the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH 101
may contain some of the oldest traditions in the Gospels and even perhaps
some of the oldest sections of them. It is also conceivable, though
impossible to prove, that some of these oldest sections may be related in
some ways to an eyewitness of Jesus, perhaps an apostle, conceivably
(but probably unlikely) the apostle John himself. The extant Fourth
Gospel certainly represents more than one edition. 12
The Fourth Gospel is now judged to be Jewish. Most commentators
now study it in terms of first-century Palestinian Jewish writings, especially
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Martin Hengel, a leading specialist on
Judaism and Christian origins, rightly states, “The Qumran discoveries
are a landmark for a new assessment of the situation of the Fourth Gospel
in the history of religion.” 13 How is this possible? What has led us to such
a marked shift?
THE DATE AND PROVENIENCE OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
The discovery of Papyrus 52, preserved in Manchester’s John Rylands
Library, closed the door to the possibility that the Fourth Gospel postdates
125 C.E. 14 This fragment is not from a source utilized by the
Gospel’s author. It represents a codex of this Gospel. The fragment contains
18:31–33 and 18:37–38 and dates no later than 125 C.E. A late second-century
date for the Gospel is now impossible, since a fragment of a
book can hardly predate its composition.
It now seems safe to report that no scholar dates the Fourth Gospel
after the first decade of the second century C.E., and most experts agree
12. Marie-Émile Boismard and Arnaud Lamouille conclude that the Qumran influences
on the Gospel of John are concentrated in the third level of composition. See
their Synopse des Quatre Évangiles en Français III: L’évangile de Jean (Paris: Cerf, 1977).
13. Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM, 1989), 111; idem, Die
johanneische Frage (WUNT 67; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 281–84, where
Hengel holds that “die Qumranfunde einen Markstein für die religionsgeschichtliche
Einordnung des 4. Evangeliums darstellen” (282). Note also C. K. Barrett, who contends
that “two circumstances have led to a strong reiteration of the Jewish background
and origin of the gospel: on the one hand, the criticism, directed against
Bultmann and those who follow him, concerning the relative lateness of the comparative
material used to establish a Gnostic background of John; on the other, and more
important, the discovery of the Qumran scrolls.” See Charles K. Barrett, The Gospel of
John and Judaism (trans. D. M. Smith; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 7–8.
14. Cf. Kurt Aland, “Der Text des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert,” in
Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments (ed. W. Schrage; Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1986), 1–10. See now esp. Brent Nongbri, “The Use and Abuse of P 52 :
Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” HTR 98 (2005): 23–48.