From Michael J. Bumbulis
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Mark Was Probably Written around AD 50
Date: Tue Feb 18 23:34:00 EST 1997
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Message-Id: 5edvro$re3@geneva.rutgers.edu
Mark Was Composed Long Before A.D. 70
by Michael Bumbulis, 1997
In the past, I have argued that the best evidence to date points to a
pre-70 date for the synoptic Gospels. In making this argument, I drew
primarily from the internal evidence that is present within Acts.
Now, I would like to offer independent evidence that corroborates such
an early date for the synoptics.
Such evidence comes from the field of papyrology which is the study of
ancient manuscript evidence on papyrus. Papyrologists study the
contents and writing styles of ancient manuscripts, including fragments
that might be no larger that the size of a typical commemorative
postage stamp. While such a study is not an exact science, papyrology is
akin to a specialized field in archaeology. It is one of the primary methods
by which an unknown manuscript fragment is identified and dated. For
example, papyrology was used to date the Johannine codex P66 to ca.
125 A.D. [1] Papyrology has also been extensively used to date the Dead
Sea Scrolls, and the dates arrived at have been largely supported by
radio-carbon dating [2].
In 1972, Spanish papyrologist Jose O'Callaghan (who is also editor of the
Palau-Ribes papyrus collection) made an identification of the small
manuscript fragment that shocked the academic world. The fragment in
question is called 7Q5 and was found in Cave 7 among the Qumran
caves. Cave 7 is very interesting in that the manuscripts found in this
cave are all written exclusively in Greek. Furthermore, archaeological
evidence exists so that there is a consensus among scholars that this
cave was closed in A.D. 68. [3] Thus, anything found in this cave would
unlikely to be dated later than this time. Yet in the case of 7Q5, a date
of A.D. 68 would represent an upper-limit, as the text is written in the
Herodian "decorated" script which dates between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50.
But what manuscript is represented by 7Q5? At first glance, making an
identification is no simple task. This fragment contains only 20 Greek
consonants (whole or damaged) on five lines. The fragment itself is also
very small, about 4 cm. X 3 cm. Furthermore, only one complete word
can be read - the word kai (which means "and"). While these facts
might seem to suggest that any attempt to identify this fragment is
futile, it is not uncommon for papyrologists to identify fragments (from
Virgil, for example) with evidence of this type.
To see how this works, consider a simplified example. Let's say I wrote
the following sentences on a piece of paper, copied it several times, and
then deposited one copy in a cave.
The Original:
The boy ran to the store. When he got to the
store, he found that it was closed. Then he ran
home.
Now, let's imagine a few hundred years go by such that some of the
writing flakes off the paper. As a result, my sentences now look like
this:
After Time:
b the
a lose en
m
Let's further imagine that someone in the future discovers this flawed
fragment and wants to identify it. If they possess copies of my original
sentence that have been passed on through the years, the task would
not be hard. They might start with the four letters that spell 'lose' and
search a database that contains, among many other writings, a copy of
my original sentence. Of course, the database-search would also detect
all writings with the letters l,o,s,e in sequence in addition to my original
sentence. The next step would be to start measuring the distance
between letters and find which of these selected writings also has an "a"
a specific distance before "lose" and an "en" a specific distance after
"lose." My original sentence would probably be the only one detected
and the identity of the fragment would be discovered. One could verify
this claim by making more distance measurements and considering the
line-placement of all the other letters. If they all "fit," a conclusive
identification has been made. Then, one could draw upon archaeological
considerations (concerning the place where the fragment was found)
and a comparative analysis of writing styles of various documents to
arrive at a date for this fragment.
Again, papyrology is not an exact science (especially when it comes to
dating), nevertheless, it reminds me of a common method employed by
molecular biologists. Molecular biologists often work with gene
fragments and the genes are represented as a linear sequence of
molecules known as nucleotides (which are represented by the letters G,
T, A, and C). A partial sequence of an unknown gene can be used to
search a database of other genes and the same logic employed by
papyrologists is used to determine if the unknown gene belongs to a
class of known genes from other organisms. Put simply, a molecular
biologist will tend to have great sympathy for the approach of the
papyrologist.
When this approach was applied to 7Q5, a revolutionary finding was
uncovered. One of the five lines contains a rare combination of letters:
n/n/e/s.[4] When this combination was used, along with the other
known letters and their spacing and line-placement, to search an
extensive database of Greek literature (including the Septuagint), the
only good match was found from Mark 6:52-53 (where the n/n/e/s
would correspond to Gennesaret)! The match was further strengthened
by the larger than usual space that occurs before the only complete
word on 7Q5, kai (translated as "and"). Such spaces were often used by
ancient scribes to indicate a new "paragraph" or break in the narrative,
and sure enough, Mark 6:53 begins with "And." Furthermore, 7Q5 also
preserves the last letter of the last word before this space, an eta. Mark
6:52 ends with this same letter. As if this wasn't enough, the Greek
letter "n" was identified in line two following the letters "t/o". This
matches nicely with the Greek word "auton" (meaning "their") in verse
52 [5].
Given the revolutionary nature of this identification, it is not surprising
that many New Testament scholars have raised objections and very few
have agreed with the identification.. However, papyrologist Carsten
Theide has marshalled some very powerful replies to these
objections[6]. Since it is beyond the scope of this article to get
bogged down in the details of this technical debate*, I will simply point
out that the list of papyrologists who agree with the identification of
7Q5 as Mark 6:52-53 is growing. Apart from Thiede, who has
championed this identification, the list includes Sergio Davis, honorary
president of the International Papyrologist's Association and Orsolina
Montevechhi, author of the standard introductory manual to
papyrology[7]. Furthermore, Shemaryahu Talmon, one of the Jewish
members of the editorial board of the Qumran scrolls also supports this
identification.[8]
All of this means that we do indeed possess independent evidence that
corroborates a pre-60s date for the synoptic Gospels as indicated by my
earlier analysis of Acts. This is significant as it clearly shows the belief
in Jesus' resurrection cannot date after A.D. 60-65 and thus dates to a
time when most of Jesus' contemporaries were still alive. In fact, since
it is unlikely that the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke invented the
resurrection claims, but instead were more likely to have incorporated
older oral traditions into their Gospels, the resurrection belief is pushed
back much earlier Any skeptical theory that depends on a late date for
the resurrection belief is thus severely damaged.
*I am willing to debate the technical details with those who
deny 7Q5 is a fragment from Mark.
--
Ours is one nation, increasingly divisible, with excuses and
victimhood for all. - Columnist Dick Feagler
Answering Islam Home Page