From: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?7Q5:_The_Earli?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?est_NT_Papyrus?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=3F?= Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 00:36:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01D0_01C35957.46BF6100"; type="text/html" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3314.1001 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01D0_01C35957.46BF6100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: =?iso-8859-1?B?aHR0cDovL3d3dy5iaWI=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?bGUub3JnL2RvY3Mvc28=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?YXBib3gvN3E1Lmh0bQ==?= 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus?
HOME | = LATEST = ADDITIONS |=20 NET=20 BIBLE | SEARCH | CONTENTS | FONTS |=20 BSF = STORE=20
7Q5: The = Earliest NT=20 Papyrus?

by
Daniel B. Wallace, = Ph.D.

Review of =
Carsten Peter=20 Thiede,
The Earliest Gospel Manuscript?
The Qumran Fragment 7Q5 = and its=20 Significance for New Testament Studies1=20
(London: Paternoster, 1992)
74 pp. + 6 pp. = bibliography

Introduction

In 1962 M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and = R. de Vaux=20 published the text and plates of manuscripts from six Qumran caves = (caves 2, 3,=20 5, 6, 7, 10).2 = The seventh=20 cave, in particular, had some interesting materials in that this was the = only=20 cave with exclusively Greek fragments. For most of these manuscripts, = including=20 7Q5, the editors did not have a clue as to their textual identity. (7Q5 = is a=20 papyrus scrap with writing only on the recto side, having just = five lines=20 of text with parts of no more than twenty letters visible.3 = The only=20 complete word that can be detected is kaiv=BEhardly a confidence-builder when it comes to = a positive=20 identification.)

Ten years later, in 1972, the Spanish=20 papyrologist Jos=E9 O=A2Callaghan published a controversial article, = =B2=BFPapiros=20 neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumr=E2n?=B24 = in which=20 he argued that the fifth manuscript from the seventh cave of Qumran was = a=20 fragment from the Gospel of Mark (6:52-53). This produced a spate of = scholarly=20 reviews5 = and=20 interactions=BEmost of which rejected O=A2Callaghan=A2s identification. = This rejection=20 rested on three grounds: (1) principally, the papyrus itself was so = fragmentary=20 that any identification would be tenuous at best (not to mention = the fact=20 that there were several textually intrinsic problems with = O=A2Callaghan=A2s=20 proposal); (2) since the Qumran community almost certainly disbanded in = 68=20 CE=BEand hence the MS must be dated before that time (in fact, most = likely, no=20 later than 50 CE)=BEthe majority of NT scholars felt that even the = original draft=20 of Mark=A2s Gospel was not this early, obviously precluding the = possibility that a=20 copy of Mark could have existed before the fall of Jerusalem; and = (3) the=20 differences between the Qumran community (usually considered to be = identical=20 with the Essenes) and the nascent Christian community are so pronounced = that=20 contact between the two seemed improbable (and a literary = contact, as=20 O=A2Callaghan proposed, seemed to imply that not only was there = communication=20 between the two groups, but open and somewhat friendly=20 communication).

O=A2Callaghan defended his views = against virtually=20 every assailant. But until 1982 he found few, if any, real followers. In = that=20 year Carsten Peter Thiede, a German scholar, began to publish in defense = of the=20 O=A2Callaghan hypothesis. In the last dozen years, in fact, he has = surpassed his=20 mentor in periodical proliferation. The book under review is, in many = respects,=20 the culmination of his efforts. The Earliest Gospel = Manuscript?,=20 Thiede=A2s first book in English on the subject, has been written to = appeal to=20 a wider audience (since his earlier writings have almost completely = fallen on=20 deaf German ears). There is today both interest in and sympathy toward = the=20 O=A2Callaghan hypothesis=BEespecially now that it has a fresh advocate = in=20 Thiede.6 = Indeed, at=20 the ETS national meeting in November 1992, even Alan Johnson pleaded the = case=20 for Thiede=A2s volume.7

Why all the furor? What is at stake? A = number of=20 things: (1) If this identification is correct, it would be the earliest = NT MS by=20 some 50-100 years;8 = (2) on=20 paleographical grounds, since the upper limit of its date is 50 = CE, this=20 would put Mark in the 40=A2s at the latest; (3) one consequence of such = an early=20 date for Mark would be to virtually silence advocates of Matthean = priority; and=20 (4) finally, it would suggest, perhaps, that at least some of the New = Testament=20 documents were regarded highly enough to be copied soon after = publication=BEa view=20 which lends itself to an early recognition of the NT as canon.9

Body of Review

There are five chapters to this = slender volume.=20 The first, =B2Introduction,=B2 is both a selective tracing of the = history of the=20 discussion and a rebuke of the scholarly community for not really = listening to=20 the arguments put forth by O=A2Callaghan. Chapter 2 (=B2=CC52=BEThe Most Famous=20 Papyrus=B2) is, in essence, an implicit yet not-so-subtle attempt to = argue from=20 similarities: since =CC52 is accepted by the entire = community of NT=20 scholars as a fragment of John=A2s Gospel from the first half of the = second=20 century10=BE= even=20 though it has itacisms and variants from the standard text=BEwe should = also accept=20 7Q5 as a fragment of Mark, and dated no later than 68 CE, since it has = similar=20 textual =B2glitches.=B2 One telling argument that the two are not that = similar is=20 the fact that, as Thiede concedes, the identification and dating of = =CC52 were = =B2accepted=20 without argument=B2 (p. 12) by the scholarly community, while 7Q5=A2s = identification=20 has not been. Thiede spends an exorbitant amount of space demonstrating = that 7Q5=20 should be dated no later than c. 50 CE. An interesting concession by the = author,=20 however, is the fact that C. H. Roberts, on whose expertise he relies, = gives a=20 variance of 100 years for the date of this MS: from 50 BCE to 50 = CE.=20 Obviously, the earlier the date, the less likely is the possibility that = this=20 fragment comes from the NT at all.11 = Even the=20 most conservative NT scholars do not date the Gospel of Mark as early as = this=20 upper limit set by Roberts.

Chapter 3 (=B27Q5=BEThe Earliest New = Testament=20 Fragment?=B2) is the most substantial of the booklet, covering nineteen = pages=20 (23-41). Thiede puts forth a meticulously argued and somewhat technical = case for=20 the identification of this fragment with Mark 6:52-53. He points out, = among=20 other things, that even though at most ten of the twenty letters can be=20 positively identified, (1) the three-letter space before kai indicates the beginning of a new paragraph (a = not=20 uncommon feature in ancient MSS), corresponding to the content break at = Mark=20 6:53, and (2) line 4 apparently has the unusual combination of letters,=20 nnhs = (although the=20 first and last letters are quite difficult to make out), corresponding = to=20 gennhsaret = in Mark 6:53.12= =20

Thiede also responds at length to the = three most=20 common (and most serious) objections to this identification: (1) 7Q5 has = a=20 tau where Mark 6:53 has a delta (ti[aperavsante"] vs. = diaperavsante"); (2) = in order to=20 make the lines be of somewhat equal length and correspond to Mark=A2s = text, the=20 ejpiV thVn gh'n of=20 v. 53 must be omitted=BEeven though no extant MSS omit this expression; = and (3) a=20 number of O=A2Callaghan=A2s identifications of the partially readable = letters are=20 quite improbable. To those involved in the debate over 7Q5=A2s = identification,=20 Thiede=A2s argument is more summary than new insight. In essence, he = argues that=20 (1) there are frequent interchanges between tau and delta = in koine=20 Greek,13= =20 rendering such a possibility here hardly surprising; (2) other early = papyri=20 (e.g., =CC52, =CC45) omit material at times, even = though such=20 an omission is a singular reading; and (3) if O=A2Callaghan=A2s critics = had taken=20 the time to look at the fragment instead of a photograph, their = objections about=20 his letter reconstructions would have vanished.

These counter-charges by Thiede are = not as=20 substantial as he supposes. We shall approach them chiastically. First, = both the=20 original editors of this fragment and most who have followed disagree = with=20 several of O=A2Callaghan=A2s letter reconstructions. At every point in = which the=20 enlarged photograph of the fragment at the end of Thiede=A2s booklet (p. = 68) seems=20 to disprove O=A2Callaghan=A2s reconstructions, Thiede discounts the = empirical=20 evidence which he himself provides and renders his own judgments = untouchable by=20 any who have access only to a photograph. In other words, he is saying, = =B2You=20 don=A2t have a right to criticize O=A2Callaghan=A2s reconstruction = because you haven=A2t=20 seen the fragment.=B2 Such a stance is elitist at best; at worst, it = moves the=20 entire discussion from a scholarly dialogue to a fideistic statement: = Thiede=20 basically says =B2Trust me.=B2 A constant refrain is that = O=A2Callaghan=A2s=20 reconstructions are possible. Perhaps this is so, but such are = also=20 highly unlikely. In particular, an unbiased reader looking at the = photograph=20 will almost certainly disagree with O=A2Callaghan=A2s reconstructed = nu in=20 line 214= and=20 agree with the original editors=A2 judgment about epsilon, = sigma in=20 line 5 (against O=A2Callaghan=A2s sigma, alpha). Thiede is = quite right=20 that examination of a document firsthand is to be preferred to = examination of a=20 photograph.15= And this=20 is precisely where his and O=A2Callaghan=A2s approach falters: others = have looked at=20 the MS firsthand and have disagreed with O=A2Callaghan.

Second, although it is certainly = possible that=20 ejpiV thVn gh'n is=20 legitimately omitted in O=A2Callaghan=A2s stichometric = reconstruction,16= it=20 strikes me as too convenient for the hypothesis: in order to make this = papyrus=20 fragment fit the text of Mark, the non-recoverable portion of the text = needs to=20 be altered. This again makes the proposal non-falsifiable. Further=BEand = this=20 still looms as an important consideration=BEsuch an omission is = unattested in any=20 other MS for this verse.

Third, most damaging for = O=A2Callaghan=A2s=20 identification is the tau in the place of a delta. = Although,=20 admirably, both O=A2Callaghan and Thiede provide examples of such = interchange in=20 koine Greek due to the similar sound of the two letters (e.g., = te for=20 dev), none of the examples produced involve the = preposition diav, whether = standing=20 alone or in compound. Illustrations such as the interchange of = te for=20 dev do = not help the=20 case, because both were real words with some semantic overlap. And = Thiede=A2s=20 example of the interchange between druvfakton and truvfakton (pp. 28-29) is = not very=20 convincing, because such a rare word would be expected to have variant=20 spellings. The preposition diav, however, has no semantic overlap with = tia (there is, in fact, no such word) and is = so common=20 that a schoolboy would have learned its correct spelling. Such a = misspelling as=20 O=A2Callaghan and Thiede envision this scribe as producing would be = analogous to a=20 modern author writing =B2tiameter=B2 for =B2diameter.=B2 In light of = this, surely it is=20 an overstatement for Thiede to assert that =B2one might go so far as to = say that=20 the peculiarities themselves support this view [that 7Q5 =3D Mark = 6:52-53]=B2 (p.=20 31).

One final point about chapter 3 can be = mentioned. In his final footnote of the chapter (n. 31, pp. 40-41), = Thiede=20 states that =B2a more recent computer check [than K. Aland=A2s], using = the most=20 elaborate Greek texts (Ibykus [sic]) has failed to yield = any text=20 other than Mark 6:52-53 for the combination of letters identified by = O=A2Callaghan=20 et al. in 7Q5.=B2 In other words, using a very powerful software = search=20 engine17= which is=20 able to scan over 64 million words in hundreds of ancient Greek texts in = a=20 matter of minutes, Thiede could not find any text, besides Mark = 6, that=20 fit this Cinderella=A2s shoe.

At first glance, this sounds very = impressive.=20 But Thiede overlooked two things. First, the restriction of =B2letters = identified=20 by O=A2Callaghan=B2 assumes O=A2Callaghan=A2s problematic letter = reconstructions to be=20 correct. But this manifold assumption is exceedingly gratuitous. It is = like=20 observing a sheet of paper that has been left out in the rain. Only a = handful of=20 letters can be made out clearly; all else is up for grabs. Now suppose I = come=20 along and say that one or two of the clear letters need to be changed. = And of=20 the unclear letters, I propose three or four nearly impossible = suggestions. I do=20 this because I have a certain text in mind that I want this sheet = to be a=20 copy of. Would it be so surprising when my Macintosh spits out that very = text=BEafter I have programmed it do so? In doing this kind of thing, = Thiede has=20 fallen prey to the very argument he just leveled against Kurt = Aland in=20 the same footnote!18= =20

Second, when one allows for different=20 possibilities than just O=A2Callaghan=A2s for the partially legible = letters, the=20 Ibycus program19= does,=20 indeed, seem to permit other texts to be identified with 7Q5. In my own = cursory=20 examination of the TLG via Ibycus, I found sixteen texts which = could=20 possibly fit (though only if one stretched both his or her imagination = and the=20 textual evidence).20= =20

Third, even if none of these is as = impressive as=20 is Mark 6:52-53 (a point I would readily concede), there is no necessity = in=20 identifying 7Q5 with any known text.21= As=20 possible as the O=A2Callaghan/Thiede proposal is, it remains far more = plausible to=20 see 7Q5 as a copy of some unknown text=BEjust like other papyri = in cave=20 7.

Chapter 4 (three pages in length) is = an attempt=20 to show, by analogy with two other fragments, that positive = identification of=20 7Q5 can be made in spite of the paucity of letters.

The fifth chapter (=B2The Seventh Cave = at=20 Qumran=BEIts Text and Their Users=B2) (pp. 45-63) answers the historical = question:=20 Why would Christian documents be concealed in a Qumran cave? Thiede = summarizes=20 O=A2Callaghan=A2s case that some of the other fragments in this cave are = portions=20 from the NT (e.g., 7Q6 =3D Mark 4:28; 7Q15 =3D Mark 6:48; 7Q8 =3D Jas = 1:23-24; 7Q9 =3D=20 Rom 5:11-12; 7Q10 =3D 2 Pet 1:15; 7Q4 =3D 1 Tim 3:16-4:3).22= Such=20 equations were pursued by O=A2Callaghan because he had already felt that = his=20 identification of 7Q5 was certain. As would be expected, he has received = quite a=20 bit of criticism for these speculations. Some of the arguments against = his=20 proposals are that (1) the fragments involved have as few as three or = four=20 clearly identified letters; (2) one of the documents, 7Q6, has two = fragments,=20 yet O=A2Callaghan assigned the first to Mark 4, the second to Acts 27; = (3) on=20 higher critical grounds, that 2 Peter and 1 Timothy especially could = have had=20 copies by 68 CE seemed impossible;23= (4) four=20 fragments identified as copies of Mark by four different scribes seemed = to go=20 beyond even the realm of =B2Phantasie=B2;24= (5)=20 textual emendations and/or less than probable reconstructions of letters = were=20 forced on the fragments to make them fit the theory; and (6) 7Q4 (=3D 1=20 Tim = 3:16-4:3) is, paleographically, so much like = 7Q5, that it=20 should likewise be dated no later than 50 CE=BEand this is an = impossible=20 date for any pastoral epistle. In my judgment, Thiede does not = adequately=20 address these concerns (many of which are completely = ignored).

Regarding the historical situation, = Thiede=20 devotes ten pages (54-63) to his defense of a Christian cave = among the=20 Qumran caves. He builds an ingenious case for geographical contact = between=20 Christians and the Essenes in Jerusalem, with many of his points = containing an=20 element of truth. From this he extrapolates that when the Christians = left=20 Jerusalem for Pella (c. 66 CE), they would have =B2entrusted them [their = sacred=20 documents], or some of them, to their Essene neighbours for safekeeping, = and=20 they, in turn, [would have] hid them in a separate cave at Qumran=B2 (p. = 58).=20 Although this reconstruction is in the realm of possibility, it is = barely so.=20

Even if we were to grant geographical = contact=20 between Christians and Essenes in Jerusalem, it is too much to assume = that there=20 was a friendly familiarity between the two communities. Two=20 considerations seem to argue against this. First, the Essenes were the = most=20 extreme separatists of any Jewish sect in the first century=BEso much so = that they=20 established a celibate community away from Jerusalem. If they hardly=20 communicated with other Jews, how much less would they do so with = Christians?=20 Second, the Essenes were extreme legalists.25= The=20 Christians were at the other end of the spectrum. And it is significant = that=20 five of the fragments found in cave 7 are allegedly from Mark and = Romans=BEtwo=20 books which are about as anti-legalistic as can be found in the NT = canon. In=20 light of these two considerations, is it really plausible that the early = Christians =B2entrusted [these documents] to their Essene neighbours for = safekeeping=B2?

The book concludes with several = illustrations=20 (including 7Q5, =CC52, et al), inviting the = reader to see=20 exactly what it is that the experts have been debating.

Conclusion

To sum up: Not only are O=A2Callaghan = and Thiede=20 arguing that 7Q5 is a fragment from Mark=A2s Gospel, but they are also = appealing=20 to Kurt Aland to list this document officially as a NT papyrus: = =B2Future editions=20 of the Greek New Testament will have to include 7Q5. It should, at long = last,=20 receive a =A2p=A2 number, it must be recognized in the apparatus, with = its variants=B2=20 (p. 41). Here is no detached plea; rather, it is an indictment. And this = not-so-subtle indictment takes on parabolic overtones in the concluding=20 statement of the book, where Thiede comments about the alleged early = Christians=20 who orchestrated the burying of these documents in Qumran=A2s Cave 7 (p. = 63):=20

Putting all this in perspective, we = conclude=20 this review by addressing two concerns: evidence and attitudes. First, = what is=20 the hard evidence on which O=A2Callaghan=A2s identification is based? A = scrap of=20 papyrus smaller than a man=A2s thumb with only one unambiguous = word=BEkai. Only six other = letters are=20 undisputed: tw (line=20 2), t (line 3,=20 immediately after the kai), nh (line 4), h = (line 5). To build a case on such slender = evidence would=20 seem almost impossible even if all other conditions were favorable to = it. But to=20 identify this as Mark 6:52-53 requires (1) two significant textual = emendations=20 (tau for delta in a manner which is unparalleled; and the = dropping=20 of ejpiV thVn gh'n=20 even though no other MSS omit this = phrase);=20 and (2) unlikely reconstructions of several other letters. Add to this = that the=20 MS is from a Qumran cave and that it is to be dated no later than = 50 CE=20 and the case against the Marcan proposal seems overwhelming. If = it were=20 not for the fact that Jos=E9 O=A2Callaghan is a reputable papyrologist = and that C.=20 P. Thiede is a German scholar, one has to wonder whether this hypothesis = would=20 ever have gotten more than an amused glance from the scholarly = community.=20

Second, regarding attitude, I find it = disturbing=20 that many conservatives have been so uncritically eager to accept the=20 O=A2Callaghan hypothesis. 7Q5 does not, as one conservative put it, mean = =B2that=20 seven tons of German scholarship may now be consigned to the = flames.=B226= On the=20 other hand, I find it equally disturbing that many liberal scholars have = uncritically rejected O=A2Callaghan=A2s proposal without even examining = the=20 evidence. Higher criticism must of course have a say in this discussion; = but it=20 must not preclude discussion. Both attitudes, in their most = extreme=20 forms, betray an arrogance, an unwillingness to learn, a fear of truth = while=20 clinging to tradition, a fortress mentality=BEnone of which is in the = spirit of=20 genuine biblical scholarship. When the next sensational archaeological = find is=20 made, should not conservatives and liberals alike ask the question: Will = we=20 fairly examine the evidence, or will we hold the party line at all=20 costs? 27=

1 There is some = confusion=20 over the title. The title listed above is what appears on the book=A2s = cover.=20 However, on the title page =B2Papyrus=B2 has replaced = =B2Fragment.=B2

2 Les = =A2Petites Grottes=A2=20 de Qumr=E2n, DJD III.

3 Its = dimensions are, in=20 Thiede=A2s words, =B2at the most 3.9 cm high and 2.7 cm wide. At most, = visible text=20 covers an area measuring 3.3 cm high and 2.3 cm wide=B2 (p. 25). In = other words,=20 7Q5 is smaller than two standard U.S. postage stamps.

4 Bib 53 = (1972)91-100. Translated into English in the JBL 91 (1972) = supplement no.=20 2.

5 See = Thiede=A2s bibliography=20 for a listing of the reviews, which are in any case too numerous to = mention in a=20 footnote. Among the specific reviews in scholarly journals alone (i.e., = neither=20 books nor essays where 7Q5 is only a part of the discussion), New = Testament=20 Abstracts lists more than thirty=BEnot to mention one dozen = responses by=20 O=A2Callaghan!

6 Fifteen years = ago, David=20 Estrada and William White, Jr., argued his case in The First New = Testament.=20 In 1980, Wilbur Pickering added his support in his The Identity = of the=20 New Testament Text , 2nd ed. (Nashville: Nelson), 155-158. This = supports his=20 majority text theory of textual criticism in the following way: =B2That = someone=20 should have such a collection of New Testament writings at such an early = date=20 may suggest their early recognition as Scripture and even imply an early = notion=20 of a New Testament canon=B2 (158).

7 One should = note at the=20 outset that this work is marred by scores of not insignificant = typographical=20 errors, including grammar and spelling mistakes, several misquoted = statements,=20 and worst of all, a discrepancy in the very title of the book. = Such a=20 casual approach to the form of presentation can give the reader a = natural=20 temptation to see an equally imprecise handling of the data on = Thiede=A2s part. A=20 second, corrected edition ought to be published as soon as possible, if = for no=20 other reason than to remove an unnecessary stumbling block for the = viewpoint=20 espoused.

8 =CC52 is to be dated c. 100-150 CE, = while 7Q5 is=20 dated c. 50 BCE-50 CE.

9 Another = possible=20 implication would have to do with the ending of Mark. Since the fragment = 7Q5 was=20 written only on one side, it was doubtless a scroll rather than a codex. = If so,=20 then the original of Mark would most likely have been a scroll. And if = this is=20 the case, it is extremely unlikely that the ending of Mark would have = somehow=20 become lost=BEsince the ending of a scroll would, under normal = circumstances, be=20 the most protected part of the document. In this case the most plausible = scenario for the ending of Mark is that the author chose to end = his=20 gospel at 16:8. This argument can certainly be sustained without 7Q5, = though it=20 would not hurt to have this MS lend its voice.

10 Thiede makes = the=20 repeated assertions that this papyrus should be dated =B2to the first = quarter of=20 the second century (at the very latest)=B2 (p. 2; cf. also p. 21), in = spite of the=20 fact that most textual critics today would be more comfortable dating it = more=20 generally, c. 100-150 CE (cf. B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek = Bible:=20 An Introduction to Greek Palaeography [Oxford: Clarendon, 1981] 62). = One of=20 the reasons for this is that a scribe=A2s handwriting is not going to = change very=20 much over the duration of his career. Thus, on palaeographical grounds, = it is=20 difficult to pinpoint the date of a MS within a period smaller than 50 = years=20 (ibid., p. 50).

11 Thiede makes = the=20 remarkable statement that =B2leaving theological arguments aside, the = earliest=20 possible date for this gospel, historically speaking, is AD 30, the year = of the=20 last event recorded in it, the resurrection of Jesus=B2 (p. 25). = Thiede=A2s=20 assessment that higher critical reconstructions=BEespecially as regards = the=20 synoptic problem=BEare merely =B2theological arguments=B2 strikes me as = a bit na=EFve=20 and ought to signal the reader to Thiede=A2s antecedent eagerness to = accept=20 O=A2Callaghan=A2s identification of 7Q5. No reputable NT = scholar=BEregardless of his=20 theological underpinnings or views of gospel priorities=BEdates Mark = this=20 early.

12 On the = basis primarily=20 of these two points Thiede asserts: =B2Even without considering other = aspects of=20 the fragment in detail, it should be clear to any unbiased observer that = on the=20 basis of these findings, the indentification [sic] of the = fragment as Mk=20 6:52-53 is more than merely probably [sic]=B2 (p. 27). =

13 See = especially=20 O=A2Callaghan, =B2El cambio d>t en los papiros = biblicos,=B2=20 Bib 54 (1973) 415-16, as a demonstration of this point. = O=A2Callaghan finds=20 twenty places in biblical papyri (18 for LXX, two for NT) where this = interchange=20 takes place.

14 See = especially G. D.=20 Fee, =B2Some Dissenting Notes on 7Q5 =3D Mark 6:52-53,=B2 JBL 92 = (1973)=20 109-12.

15 Actually, = the ideal is=20 to examine both the original document and a photograph = side-by-side. The=20 advantages of a photograph involve enlargement and contrast especially. = I=20 recently discovered this in a fresh examination of =CC26: the = photograph=20 revealed at least eight more letters than could be detected by looking = at the=20 papyrus alone.

16 With the = omission of=20 the expression, the letters per line are as follows: 20/23/20/21/21. If = the=20 phrase is left intact, the lines are 20/23/29/21/21.

17 The search = engine was=20 in fact Ibycus, but the database being searched was the Thesaurus = Linguae=20 Graecae, developed by the Packard Humanities Institute. There are = now=20 several search engines available to search the TLG, both for Mac = and=20 Windows platforms, but there is only one TLG.

18 Thiede = points out that=20 =B2Aland used the computer at his institute in M=FCnster in order to = analyse two=20 different combinations of letters which he thought were possible = =B2minimal=B2=20 readings of the fragment 7Q5 . . . But . . . Aland=A2s efforts = had to fail=20 for a methodological reason . . . : no existing edition of the Greek = text of=20 Mark has the variant tau for delta in the = =A2diaperasantes=A2.=20 Thus, Aland=A2s computer programme of the Greek New Testament, based = here on the=20 delta, had to miss Mark 6:52-53 as a possible passage, and = it=20 promptly did.=B2

19 A lexical = search engine=20 canvassing over sixty million words in Greek literature (based on the=20 Thesaurus Linguae Graecae), from Homer to 1453 CE.

20 The search = involved the=20 following pattern: twn, kait, nnh, corresponding = to lines two,=20 three, and four of 7Q5 (and even allowing O=A2Callaghan his nu in = line 2).=20 The passages found include Ezek 23:36; Josephus, Vita 42-3; = Vita=20 236; Bellum 5.528; 7.380-1; Philo Cher. 44; 119; = Plant.=20 135; Plant. 136; Mut. 173; Thucydides, Hist. = 1.10.2;=20 1.60.1; 3.109.2; 4.67.4; 5.82.5; 8.55.1. I would not be so rash as to = suggest=20 that 7Q5 is a copy of any of these passages, but just that the = identification=20 with Mark 6 is not unparalleled. Almost all of these passages=BElike = Mark=20 6=BEinvolve what I consider to be insuperable problems: date (in the = case of the=20 Josephus texts), length of line, and manipulation of partially legible = letters.=20 With a little imagination, however, I was able to emend several of the = texts=20 (even finding plausible homoioteleuta, metatheses, etc.) and make the = data fit.=20 In fact, in one text this was not even necessary. In Philo, = Plant. 135=20 the three lines of text can be reconstructed, without any textual = emendation, in=20 a 16/14/16 stichometry:

There is a certain advantage of this = text over=20 Mark 6: whereas O=A2Callaghan=A2s reconstruction involves twenty or = twenty-one=20 letters per line as the norm=BEincluding line 3 which has a three-letter = gap and=20 ought therefore to have fewer letters, the Philonic text has two letters = fewer=20 in line 3, taking into account the gap in 7Q5 at this point.

Of course, there is still the problem = of forcing=20 the partially legible letters into the theory=BEbut this suffers no = disadvantage=20 over against the Marcan proposal.

21 Other = potential=20 identifications have been suggested on occasion. Cf., e.g., Gordon D. = Fee, =B2Some=20 Dissenting Notes on 7Q5 =3D Mark 6:52-53,=B2 JBL 92 (1973) = 109-112; Conan=20 DiPonio Parson, 7Q5: An Ancient =B2Honey Do=B2 List? (Snowflake,=20 Saskatchewan: Technasma Press, 1975); Kurt Aland, =B2=DCber die = M=F6glichkeit der=20 Identifikation kleiner Fragmente neutestamentlicher Handschriften mit = Hilfe des=20 Computers,=B2 in Studies in New Testament Language and Text, ed. = J. K.=20 Elliott (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976) 14-38; V. Spottorno, =B2Una nueva = posible=20 identificaci=F3n de 7Q5,=B2 Sefarad 52 (1992) 541-43.

22 O=A2Callaghan=A2s most=20 certain (in his mind, that is) identification was that 7Q4 =3D 1 Tim=20 3:16-4:3.

23 This is = true even if=20 one holds to apostolic authorship. Some date Paul=A2s death at 67 CE, = and Peter=A2s=20 at 68.

24 So K. = Aland, =B2Neue=20 neutestamentliche Papyri III,=B2 NTS 20 (1974) 363.

25 So much so = that they=20 even refused to urinate on the Sabbath, regarding even that as = =B2work=B2!=20 Ironically, in Thiede=A2s own reconstruction the Essenes=A2 latrine wall = was in=20 close proximity to where the Christians met for prayer. One can only = wonder if=20 friendly associations should truly be implied from such = evidence.

26 Anonymous, = =B2Eyewitness=20 Mark?=B2 Time, 1 May 1972, 54.

27 This essay = was=20 originally delivered at the Evangelical Theological Society Southwestern = Regional Meeting, held at John Brown University in March, = 1994.

Download = Word=20 Document

HOME | = LATEST = ADDITIONS |=20 NET=20 BIBLE | SEARCH | CONTENTS | FONTS |=20 BSF = STORE=20
(C) = 1995-2000,=20 Biblical Studies Foundation. All rights=20 reserved.
------=_NextPart_000_01D0_01C35957.46BF6100 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/marblspm.gif R0lGODlhXAIQAP0AMQwMDBQUFBwcHCQkJCwsLDQ0NDw8PFIyGURERFBNOFpQOFxcRExMTFxUTFxc XGNXPmRkZG5VNYBVM3djP29hTmxrV3F0Xm9wbnR8bH5xVnx8ZHx8fIGFb4SEfISEhJVzS5R5X5WE Y52MZ4yLgpuLeZmUg5qdjqWgipycnLGhhK+jl6uupLWyoLS0tMGpjca1mcOzpcy8pMC7tcy8rMTE xM7HudbKu8zMzNTU1N/UyNzc3OTk5Ozs7PT09P///////yH5BAEAAD8ALAAAAABcAhAAQAb/QAtn ZMFwTJgkRyPkZDIc0pBj0XAoGKKTYllQHg9IZcFYLMYNCiSxsFg2HAhGbhlxOB74aIN5YyoODgpk CQgYHSdUJokYJiYcHSsdchV/bUcrexAOFxUWChojFBMkEwcPBwcgGSAgHwcREhEHASIqKjC5KzAi IA8WKyUUCQ/DCRQkLAkHExQSDwoMdWoXEGdYFpViFdwWHiUbTBYO4xbV3BRebg1zCUOVHCU1MzG3 LyUZCQQHCIMJGiE20KBxKwUIEik2EGOQQIGBYwkcsHFjBcOGBYUQGNgogJmLDzBopJiQQcOXX56K YHBAYViFEMsUFNOggcQKFjJy1sBhgyeO/xwDbagYhrHhgwQVLh5lswDEjhIaoD4ItcRKhwoaTpCQ YnIVlRAXQoR4UjJEh60rSGSwsNZCBDARSNjIYWPGjLk1UuglIQHWh1shPmQgEcMFiBB6Z7xwoaLG C70iSIRwU4LEBgtijo1osYiEhj8U4pXQW8PGjh0jS5G4UaN13RoybMieAYOeC7v0HIOQ8MFFjBgv ZMzwPTfFYA0VJkxIIUPHCwqsSESWjlBEBrERoLPqJSKG4hQi9LqAUao3Cxc16LoAHz5FggQTFmSI LCPHDpNdjJWg4UjDhQ5W0KTBBht0YEQ2FWT0nkUWsKADBQLJQIUaJ/xg4Q8bjDCCCXaMsP/Chx9y uIEDBgQAwIkBDFDARgYggAADMAYCAQQXJLGBBx5o6AGIHkBggAAnBhnAkAEIIMAARhI5JIpMmugk kShC0EEUJ3DogIlCHlkAApxsYMKHJVzQgAEEIMnAjSTs9kGaKZimQwsoeMAAlgAEUEADFxBIYAMF CGAABDeaQIIJ4ODhQZBGJrlknYw6iaKfLc4IAY4eXMAAkEGiOOSRBLTIgAObIFBAmR7IQAMOONBQ wwo4QoAAAZlqSqSRBBBQAJICnIlCjR40soIjJnRgaZa2FmBsrcgOgGuS1nDTRx93jFCCIyWMIMNp OIzQQKybHqnsALayaIBAPrGwgQHcClD/bJlJ1hkAAQgAaoKDdNXFAg6FvaBCCi88JoJgH3xgiw0l YBkAA5W94FhjsMWmww4yQICpkE0qKcAGiXgwBKFVfslCCZVpNagNKxSA6MSNzprpk0UqWwCgG6Lw q4YjaLBAM2aEpkKVF5RoAANy7LgCDjOcYLQJFwywcooMbGbqQDK0AM5iv7kwQQQy9CDCAxOI0JxW VSKwsootakRmmQMwYEILLIwgtpB01qmuAQ5gUCkDBAz5rZEM0FCBHH9MYAEXNF0w+GfHLLCB4RAo MMYY4lRRAhUkeMBhsBYgVc0FHHRC4xI1HuLGHUcg4QEnGLy3QCRLUKABCtV2MEKOS0yx/4EnE7aE AXLxSFsCC49QoMB14bkScASxpCLB8ql8IMOqKqxQg0gRpABDBg2YdNQDaWywwgJHFfBeKqlQUIEj EFBQ4zBe2t0JZSho6B8NV2DmbAU1Mp5NjWsMfgwLakFABtJxgASEQDIquEH0UJCmVkgABPwiwTEg IAQrUPA9CkiAGM7gBja85z0IWIYFpCMBEtQgBhxgSjq6wA0zIMAMCQrhBxUgvHR4IgQnoIEMVpAT FqigBCqwgQ5KUwMYpEArGZgS157gBsO1pASmYgEH+OAJJnjCJjIAWwlEpgLJ/A4XwbnBPbTCARBo oBWroEAEQvACudhAODkwiMBGIgu/8P+GBDCogQuCo8Pg9MQG1tEAC/SyixOAzAgjSIJJuDC4Axrv N7LxTl36lRMZwOAFMxBOa3QCHLu8IAayAUEsQFCDW8jgBV5ZwgJoCI2bgQEV5xGBCMRCghOswDgj yMADInC1+UwABDmoV9WqZhAXGEYEj7mNDT4wgTK6YAc2OAFzSKAAUNAkP7UjwvlWcIRqccBXKGiB Dm7wCCt8swQtGIiBOtCBL90hWCsoUt8uZCE4ze5GIwgnDW5Az376858AvdAN+BnQghrUoCggEApk cNCGXogGLdhDhmSWToI61J83gGgLViAzi170oyD1Jw1K8I0VVDSkAKXBr3BE0X2i9J//KJDUIfJp UlPx8wYRDedLLUQDFHR0p/TM6EZntwkGxEpWnPpTC/qJ0xG4qk9FIgADLoACGqB0BRuQVJ4yJC2Z fQgnA2mBR4EK0BvsMH4jItPcplqCFYz1QjgQ6ofE+tKRZtUBDDDAqMBlqxdNamgoHQhZ+9k6yQ2B LBCYgEkMp4EBfsZ1g8tcAkqiAa6BYLJduEA1FncGzWo2CTTqgzloZKCKmGBXmFkJSzCCgHwOIRwi WsQILrChJFgkQW2obUTgkIEFiCEdGdTARw7Ql75MAAYgIF/ASoiQFOwHBiiAYCtGkQHBaaCAg1kB KpZBvlOkDwsAKkInNIsNJhjhDrYt/8KAvrkAwznAC3/DAA07cAADVMBxtsjJCdLxngykQIIHoIAO SgACHdIgFyn4AAhMBYECyuQA1fQEhzAjEdW5qBAtMsABBKAXFchgFqoLDUaScpEEdMEMZojJICbw gMGcQAUfYwHUbkIDHcigGCUYXM4aMMALmOEBbbjAUhyQCAVghgLy24MbOMSEWq5AK08OgR22EoLw 2LKNGfAACLTD4glIIDzDAeULIpngCGTgA8v7QAhKmIOPIGYxi6kNQtZDYBFU5psyIEEF9rkVOzCB C8T7AHg+oLAEgyAyNjjhJWfQmqB4hx70+KR3PiILCbRpHvMwyGGk0JIvWOBUIghwTf8kEwIOyHIF qyhyMyYgMIH9JsEiMOZ61iPLx7An1nGcgAJOYJ0TxOaNIoAPN6hQgQ4U4QoUaGe0jkARGJoPA3n6 AwRQ0ANuyu4PwcOACgT7Ax9XkCKQeJYbMDMCW5KIRYxa2VEbhYF0LIAc//ESsG7yqy95daOOyNOH NkQoK2jIloQygcbOgBGM/CJaN0GBA1DmLnluACcuIMFyifuKWBQXPUWswQ14UIMNxK1OHRgFBUDw MTAQ4xQaIMZWSgC7RWwxE0e4iOw2VLMpUoRzkBi3bTdmy46txGRBIgA7QMY1EpQABjws4n8bmCab wOB3NCAZSTdrAj1YgCEIaAn+ClH/cAtkneWSmlGB2Jmjegd8BRgwQwMIHggvjO8YponBB05QSmSi Kgfk5CGrqmEAZXlApSz4UA1OUAUSQMBDO5zEBTyQw5/YIKOl6QlsbJACHP66jTjJS2VK3YvqvqJr IagBagQWAhW8YHm8sU8OiAhKHOjgjXRxjF7EIhZMzqAyHGLnI9RLhU9AeBTLAU5paIObyBcxOKuv l2x2sPpMuEoAJ1CYDVzAgUSkRXitbMknqnmAEMhdOrPcShtNoMu1kASC1oPA0pQUAAT4xgWyTIEL IjC8+pwAhzZggS6FkAwT+EgAAWAADTApLCcJjpAElPIlnHECLDBQNOA2mUIAjhB4/5YzNDhQJ/P0 AxFFIlCyJJsCLlviAB6wVEB1Ax6AAMoSLlwCM/p0UxkFUfuWBxbBBzRoETaoJ9D2f05yJD9zAej0 Vv8EUbPVAK+iLIuiKUYCLn9SAkDYAj3iABoxKgQAgBbDAFXlgDoEIoRyT1m1CXjFAGajV1JYKyuy ghliUkAYVD11LlTYLSDoKV3iATJjU/SkUrOVV1O4KLMCgmeyAgY1UIAYVieIMuzXMuyyKZ3SABuA Tvs0UADlhHwCgHIDLyLIQ2q4UWh1AXgVhYc4JAjAAopxAzvAaPaxA+PEKhAAdO/SAIGgEQMwLixQ RBsAK0KiIlOlJzeSIzSTB0XVJ/9w0ygNZzHqEi8Q0AAxgk+zkwfV0AADOFEndSEj4AB71YZNwypX sjRKaDZSiCTspyLxgghWdVAj8CN+Aig5shK0CDcDEC8mEI7/hFMxhYK0Qjc0olVrE4Ro+AMZZVKD 1Y/++I8AGZACOZAEWZAGeZAv5YRQ+CmA0lbP2FAQ5Y4IOZEHlYYUeZH+SAIj4AnIIAVU0FttsQR1 0AfIYQEz0WIc4AUs9gHV1AZ94Alz4AlZ1V6dAwGfsTt1YAeH0Aiz9VnZ8G4L8EL8NjkcECLTMgQe IA4c4Am+xQSYszsVMApeoAYtlgKzQD7LIxbFtRsAIGgKVkkMBAMqsGWDAwYn0WL/MjACRzEMyPMe ebIAVlAF+JM5+NMJcyAH7LSUNLFCHXA7PsYS0nYBK6QZFUACKmACeSQDKTAKa1kICdAAtUQBMoAD YtkvaeICLDAMSxFCwoM7e3AFHhSU44MA5PNmJvBKqQAKLIQHlmI+GcQPhVBND1ABmJATAwFWPCED N+B6EjQIrTQIffBj7zGbKcl/hONbtTU7kxAsJhEF4Xdn11EzNTECyYAPWWYBJNEMbmFmJyR9L4B0 evEKaVZplpYXAbNH32lMsid/JRACNUGUNPEA1SczsgMHnzBCB7EXoJRrXKATrmEXwcR6jAYcj/YC zEQSKZAvjJZ/ppJnjRWVyBQb/yxJJaUmHRygAtZRGcqhHIcmMLLBHsa0GP/iCuMhA/AXHsbkGRu6 Jt45Af/wNxn0JeEwOLIzRTTzLDSUdgvQbgXXACYQV+i1AS2AA1cAAX54IeYzOBhQEtrnBgPkOhNw X481BgOkY9BhM61gYphxBjQyBtngAEnROTb4TTZJRRbBbx6APxggQwuQSCLJTRsSD46gIX25BxVA BA8hBBjQAMfAOV6aDtAxASHAAmsmAV62PBbQFxGAZsSFSUa0bTSgFgwEpWpUDEu0AixGPqiQCoLT ABsimJxjZMHSOW6wAEPQIXNwAn0QDsOGHDWiDpWwSmxAAQgwAT/xHK4DBtYSAv+jAAMycAtbwUBb sXQp9wU/VgVUgBGOYwbmIEOFAJsv1EYmNHgpN5UZpD5jYAafQg4FV00tkXXAM6yTaVa7GXhPQAOE egHaQwwYMBlR6QaAKquuQzhwkCd/dgEtIAWGuTNA1EUHJE0/lAK3IE2ltgrXMUDKYXpFBAOJVhe9 oGDMBAsk8QERoAIz8F8p4EnjAQPjYRAcEHg8dAs+VGrBsATtBiiVJR2tIH82IHcJKhutMQ971Bq0 EQOtYbO4MR5zIQLIkwFjFkwx0AunahLeSgroCg0ZYEhSgEPidx3UBBe/RKItS2vGBB7isUdVSxw5 YB1nxoAMiAM1EAJGJiCVhRX/UVA/pMMEHYAjAjcQDOgByJqSHbBPa6shp+UZBrICCKCIPzA4nANu hUMTfSCYcCkoWzQtiwBwwCJwN9KFMwK3ZEBBlCAEPVKmcEBSSsBS4zAGBGIZxVlqIyA7VWcSNCIO EOIHNfKxLABwWVUiDrAhhFoC61Ee45kKV3kAJqRDVaUDzkEplLIBb9FiFABjGDEMByA+DxAwA0QF CFCqtwNtUZm6p+pn49ZEmUUJO6oNb7AhHtBOAUcC2UABBfQAB2ECM7ALK6AChgGxa5IQFHATP0QF fzAIm6BZRWEAavBejqk44AMQHOCeFMEHNzkjnrARhKA6bKC/ogkdISBEPMsK/xkQARyQEz0xRDsR TD8hA6UWBWcxKM2RTsBTKaFQLRhgEzlUA8CzC7ZWS9PCaM+DA8mwQ2dUoSHQDNnBZq8xAx2aAjkg nrjbAzYgljGQR7LxE6URdS4AwYfhfW20Icr2WFjgBGIABoLmG79xQrSRC5gkHDUbs3UhA8IHHDRA FwkWfCkQDEa3Ah9gBo4DDdWEQXDnAiHQCirLAtbhC7zENawmaDyQALICAAOwACZQGMb0L4QGSAdQ faaxujihSxMiGvuxQzD3TW6VCbMluhvCGT90E7qpUlmVIaWDAgYyLzKAgfzhkrdDnewEBxqQuDdx AetnMUWShHxFhsYCt5xzWv8tgIk9ggCEaCKvSDfd67vDXMzErCEtAT5nMCiZcI1wwykrshFI8jJH 5wrFVbshwGhx9TAtYFSPgiwGkE+mhwPC8EocWUAkwHAAYCz0aI4VKDPo+mIcxSEgw062FD0C5yMf 13CJMiQFsAEk0AK1MRB2MbMD8QIM1CN5lW5MQgAXECxe6mNAmQAlgD8Q0DvqbDDrdiKMkwBlAEIy REMW0Bz1whMDNQIMoDTqFowDIBDTk5kTXEkb8DZMciI/c3jhlGiwkQN3wQKXhBNz8QIMKAODNMeu 8EvK5VxfYrUiwBsxEKCwURq8ywMxMDu7GHYzArs1UC1VZxF3oBJ3wGIm90v/MxBMNlFjiea4k8JS NqYCToWCR3UBO7FfFGCdGmmSgzA41WRkE0x5Qm00tbS6xiEfJfDXM50pArAlhQCGLlIAF/Avs8az y8EDWxMCzbGY/3sCCndUhag2KGAET8ZRLGVSK+DM3/wnQHciBOAAGBg18ZMHuQgBeMPZm/Iycggi 6fQ0gBhQTujLKTPLKgg0M/KF2lgr4FLLyJ0sA2CkckKIPMhW6fRPcHI6osKNF1M5xVgi68Y0IxhU LdAzA6AkgAwvL4IpaTPcxugiLHIsaIMrhego8A3NP8MJFTgQ+xgnm4DfP7LdbhguP9OMODIiDHAr 6rJ4mqjd6mYnDaCLOkIg/3kSdoFgjI3gCLxIIiodJANwOs79insbdjfSVhy1AXk1I6l92vTdK0W1 EdMo3n7iAIu4er+mmCxgAy/AHfXxRhOTKANwAdGHSTudAybgzY9y3MhiLEa+VwYwLyvVKsO93kEi 5HWiLFSoLkaOLOxCK2XYjCxnAg4Q3ussDYs4OFGwCP534b89Kz9j5ojIjgWVhSvwAiGwAlrzS742 Tkij5q/4V7ss2neVV31HJ4aIK6+oK+F4AzEVI8M9VRZl6E9V5J5CI7ctkSVYKTBjUi5VkDQgJ7XS gzqVkHGiiQNOhhvhV4tXVX+YhVNXjOr9Ih4AUlgYNR/iUyQF2/n0kB8lA+3nws5+1bkt+FFwMiKi UiyPTlsrIOkXdQMojSQpqOvbuowbMVWdflEKqRHxsiPGHlD7mAmUToQq7gF0kQNZ1CP7zS2OnU4Q hTQDvo4TozfxshkWWYesgje0bMvsPOovwowXUOwZRYfvaN8GlQmLs4nGwo3qWABA4yGYODtzsIme QuzXHlA0cAFF2IaA3jIGT1UPj1G78ikYYOoW4ogYGfIiP/IkX/Im31C7ffL9yOhQZYhZ3pAk+I7W +Ck78u4QafMmv4byMqQiL1eYeyPwjAMqP/REX/RGf/RIn/TSbu5K3/ROj/RBAAAAAAAAAAAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_01D0_01C35957.46BF6100 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.bible.org/common/style.css BODY { MARGIN: 5px 50px 50px } H1 { FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman, Helvetica; FONT-SIZE: 15pt; FONT-WEIGHT: = bold; TEXT-ALIGN: center } H2 { FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 13pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; = TEXT-INDENT: 0px } H3 { FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; = TEXT-INDENT: 15px } H4 { FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; = TEXT-INDENT: 30px } H5 { FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; = TEXT-INDENT: 45px } H6 { FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; = TEXT-INDENT: 60px } H7 { FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; = TEXT-INDENT: 75px } P { FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 11pt } .hang { MARGIN-LEFT: 3em; TEXT-INDENT: -3em } A:link { COLOR: black } A:active { COLOR: black } A:visited { COLOR: black } A:hover { COLOR: red } ------=_NextPart_000_01D0_01C35957.46BF6100--