Sun Nov 3 21:06:04 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Nov  3 21:06:04 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA28042; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 21:04:33 -0500
Message-ID: <327D500E.2D49@accesscomm.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 20:08:14 -0600
From: Jack Kilmon 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3327

Maurice Robinson wrote:
> 
> 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.

	Let me clarify my position on the matter of "New Testament" writings
in the DSS corpus.  7Q5 IS intriguing to me as it was to Thiede,
Rohrhirsch,
Risenfeld, Ruckstuhl and Hunger at the Eichstatt Symposium.  Of course
it
is very problematic with two variants in one small fragment...however...
I would no more be surprised at the textual difference between the first
autograph Mark and what eventually became Canonical Mark as I would
between
an Aramaic "proto-John" and the final Canonical GJohn after at least 3
layers of heavy redaction.

	Having said this, however, the idea of "Christian" writing among the
DSS caches is an anachronism.  Any writings that came from the
post-crucifixion
Yeshuine Jews would be very difficult to distinguish from other Jewish
writings of the period.  If we want to hunt for that possibility among
the
DSS we would do best to examine the "Testament" literature or perhaps
the
"wisdom" literature.

	I would posit, Dr. Robinson, that "Mark1" would look VERY different
than the present Canonical Mark.


> 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.

	Rohrhirsch really makes a very good argument that 7Q5 and Mark 6:52-53
is the only possible identification.  I understand your points, and you
may
be right..but Thiede and Company may also be right.

> 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.

	It was not found in Alexandria but in cave 7 near Qumran.

>  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.

	I admit I WAS being provocative when I said "perhaps the autograph."
I believe in a very early date for Mark1, either right before...or right
after
(yes, AFTER) "proto-John," in the early 40's CE.

> 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).

	I agree EXCEPT for 7Q5 which is a possibility.

Jack Kilmon
jpman@accesscomm.net

Back