Sun Nov 3 13:17:10 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Nov  3 13:17:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA25255; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:16:08 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:12:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances
In-Reply-To: <327AE117.5C78@accesscomm.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2142



On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote:

> 	11Q New Jerusalem fragment 14 speaks of seven crowns (Rev 4:4-5)
> and fragment 17, seven bowls.  Almost certainly the primary hope for
> the discovery of the DSS was finding "Christian writings" but the very
> idea is an anachronism.  With the exception of 7Q5, which I believe
> is genuinely a fragment of Mark1 (perhaps the autograph), ...

I continue to be amazed at any acceptance of 7Q5 being identified with a
NT fragment, when (a) the amount of text is too small for positive
identification; (b) one must postulate a delta > tau shift in the
middle of a word on the analogy of Coptic (where such shifts are
predominately at the beginning of a word); and (c) a hitherto unknown
variant reading must also be postulated for the claim to work.

Why anyone (O'Callaghan or anyone else) would want to try to build or
support a 7Q5 = Markan fragment hypothesis upon such hypothetical and
questionable ground when accepted fragments such as p52 brook no doubts
whatever as to their identity remains puzzling to me.  

Is there some hidden need to have an "autograph" or close to autograph
fragment of Mark's gospel?  If so, I would hardly think the sands of
Egypt, especially outside of Alexandria, would be the likely place.  And
even if it were clearly a Markan fragment, the early data would only prove
an early origin for Mark (which I can hold even without the 7Q5
identification), but still would say nothing about the autograph.  As I
told O'Callaghan years ago, his supposed fragment of 1 Timothy has more to
commend itself -- but that would make the pastorals far too early, as even
O'Callaghan recognized.

I personally accept none of either O'Callaghan's or Thiede's
identifications (which probably might be opposite to what some people
might think a pro-Byzantine person might hold).


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back