Mon Jan 27 21:55:11 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 27 21:55:11 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA16218; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:54:09 -0500
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:52:34 -0500
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Subject: Re: 7Q5
Cc: rminton@mail.orion.org
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 997

At 7:00 PM 1/27/97, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
>Someone brought up the O'Callahan theory that ms 7Q5 dates to the first
>century and is from the Gospels.  What have papyrologists concluded on
>this in the last few years?  What do some you you who have studied this
>issue say?  Thanks ahead of time for the info .

Ron

For a good --and easily accessible-- discussion of 7Q5 and why
O'Callaghan's identification is almost certainly not correct, see the
disucssion in Graham Stanton's  _Gospel Truth?: New light on Jesus and the
Gospels_ (Trinity, 1995).

I think it's safe to say that Stanton's (negative) appraisal is in
agreement with the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion on the topic.

(Stanton also published an article in Bible Review about the time the book
was published that cover much of the same material.)

Cheers




Nichael                                                      __
nichael@sover.net                         Be as passersby -- IC
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/

Back