the world. Among
Greek fragments that were discovered in 1955 among the Qumran caves were
possible fragments of the Gospel of Mark. The New York Times reported that if
"O’Callahan’s theory is accepted it would prove that at least one of
the gospels was written only a few years after the death of Jesus." The
Chicago Tribune acknowledged that the discovery would revolutionize
"biblical research." UPI noted that these findings indicate that
"the people closest to the events–Jesus’ original followers–found
Mark’s report accurate and trustworthy, not myth but true history" (The
First New Testament; D Estrada, W. White; pp. 23-24).
The
first of the several New Testament texts to be identified was called 7Q5. This
fragment is believed to contain Mark
6:52-53. The size of the fragment is 3.9 cm high and 2.7 cm wide. The
document contains 20 letters, partly fragmentary, covering five lines. Like the
other fragments found on cave 7, it was written in Greek only on one side,
indicating that it was at one time a part of a scroll.
It is agreed that the Qumran caves were abandoned in AD 68 when the Roman Tenth Legion over ran the area. Thus, all the finds connected with the caves automatically pre-date AD 68. In 1962 C. H. Roberts analyzed the fragments using paleographical dating. This method for determining dates is carried out by comparing unknown fragments with the characteristics of known dated documents. By studying the style of writing the experts can determine whether the style represents a certain time frame. The unbiased verdict of C. H. Roberts was that it should be dated between 50 BC – AD 50. This determination was unbiased because the texts had not yet been identified.
Up
until O’Callahans announcement the oldest papyri fragment was the P 52 at John
Rylands University Library. This fragment which was discovered in Egypt contains
a small portion of the Gospel of John
(18:31-33, 37-38). It too was analyzed by C. H. Roberts, who placed
it as being written within the first quarter of the second century.
O’Callahan’s
curiosity was peaked by four letters–nnes–in line four. Immediately he
thought of the word Gennesaret, but the one reference in the LXX did not match
with the surrounding words in the 7Q5 fragment. He then turned to the New
Testament and discovered that not only did one passage have ‘Ge[nnes]aret,’
but it also fitted all the other characteristics of the 7Q5 fragment. It’s
important to note that since that initial discovery, O’Callahan had identified
other New Testament texts among the Qumran fragments from James,
I Timothy, Acts, Romans
and II Peter.
The
best work available concerning the technical and historical aspects of this
discovery can be found in a book by C. P. Thiede called The Earliest Gospel
Manuscript.
Consequences
Many
have not heard of this discovery because the standard commentaries mostly used
today pre-date O’Callahans announcement. Such being the case, their
introductions do not contain this new information. However, many in religious
circles have given this discovery the cold shoulder. If it is accepted as true,
it causes many of the theories concerning the Synoptic Problem to become
suspicious. Methods of Criticism claiming the Gospels originated from anonymous
authors using early sources rather than eyewitnesses are no longer
‘assured.’ With evidence of a Gospel written as early as AD 50 liberal
theology and skeptical agendas are shattered! Statements from atheists like G.
A. Wells who affirms "Mark’s Gospel...was written outside Palestine, not
earlier than AD 70, quite possibly sometime later," are destroyed (The
Jesus Myth; pp. 129).
Such
an early date provides a safeguard against arguments that the Gospels are full
of embellishments and legends. The presence of the apostles and eyewitnesses
would have prevented any falsification in the written documents. Even the
apostles themselves warned against perverting the Gospel message. The existence
of the Jewish Sanhedrin was also a powerful force in preventing embellishments
for apologetical purposes. This is why skeptics wish to date the Gospels after
the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Without the presence of the Sanhedrin in
Jerusalem, the Christians would have been free to embellish without being
hindered by the facts. We should expect that early Christian documents found
their way into the hands of the Jewish high council. In fact, the large amount
of manuscripts we possess today of New Testament writings compared to other
ancient literature reveals that the Christian community was eager to copy and
distribute as many copies as possible. The more copies in circulation would have
raised the chances of copies being acquired by the enemies of the Church. Had
the Jewish leaders been able to find a single falsehood they would have used it
to bring discredit upon the preaching of the apostles. Since none was detected
at the time when witnesses were present, we should not accept the conclusions of
rationalists 2000 years removed from the event.
The
power of the New Testament not only resides in the fact that it is the inspired
word of God, but also in the fact that, unlike other so-called holy books
(Koran, Book of Mormon, etc), it can be shown to be trustworthy from a purely
historical investigation. Indeed, the events contained in the Gospels were not
done in a corner (Acts 26:26).