Mon Jan 27 22:23:59 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 27 22:23:59 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA16504; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:23:31 -0500
Message-ID: <32ED7023.561D@accesscomm.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:18:59 -0600
From: Jack Kilmon 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: 7Q5
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: 2319

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 .
> 

	As you know, J. O'Callaghan identifies a few of the Greek
papyrus fragments from Cave 7 as New Testament writings.  Cave 7
is somewhat unique from the other caves in that it was a cave of
occupation.  He published his findings "Papiros Neotestamentarios
en la Cueva 7 de Qumran" in Biblica 53, 1972, Pp 91-100. He identified
7Q5 as Mark 6:52-53.  Many scholars disputed his findings and indeed
mostof the fragments are very questionable.  By the end of the 70's the
concensus of scholarly opinion was negative. In 1984, interest was again
stimulated for this 3.9 by 2.7 cm fragment by the eminent
literary critic, Carsten Peter Thiede.  See Thiede's"7Q-Eine Ruckkehr zu
den neutestamentlichen Papyrusfragmente in der siebten Hohle von Qumran'
Biblica 65, 1984, 538-559; 66, 1985, 21f.

	In an attempt to settle such an important issue, scientists from
various disciplines met in Eichstatt in 1991.  Coming down on the side
of 7Q5 as a fragment of Mark was Thiede, Herbert Hunger of Vienna,
Ferdinand Rohrhirsch, Harold Risenfeld and Eugen Ruckstuhl.  New
Testament Scholar Bernhard Mayer has edited and published the symposium,
"Christen und Christliches in Qumran?" Eichstatter Studien, Neue Folge
32, Regensburg 192. 

	Arguments against the fragment as Markan settles on some disputed
consonants.  Thiede was able to Make more consonants visible
by further forensicexamination in a crime lab in Israel in 1992.
His analysis supports O'Callaghan.

	The reconstructed Greek Text of 7Q5 is thus (reconstructions in
brackets):

	[SUNHKAN] E[PI TOIS ARTOIS]
	[ALLHN A]UTWN H [XARDIA PEPWRW-]
	[MEN]H  KAI TI[APERASANTES]
	[HLQON EIS GE]NNHS[ARET KAI]
	PROSWRMIS]ZHSA[N  KAI EXEL-]

	7Q5 is written in Herodian decorated style which places it to
50 CE and before.  I have no problem with this since I believe the first
autograph of Mark was written in the 40's.

	The best that can be said is that the identification of 7Q5
as Mark is uncertain but possible.  

Hope that helps.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
JPMan@accesscomm.net

Back