Return to Contents
Darrow, Clarence. Clarence Darrow (1857-1938) was a well-known attorney practicing criminal law in the early twentieth century. He is best known for his defense of a man who was charged with teaching evolution (see Evolution, Biological) in public schools. Through the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee (1925), Darrow was able to champion his own strongly held views as an evolutionist and agnostic (see Agnosticism). The Christian statesman William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925) represented the state and died a few days after the verdict.
Sources
C. Darrow, The Story of My Life.
N. L. Geisler, The Creator in the Courtroom.
---, "Was Clarence Darrow a Bigot?”
N. L. Geisler and J. Kerby, Origin Science, chaps. 6-7.
W. Hilleary and W. Metzger, The World's Most Famous Court Trial.
T. Mclver, "Creationist Misquotations of Darrow.”
I. Newton, "General Scholium.”
Darwin, Charles. Charles Robert Darwin (1809-82) was born in Shrewsbury, England, the son of a physician. As a naturalist, he won sponsors and government backing for an expedition on the military sailing ship HMS Beagle, where he made his famous observations on the differences in finches. Later he used what he had learned on this ship as evidence for his theory of evolution (see Creation, Views of; Evolution; Evolution, Biological; Evolution, Chemical; Missing Links, Evolutionary).
Darwin is most famous for his On the Origin of Species (1859), in which he suggested in the last lines of the first edition that “whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,” therein, “life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed [by the Creator] into a few forms or into one . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” The bracketed phrase was added in the second edition of Origin. Not until his later work, The Descent of Man (1871), did Darwin proclaim that humans too had evolved by natural processes from lower forms of life. This view caused a revolution in the sciences, the reverberations of which are still being felt.
It was a turning point in modern thought because, in the minds of many, Darwin gave the first plausible explanation of how evolution could have occurred. By applying the principle of natural selection (the survival of the fittest) to variations within populations, Darwin was able to argue persuasively that over long periods of time small changes added up to large ones. These large changes can account for the origin of new species without the direct intervention of a supernatural Power, except perhaps to get the whole process going.
Evolution of Darwin’s View of God. Darwin began as a Christian theist, was baptized in the
Church of England, and despite his rejection of Christianity, was buried in Westminster Abbey. Darwin’s life is a microcosmof the increasing disbelief of the late nineteenth century.
Although an Anglican, Darwin was sent to a school conducted by a Unitarian minister (Moore, 315). He later entered the University of Cambridge in 1828, where, his father had decided, he should prepare for the ministry (ibid.). At this early age, and with the aid of Pearson’s Exposition of the Creed and Bishop Sumner’s Evidence of Christianity Derivedfrom Its Nature and Reception (1824), “Darwin abandoned whatever were his scruples about professing belief in all the doctrines of the Church” (ibid.). Nonetheless, Darwin was deeply impressed with William *Pal ey’s View of the Evidences of Christianity (1794) and Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1802).
Darwin ,s Original Theistic Beliefs. He accepted Paley’s design argument (see Teleological Argument). In his Autobiography, he referred to his journal entry “that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and evolution which fill and elevate the mind.’” He adds, “I remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body” (Darwin, Autobiography, 91).
Darwin recognized “the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backward and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.” Thus, “when reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Darwin acknowledged that he once had been a creationist. He even spoke of it as a view “which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained” (Darwin, Autobiography, 30). “This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually become weaker” (Darwin, Autobiography, 92-93).
Darwin ,s Rejection of Christianity. By 1835, before Darwin set sail on the Beagle (in 1836), he was yet a creationist. Darwin describes his own religious descent in his Autobiography. He wrote, “Whilst on board the Beagle [October 1836-January 1839] I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.” However, he did not believe the Bible was an unanswerable authority on science at this time. According to Ernst Mayr, Darwin had become an evolutionist some time between 1835 and 1837 (Mayr, x). “By 1844, his views [on evolution] had reached considerable maturity, as shown by his manuscript ‘Essay’” (ibid.). Darwin’s son and biographer, Francis Darwin, said that “although Darwin had nearly all the key ideas of the Origin in mind as early as 1838, he deliberated for twenty years before committing himself publicly to evolution” (F. Darwin, 3.18). Only a decade later (1848) Darwin was fully convinced of evolution, defiantly declaring to J. D. Hooker, “I don’t care what you say, my species theory is all gospel”
(cited in Moore, 211).
Darwin’s declining Christian beliefs began with an erosion of the trustworthiness of the Bible. As late as 1848 he read Andrew Norton’s Evidence of the Genuineness of the Gospels, which argued that the Gospels “remain essentially the same as they were originally composed” and that “they have been ascribed to their true authors” (ibid., 212). However, his faith in the Old Testament had eroded some years before this (see Bible Criticism).
The acceptance of negative higher criticism. But “I had gradually come, by this time to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with its Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attribution to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian” (Darwin, Autobiography, 85).
The acceptance of antisupernaturalism. Both Benedict *Spinoza in 1670 and David *Hume a century later had attacked the basis of supernatural intervention in the world. Darwin added, “By further reflection that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in miracles by which Christianity is supported—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become—that the men of that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses—by such reflections as these ... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation” (ibid., 86).
Nonetheless, Darwin added, “I was very unwilling to give up my belief. . . . Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct” (ibid., 87).
The “damnable doctrine ” of *hell. Darwin notes that the orthodox belief in hell was a particular influence in his rejection of Christianity. He wrote, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine” (ibid., 87).
The death of Darwin ,s daughter. Darwin’s increased skepticism was completed by the death of his beloved daughter, Anne, in 1851. Biographer James Moore notes that “two strong emotions, anger and grief, in the Autobiography mark off the years from 1848 to 1851 as the period when Darwin finally renounced his faith” (Moore, 209). This, of course, was just after his view of evolutionhad solidified (1844-48) and before he wrote his famous Origins (1859).
Although Darwin’s heirs suppressed the effect this death had on Darwin, his own words betray its impact (see Moore, 220-23). In light of the doctrine of eternal punishment, Darwin could see no reconciliation between the life of a perfect child and a vengeful God (ibid., 220). Referring to himself as a “horrid wretch,” one of the condemned, in May 1856, he warned a young entomologist, “I have heard Unitarianism called a feather-bed to catch a falling Christian; & I think you are now on just such a feather bed, but I believe you will fall much lower & lower” (cited in Moore, 221). A month later, Darwin referred to himself as “the Devil’s Chaplain,” a satirical figure of speech of a confirmed unbeliever (ibid., 222; see Evil, Problem of).
Darwin9s Descent. Darwin gradually discarded *theism for *deism, rejecting the single act of divine intervention for the creation of the first form or forms of life. This was apparently his view at the time of On the Origin of Species (1859), where in the second edition he spoke of “life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. . . . From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved” (emphasis added).
Paley ,s Design Argument Rejected. Although Darwin clung to a deistic God who created the world but let it operate by “fixed natural laws,” gradually he came to reject even the cogency of the design argument. He said he was “driven” to the conclusion that “the old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. . . . There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws” (Moore, 87). Darwin wrote, “I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance” (F. Darwin, 1.279; 2.105).
With chance as his only continuing faith, the naturalist ventured so far as to call natural selection “my deity,” for to believe in miraculous creations or in the “continued intervention of creative power,” said Darwin, “is to make ‘my deity “Natural Selection” superfluous’ and to hold the Deity— if such there be—accountable for phenomena which are rightly attributed only to his magnificent laws” (cited in Moore, 322). Here Darwin not only stated his deism but also signaled his growing agnosticism by the phrase “if such there be.”
Finite Godism? Darwin seemed in the later stages of his deism to flirt with a finite god (see Finite Godism), like that John Stuart *Mill had embraced. As early as 1871, in The Descent, Darwin appeared to deny belief in an infinitely powerful God. He wrote, “Belief in God—Religion. There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God” {Descent, 302). Here he hints at finite godism If so, it was short-lived; Darwin eventually became an agnostic (see Agnosticism).
Agnosticism. By 1879, Darwin was an agnostic, writing, “I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind” (cited in Moore, 204). Eventually, he wrote, “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic” (Darwin,
Autobiography, 84).
His agnosticism notwithstanding, Darwin clearly denies ever being an atheist. He said, “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in denying the existence of God” (cited in Moore, 204). Historians reject the apocryphal story of Darwin’s deathbed conversion.
As late as 1879, many years after The Descent (1871), Darwin declared, “ft seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist” (Letter 7, May 1879). Darwin himself was content to remain an agnostic.
Evaluation. In contrast to the dogmatism of many contemporary evolutionists who claim “evolution is a fact,” Darwin was more reserved, at least in his published writings.
Positive Aspects of Darwin ,s Views. Darwin should be commended for being generally careful not to overstate his case. Certainly, this is the case in On the Origin of Species.
Evolution is only a theory. Darwin acknowledged that his view was a theory, not a fact. He called it the “theory of evolution” as opposed to the “theory of creation,” phrases he used many times in On the Origin of Species (e.g., 235, 435, 437). Technically, macroevolution is more an unconfirmed hypothesis than a theory (see Evolution, Biological). Many, including some evolutionists, believe it is an unfalsifiable tautology. Robert H. Peters, in The American Naturalist, stated that evolutionary theories “are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirical testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all” (Peters, 1). Others, like Stephen Toulmin and Langdon Gilkey, have come to similar conclusions, calling it a “scientific myth” (Gilkey, 39).
Both sides should be considered. In contrast to many current evolutionists, Darwin believed that both evolution and its logical antithesis of creation should be considered and the evidence for both carefully weighed. In the introduction to Origin, Darwin stated, “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.” He adds, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.” This seems to support a two-model theory, which many creationists suggest for public schools but the mandating of which was rejected by the Supreme Court (Edwards,
June 19, 1987).
Microevolution was confirmed. Darwin is credited, even by creationists, with confirming the existence of small changes in the natural development of species. They are even observable, as his study of the finches reveals. While creationists differ with Darwin as to whether these small changes can add up to large ones by natural selection over long periods of time, Darwin and others should be credited with the demise of the older Platonic view of fixed forms on the level of what biologists call species.
The law of natural selection was explained. Darwin also correctly saw the valuable function that natural selection plays in the development of life. The survival of the fittest is a fact of animal life, as a perusal of an African nature film will reveal. Again, creationists and evolutionists differ over just how much change natural selection can make and whether it is upward. But there is agreement that natural selection can and does make some significant biological changes in the development of life.
‘Missing links ” were problematic. Darwin was well aware of the fact that the evidence for (or against) evolution was in the fossil record and that there were gaping holes in it (see below). He, of course, hoped that future finds would fill in these gaps and confirm his “theory.”
Negative Aspects. A more complete critique of biological and human evolution is found in the article Evolution, Biological. Here focus will be on the failings of Darwin’s personal views.
The lack of fossil evidence. Sensing the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, Darwin confessed, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution/” (Darwin, Origin, 152, emphasis added). Darwin confessed that we do not find “an infinite number of those fine transitional forms which, on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life” (ibid., 161). He attributed this to the scarcity of the “geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept” (ibid.) and to the alleged sparsity of transitional forms. But this is a virtually unfalsifiable argument from silence and begs the question in favor of transitional forms being there to begin with. The reality is that there are no missing links but a missing chain, with only a few links here and a few there.
The fossil record is the only real evidence of what actually did occur as opposed to what could have happened, so this is a very serious objection. And the subsequent period of about 140 years has not been friendly to Darwin. In spite of thousands of fossil finds, to borrow a phrase from Fred Hoyle, “the evolutionary record leaks like a sieve” (Hoyle, 77). But Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils” (Gould, 14). Indeed, the lack of evidence for Darwin’s theory has forced many contemporary evolutionists like Gould to resort to more speculative solutions such as “punctuated equilibria,” whereby nature takes big leaps in relatively short periods of time.
Microevolution does not prove macroevolution. All that Darwin successfully showed was that small changes occur within specific forms of life, not that there is any evolution between major types. Even granting long periods of time, there is no real evidence for major changes. To cite Gould again, “The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once, fully formed” (Gould, 13-14).
The fossil evidence clearly gives a picture of mature, fully functional creatures suddenly appearing and staying very much the same. This is evidence of creation, not evolution.
Leaps are evidence of creation. In view of the great omissions in the fossil record, Darwin’s own statements are self-incriminating. He said, “He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly . . . enter[s] into the realms of miracles, and leave[s] those of science” (cited in Denton, 59). Even as a student, Darwin, commenting on Sumner’s Evidences of Christianity, said that “when one sees a religion set up, that has no existing prototype ... it gives great probability to its divine origin.” As Howard Gruber put it, “Nature makes no jumps, but God does. Therefore, if we want to know whether something that interests us is of natural or supernatural [origin], we must ask: Did it arise gradually out of that which came before, or suddenly without any evident natural cause?” (cited in ibid.). But clearly by Darwin’s own premises, then, macroevolution does not follow, for he admits that there are great jumps in the fossil record, which are a sign of creation, not evolution.
Darwin made a false analogy. Much of the persuasiveness of Darwin’s view came from the apparently plausible argument that if artificial selection can make significant small changes in a short time, then surely natural selection can make large changes in a long period of time. But as E. S.
Russell noted, “The action of man in selective breeding is not analogous to the action of ‘natural selection, ’ but almost its direct opposite.” For “man has an aim or an end in view; ‘natural selection’ can have none. Man picks out the individuals he wishes to cross, choosing them by the characteristics he seeks to perpetuate or enhance. ... He protects them and their issue by all means in his power, guarding them thus from the operation of natural selection, which would speedily eliminate many freaks; he continues his active and purposeful selection from generation to generation until he reaches, if possible, his goal.” But “nothing of this kind happens, or can happen, through the blind process of differential elimination and differential survival which we miscall natural selection” (cited in Moore, 124). Thus, a central pillar of Darwin’s theory is based on a false analogy (see Evolution, Biological, for further development of this point).
Darwin admitted to serious objections. Darwin dedicated an entire chapter of On the Origin of Species to what he called “a crowd of difficulties” (80). For example, “can we believe that natural selection could produce ... an organ so wonderful as the eye” (ibid.). How could organisms that need it survive without it while it was evolving over thousand or millions of years? Indeed, most complex organs and organisms must have all of the parts functioning together at once from the beginning. Any gradual acquiring of them would be fatal to their functioning. Further, “can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection?” (ibid.). Darwin admits that some of the difficulties with evolution “are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered” (ibid.).
Evidence reveals separate ancestors. Interestingly, Darwin himself acknowledged the misleading nature of analogy his view was based on. Elaborating on his oft-quoted last words of the Origin that God created “one” or a “few” forms of life, Darwin admitted two revealing things. First, he acknowledged some eight to ten created forms. He said, “I believe that animals are descended from at most four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number” (ibid., 241). Beyond this, he admitted that one can only argue by analogy, adding, “Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. But analogy
may be a deceitful guide” (ibid., emphasis added). This is a very revealing admission in view of the demonstrably false analogy used between artificial and natural selection.
Darwin’s theory was not derivedfrom nature. Even some evolutionists admit that Darwin did not derive his theory from the study of nature but from a naturalistic worldview. George Grinnell wrote, “I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin also did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather facts to make it stick” (Grinnell, 44). This is particularly interesting in view of the fact that the federal court ruled in the “Scopes II” trial {McLean, January 22, 1982) that creation is not science because, for one thing, it has a nonscientific source—the Bible. The judge ruled that creation could not be taught alongside evolution because “‘creation science’ ... has as its unmentioned reference the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis” (cited inGeisler, 173).
One cannot help but wonder why creation is not scientific because it has a nonscientific source, whereas Darwin’s view is. The truth is that a scientific theory does not need a scientific source but only some possible or actual scientific support. As the author pointed out in testimony at the “Scopes Π” trial, many valid scientific views had nonscientific, even religious, sources. Nikola Tesla’s idea for the AC motor came from a vision while reading a pantheistic poet. And Kekule’s model of the benzene molecule was derived from a vision of a snake biting its tail (ibid., 116-17).
Darwin’s View Is Tantamount to Atheism. Although Darwin, and many Darwinists, stoutly deny that Darwin’s view is in principle atheistic, the charge has been laid very seriously at his door. The Princeton scholar Charles Hodge (1797-1878), in a penetrating analysis, asked and answered his own question: “What is Darwinism? It is Atheism This does not mean that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is . . . tantamount to atheism” (Hodge, 177). Hodge’s logic is challenging. Evolution excludes design, and if there is no design in nature, then there is no need for a Designer of nature. So, protests to the contrary, evolution is in principle an atheistic theory, since it excludes the need for an intelligent Creator {see Cosmological Argument; Flew, Antony).
Even many evolutionists acknowledge that Darwin’s scenario of a “warm little pond” in which first life spontaneously generated excludes God entirely from the realm of biology. Darwin wrote, “It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present.” Thus, spontaneous generation would be possible if “we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity present that a protein was formed ready to undergo still more complex changes” (cited in F. Darwin, 3.18). Francis Darwin admitted that “Darwin never claimed his theory could explain the origin of life, but the implication was there. Thus, not only was God banishedfrom the creation of species but from the entire realm of biology (ibid.). What need for a Creator? All one need do is posit what many long believed, that the material universe was eternal and there appears to be no place for a First Cause, for God. There is, of course, mounting evidence against both spontaneous generation of first life {see Evolution, Chemical) and an eternal universe {see Big Bang Theory; Kalam Cosmological Argument). And, hence, there is need for God, Darwinism notwithstanding {see God, Evidence for).
Not only were Darwin’s deism and agnosticism unjustified, but so was his rejection of Christianity. For it was based on a prevailing negative higher criticism {see Bible Criticism) of his day, which was pre-archaeological and has long since been discredited.
Likewise, Darwin wrongly assumed that the God of the Old Testament was vengeful and not loving, something contrary to the Old Testament statement of God’s love, mercy, and forgiveness (see Exod. 20:6; Jonah 4:2). Indeed, God’s love is mentioned more in the Old Testament than in the New Testament.
Further, Darwin’s concept of *hell was severely truncated. The very idea that hell is unjust implies there must be an absolutely just God. And an absolutely just God must punish sin.
What is more, Darwin seemed to have no concept of hell as a consequence of a loving God not forcing free creatures to believe in him contrary to their choice.
Finally, Darwin’s family downplays the fact that once Darwin had given up his Christian belief he could not cope with the death of his beloved daughter. The very time when he needed the Christian hope of the resurrection (see Resurrection, Evidence for) and reunion with loved ones, it was not there because his increasing antisupernaturalism had eliminated any firm basis on which he could believe it. Instead, he turned on God—whatever was left of him—and blamed God for being “vengeful.” Such is the condition of an ungrateful and unbelieving heart (cf. Rom 1:18ff.).
Sources
C. Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.
--, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.
--, On the Origin of Species.
F. Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 3.
M. Denton, Evolution.
N. L. Geisler, Creation in the Courts.
L. Gilkey. Maker of Heaven and Earth.
S. J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace.”
G. Grinnell, "Reexamination of the Foundations.”
C. Hodge, What Is Darwinism?
F. Hoyle andN. C. Wickramasinghe. Evolution from Space.
P. E. Johnson. Darwin on Tried.
--,Reason in the Balance.
E. Mayr, "Introduction” to On the Origin of Species.
J. R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies.
R. Peters, 'Tautology in Evolution and Ecology.”
Days of Genesis. See Genesis, Days of.
Dead Sea Scrolls. Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (hereafter DSS) at Qumran, beginning in 1949, had significant apologetic implications. These ancient texts, hidden in pots in cliff-top caves by a monastic religious community, confirm the reliability of the Old Testament text. They provide significant portions of Old Testament books—even entire books—that were copied and studied by the Essenes. These manuscripts date from as early as the third century BC and so give the earliest window so far found into the texts of the Old Testament books and their predictive prophecies. The Qumran texts have become an important witness for the divine origin of the Bible (see Prophecy, As Proof of the Bible). They provide further evidence against the negative biblical criticism (see Bible Criticism) of such crucial books as Daniel and Isaiah (see Redaction Criticism, Old Testament).
The DSS manuscripts date from the third century BC to the first century AD. They include one
complete Old Testament book, Isaiah, and thousands of fragments, which together represent every Old Testament book except Esther. William F. *Albright called this “the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times” (see Trever, 55).
Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls. Important, though not crucial, to the apologetic value of the DSS are their dates. Dating the DSS involved several lines of evidence.
Carbon 14 Dating. Carbon 14 dating is a reliable form of scientific dating when applied to uncontaminated material several thousand years old. Since it destroys a portion of the material tested, this process is used sparingly. Half of a two-ounce piece of linen wrapping from a scroll in Cave 1 was tested by Dr. W. F. Fibby of the University of Chicago in 1950 to give a general idea of the age of the collection. Results indicated an age of 1,917 years with a 200-year (10 percent) variant, which left the date somewhere between 168 BC and AD 233.
More recently (and more accurately), they were dated by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) in 1991 to 1998 at 202 to 93 BC (Zurich and Tucson combined dates on the Isaiah Scroll).
Paleographical and Orthographical Dating. Paleography (ancient writing forms) and orthography (spelling) were more helpful, indicating that some manuscripts were inscribed before 100 BC. Albright studied photographs of the complete Isaiah scroll and set its date at around 100 BC. “What an absolutely incredible find!” he wrote. “And there can happily not be the slightest doubt in the world about the genuineness of the manuscript” (Trever, 55).
Archaeological Dating. Collaborative evidence for an early date came from archaeology. Pottery accompanying the manuscripts was Fate Hellenistic (ca. 150-63 BC) and Early Roman (ca. 63 BC-AD 100). Coins found in the monastery ruins proved by their inscriptions to have been minted between 135 BC and AD 135. The weave and pattern of the cloth supported an early date. Evidence also came from the Murabba’at Discoveries south of Bethlehem, where self-dated manuscripts were discovered in 1952. Bearing dates from AD 132 to 135, these proved to be paleographically younger than the DSS (Zeitlin). In the end, there was no reasonable doubt that the Qumran manuscripts came from the century before Christ and the first century AD. Thus, they are one thousand years older than the Masoretic manuscripts of the tenth century. Before 1947, the Hebrew text was based on three partial and one complete manuscript dating from about AD 1000. Now, thousands of fragments are available, as well as complete books, containing large sections of the Old Testament from one millennium before the time of the Masoretic manuscripts.
Support for the Masoretic Text. The nature and number of these finds are of critical value for establishing the true text. With innumerable fragments of the entire Old Testament, there are abundant samples with which to compare the Masoretic Text. The evidence points to the following general conclusions.
Confirmation of the Hebrew Text. The scrolls give an overwhelming confirmation of the faithfulness with which the Hebrew text was copied through the centuries. By the tenth-century Masoretic copies, few errors had crept in. Millar Burrows, in The Dead Sea Scrolls, writes, “It is a matter of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.
As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition’” (Burrows, 304). R. Faird Harris points out that “evidently the difference between the standard text of AD 900 and the text of 100 BC is not nearly so great as that between the Neutral and Western text in the New Testament study” (Harris, 99). Gleason Archer observes that the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling” (Archer, 19). To return to the original and “all important question” framed by Old Testament scholar Frederic Kenyon (1863-1952) a generation ago, it may now be more confidently asserted than ever before that the modern Hebrew text faithfully represents the Hebrew text as originally written by the authors of the Old Testament. Dead Sea discoveries have enabled us to answer this question with much greater assurance than was possible before 1948 (Bruce, 61-69).
Support for the Septuagint. Since the New Testament most often cites the Greek Septuagint (hereafter LXX) translation of the Old Testament, the reliability of this text is important, particularly where it is quoted in the New Testament. The DSS provide early support for the LXX and answers questions about variations between the Hebrew and LXX Greek:
1. A fragment containing Deuteronomy 32:8 reads, “according to the number of the sons of God,” which is translated “angels of God” by the LXX, as in Genesis 6:4 (margin); Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. The Masoretic Text reads, “according to the number of the children of Israel.”
2. The Masoretic Text of Exodus 1:5 reads “seventy souls,” whereas the LXX and its quotation in Acts 7:14 read “seventy-five souls.” A DSS fragment of Exodus 1:5 reads “seventy-five souls,” in agreement with the LXX.
3. Hebrews 1:6b, “Let all God’s angels worship him,” is a quote from the LXX of Deuteronomy 32:43. This quotation does not agree with the Masoretic Text, but DSS fragments containing this section tend to confirm the LXX.
This should by no means be construed as a uniform picture, since there are not many deviants in the DSS from the Masoretic Text to begin with. In some cases, the variants do not consistently agree with the LXX; in a few cases, they do not agree at all. However, even Harry Orlinsky, who is one of the foremost defenders of the Masoretic Text against proposed emendations based on the DSS, admits, “The LXX translation, no less than the Masoretic Text itself, will have gained considerable respect as a result of the Qumran discoveries in those circles where it has long—overlong—been necessary” (cited in Wright, 121).
Light on the New Testament. Some DSS fragments have been identified as the earliest known pieces of the New Testament. Further, the messianic expectations reveal that the New Testament view of a personal Messiah-God who would rise from the dead is in line with first-century Jewish thought.
Jose *O’ Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world in 1972 when he announced that he had translated a piece of the Gospel of Mark on a DSS fragment. This was the earliest known piece of Mark. Fragments from Cave 7 had previously been dated between 50 BC and AD 50 and listed under “not identified” and classified as “Biblical Texts.” O’Callahan eventually identified nine fragments.
Of course, O’Callahan’s critics object to his identification and have tried to find other possibilities. The fragmentary nature of the manscript makes it difficult to be dogmatic about identifications. Nonetheless, O’Callahan offers a plausible, albeit revolutionary, possibility. If the identification of even one of these fragments as New Testament is valid, then the implications for Christian apologetics are enormous. It would be shown that the Gospel of Mark was written within the lifetime of the apostles and contemporaries of the events.
First-Century Jewish Messianic Expectations. The DSS have also yielded texts that, while not referring to the Christ of the New Testament, have some interesting parallels, as well as some significant differences. The similarities confirm that the New Testament picture accurately describes
Jewish expectation of a personal, individual Messiah who would die and rise from the dead. A fragment called “A Genesis Florilegoriunf (4Q252) reflects belief in an individual Messiah who would be a descendant of David. “Column 5(1) (the) Government shall not pass from the tribe of Judah. During Israel’s dominion, (2) a Davidic descendant on the throne shall [not c]ease . . . until the Messiah of Righteousness, the Branch of (4) David comes” (see Eisenman, 89).
Even the deity of the Messiah is affirmed in the fragment known as “The Son of God” (4Q246), Plate 4, columns one and two: “Oppression will be upon the earth. . . [until] the King of the people of God arises,. . . and he shall become [gre]at upon the earth. [. . . All w]ill make [peace,] and all will serve [him] He will be called [son of the Gr]eat [God;] by His name he shall be designated. ... He will be called the son of God; they will call him son of the Most High” (ibid., 70).
“The Messiah of Heaven and Earth” fragment (4Q521) even speaks of the Messiah raising the dead: “(12) then He will heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and to the Meek announce glad tidings” (ibid., 23; cf. 63, 95).
The DSS also confirm that Qumran was not the source of early Christianity. There are significant differences between their concept of the “Teacher of Righteousness,” apparently an Essene messianic hope, and the Jesus revealed in Scripture and early Christianity. The differences are enough to show that early Christianity was not just an offshoot of the Essenes, as has been theorized (see Billington, 8-10). The Essenes emphasized hating one’s enemies; Jesus stressed love. The Essenes were exclusivistic regarding women, sinners, and outsiders; Jesus was inclusive. The Essenes were legalistic Sabbatarians; Jesus was not. The Essenes stressed Jewish purification laws; Jesus attacked them The Essenes believed two messiahs would come; Christians held that Jesus was the only one (see Charlesworth).
Conclusion. The DSS provide an important apologetic contribution toward establishing the general reliability of the Old Testament Hebrew text, as well as the earliest copies of parts of Old Testament books and even whole books. This is important in showing that the predictive prophecies of the Old Testament were indeed made centuries before they were literally fulfilled. Furthermore, the DSS provide possible support for the New Testament. They may contain the earliest known fragments of the New Testament, and they definitely contain references to messianic beliefs similar to those taught in the New Testament.