Jesuit Priest José O’Callaghan shocked the scholarly world in March 1972 when he announced that he had identified fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls as portions of the New Testament dating to A.D. 50. (See BIBLE AND SPADE, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 35-42).
As with most new theories, the initial reaction from most scholars was one of criticism and rejection. This editor, however, has not seen any scholarly analysis which refutes Dr. O’Callaghan’s theory — only unsupported public statements. On the other hand, Dr. William White, an expert in linguistics, supports O’Callaghan’s identifications — not with off-the-cuff statements — but by academic investigation!
The following is taken from Dr. White’s latest article in The Westminister Theological Journal.
“Eternity Magazine was able to acquire a full set of original photographs of the fragments taken by Time Magazine photographer, David Rubinger, in Jerusalem. These proved to be a good four to five magnitudes better than the printed version [published in 1962]. Close examination of these prints, which show the fragments several times their original size, supported the original readings of O’Callaghan. Thus a secondary and exceedingly precise reassessment of the whole identification has been accomplished. In addition, exact stichometries [lengths of the lines of text] have been worked out and some advanced topological methods have been employed for possibly the first time on ancient papyri. The Westminister Theological Journal will report on this effort in the near future.
“These preliminary studies have pointed to confirmation of Dr. O’Callaghan’s identifications. But there are many other considerations which lend support to those identifications. Support is in fact given by at least ten important lines of evidence.”
Dr. White then goes on to list ten rather technical arguments, mainly linguistic, which support Dr. O’Callaghan’s work. Following
BSP 2:1 (Winter 1973) p. 16
this is a discussion of the consequences of the identifications. This section is perhaps a little “heavy” for the reader not versed in theology, but we are including it here in the belief that most laymen can grasp the significance of Dr. White’s comments.
“The textual implications are clear enough; we now have the oldest fragment of the New Testament yet uncovered and decisive evidence of the circulation of a number of New Testament books at an earlier date than had been assumed by many scholars. The theological implications are as yet quite unclear. However, it must be remembered that the theological and higher critical trends are normally a generation or so behind the growing-edge of scientific archaeology and as much as a half-century behind the more sophisticated, and thus more difficult to assimilate, progress in philology [study of written records] and linguistics.
“All modern theological schools must deal with the problem of the authority and the hermeneutics [interpretation] of the New Testament, and most have propounded complex views of these two areas of concern. The overwhelming tendency has been to follow the communal certainty of the negative higher critical schools and the elaborate Neo-hegelian reconstructions of apostolic history. When such commitments were made to the ‘assured results’ of such critical views of the text, the theology was only as secure as the results which it presupposed. Barth, Bultmann, Niebuhr, Tillich, and a whole host of lesser luminaries followed this method. If the O’Callaghan identification takes root in the consciousness of the majority of younger scholars, then contemporary theology will need extensive restoration at its foundation. The alternatives left open by the identifications are really only about four in number.
“A. To simply ignore the identification, further detaching theology from the Bible and making the former a behavioral function with psychosomatic and sociological aspects, and the latter the domain of antiquarians and independent lower critical scholars of a secularistic bent.
“B. To attempt to fit the fragments into one of the many categories and layers of dialectic force posited by reconstructions of apostolic history. Thus we might expect the 7Q5 fragment to be assigned to an “Urmarkus”, and to a “Timothean community.”
“C. To deny either the identification or the dating of the fragments.
“D. To face the overwhelming force of the evidence, consign the results of antique higher critical theory to the sepulchre of history
BSP 2:1 (Winter 1973) p. 17
and revamp the system in the light of a new sense of the veracity of the New Testament documents. Newspaper quotations and letters solicited by Eternity Magazine on the basis of their extensive coverage of the identification have reflected all four of these stances.
“It is necessary to make some comment upon the probability and potential success of each of these options in turn.
“The flat refusal to deal with the question [A] will be at first the most popular out until there is a clear consensus put forth by the more daring thinkers. This is what McLuhan has called a ‘numb’ and it always follows a scholastic trauma to one’s pet theories. However, over a period of time it will be sufficiently unsatisfying to force one of the other options to take precedence.
“Fitting the texts in [B] will provide two positive benefits; it will allow the system of liberal theological thought to absorb the whole distressing affair, and it will furnish endless thesis topics for future graduate students. However, it will no longer allow the needed period of time after the death of the principal figures who appear in the New Testament necessary for the dialectic of saga, myth, and redaction [revision] to take place. In the end by the time of the next generation of scholars the attempt will falter and fail.
“Refuting the identifications [C] would be foolhardy unless one assumes a temporary relaxation of all the laws of probability and the necessary hiatus [break] in the flow of statistics. Arguing over the dates is, however, another matter. All such dates are at the very best bracketed; one must assume that scribes who learned their trade in youth retained their style in old age, and other such phenomena. But here the liberals will run head on into the interests of Jewish scholars who have contended mightily against the onslaughts of Dr. Solomon Zeitlin and others who demanded hard proof for the dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Although the finds from Cave 7 are different, the methodologies of dating by internal evidence are the same. Any admission of dating uncertainty beyond the brackets set up by C. H. Roberts and contemporary Israeli scholars could bring the Dead Sea Scrolls under fire again. This the tremendously able Israeli scroll experts will resist with decisive force. There is also the very high probability that as more archaeological finds come to earth from southern Israel, more and better fragments may turn up to further settle the problems of dating.
“Altering course in midstream [D] is painful for any advocate of a position, it is heresy for a theologian. The liberal structure has its
BSP 2:1 (Winter 1973) p. 18
dogmas and doctrines just as much as any other, the Reformed and the Roman Catholic included. The possibility that this positive step will be taken by a great many present followers of the classic negative higher critical position is slight in the extreme. The more likely is it that the two-hundred year reign of Post-kantian theorizing on the New Testament is now waning, as must all of history’s movements.”
(The Westminister Theological Journal, Vol. XXXV, Fall 1972, No. 1)
“He says he’s not going anywhere until he gets his ‘BIBLE AND SPADE’ Magazine!”
BSP 2:1 (Winter 1973) p. 19