Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:27:12 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote:

> 	There seems to be a great parallel between textual criticism
> and palaeoanthropology.  We are examining small fossil fragments and
> speculating on a common ancestor...looking for the "Lucy" of
> manuscripts.  Everytime a new fossil is discovered, we re-examine
> the family (hominidae/Byzantine/Alexandrian) and it's genera, species
> and sub-species as well as "tribes and clans."  Textual variants are
> like genetic codes.

I see a parallel, too, between the search for a mitochondrial Eve and the 
search for the elusive archetypes of the gospels (and other books as 
well).  I have thought for some time about the possibility of using some 
of the algorithms used to trace the human genome to examine biblical 
mss.  Of course, I realize that the validity of some of those algorithms 
is disputed.  Still, it would be interesting to see what they would 
generate in terms of an archetype.

> 	I wonder if the 11Q New Jerusalem fragments just might
> represent a holotype for Revelation.

Could you elaborate some more?

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 23:50:15 -0600

> generate in terms of an archetype.

	I had the same thought..much like a taxonomic key used to
identify species.

> Could you elaborate some more?

	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), the most
we could expect is "pre/proto-Christian" writings which would hardly be
discernible from Jewish writings.  In this regard, the Testament
literature may be linked to the Yeshuine Jews.

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:12:19 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote:

> 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 20:08:14 -0600

> 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.

> 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.

> Egypt, especially outside of Alexandria, would be the likely place.

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

>  And
> 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.

> might think a pro-Byzantine person might hold).

	I agree EXCEPT for 7Q5 which is a possibility.

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:30:16 -0500 (EST)

> than the present Canonical Mark.

For the record, I obviously would not.

> may be right..but Thiede and Company may also be right.

I still suggest that the textual problems involved tend to rule out such
an identification, especially in view of p52, also a small fragment, with
no doubt whatever as to its identification.

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

Apparently my fingers typed faster than my mind was working, and I don't
know how this jumble came about -- I was trying to make a suggestion as to
where the autograph of Mark might more likely be found, and since
Alexandria attempts to claim a special relationship to Mark himself, the
Alexandrian Copts or even Orthodox would probably suggest the autograph
"must" have been in their region, and not in a cave in Qumran. Following
that, then insert my own comment regarding "I would hardly think" that
even Egypt would hold a fragment of the autograph of Mark, much less
Qumran. Sorry for the confusion. 

> after (yes, AFTER) "proto-John," in the early 40's CE.

Each to his or her own. *;-)  I would hold quite different (and later)
dates.