Stephen has been interviewed about the Dead Sea Scrolls (and thanks to Antonio for the tip) by CBN. Stephen is reported as saying
“[The biblical scrolls are also important] because we can hold the same scrolls in our hands that they held in their hands 2,000 years ago. And when somebody sits there with their New Testament and their Bibles in the United States and they’re listening to their favorite sermon, they can know that this Bible was based upon manuscripts that people held in their hands from 2,000 years ago.”
Antonio asks of an earlier quote- did Stephen really say this? And I have to admit that I would ask the same question here. Did Stephen really say this? For surely he above all others knows that there are no New Testament manuscripts at Qumran, as this quote seems to imply!
Reporters can blow it- and we’ve all seen them do exactly that when it comes to biblical related subjects- but no one should imagine for half a second that the New Testament is in any way included among the DSS. CBN may have a theological ax to grind here, but their apparent supposition is so obviously wrong. Stephen, would you please clarify? Or, are there in fact scrolls that demonstrate that the NT manuscripts are quite similar to those found at Qumran? [I just don't believe that- in spite of some claims that Mark is indeed found there].
UPDATE: Stephen responds thusly:
This quote is correct but, lacks the full context for that statement. And I do see how it can be easily misunderstood. I was asked by Chris Mitchell of CBN if the New Testament was found at Qumran. I replied “No”. The posited Gospel of Mark fragment from cave 7 remains unconvincing. There are manuscripts that have similar language to the New Testament (such as the so-called “Son of God text”) which confirm that parallels to certain unusual titles and statements did in fact exist. However, these are no quotes from the New Testament among the scrolls.
At least three Old Testament text traditions were discovered among the caves at Qumran. One of these is called “Proto-Masoretic”, and is understood to be the tradition that lies behind our present Hebrew Bibles, and is amazingly close from a textual standpoint.
The (Hebrew) Bible at it was widely quoted in the New Testament (aside from the Septuagint) has generally proven to be quite similar to the Proto-Masoretic line of manuscripts. In this way the New Testament itself, in most cases, was relying upon the same textual traditon that led to the text we use in our Bibles today.
This is all that was intended in the interview. Sorry, no New Testament books from the first century have been discovered so far among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Just the same we should never give up hope that some other books of the Bible might be discovered some time in the future. For example, another book of the Hebrew Bible has recently been identified, presumably from Qumran. At the time of this interview last winter, I stated that Esther, Nehemiah and 1 Chronicles were the only books of the Old Testament that were not found at Qumran, which was true at the time. (Since then Prof. Charlesworth, while attending the July Conference at the Shrine of the Book, revealed a photograph of a fragment of the book of Nehemiah, that was from a private collection).
Stephen Pfann