Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede,Qumran, and Papyrology

From: "Thomas J. Kraus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:24:38 -0500

I know that a mail-forum is not the media to discuss matters of interest in
full, and that e-mails are meant to be short, precise, and easily
accessible. So, I apologize for the length of this message. But recent
mails depict that there are more and more questions arising around C.P.
Thiede´s claims.

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Wieland Wilker referred to C.P. Thiede´s redating of
P4/64/67 (in Tyndale Bulletin 46, 1995, 29-42, 55-57, and above all ZPE
105, 1995, 13-20): Klaus Wachtel and L.W. Hurtado already replied to
Wieland in the - from a paleographical and papyrological view - only
acceptable way: The matter is settled, no scholar is really promoting
Thiede´s methodologically inadequate dating. For further discussion of
Thiede´s redating see, for instance: T.C. Skeat, The Oldest Manuscript of
the Four Gospels, in: NTS 43, 1977, 1-34 (already mentioned by Klaus
Wachtel) and the two recensions of Thiede´s (adventurous) book (Eyewitness
to Jesus, New York: Doubleday 1996) by H. Förster, in: biblos 46,1, 1997,
230-232 and P. Grelot, in: RB 105, 1998, 589-596. Klaus Wachtel himself
made a decisive reply in ZPE 107, 1995, 73-80, where everybody can find the
relevant facts.

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, James R. Adair, Jr., asked:
Has anyone seen the proposal that 7Q5 should be identified as a fragment
not of Mark but of Zechariah? ... Any comments from anyone who´s read the
article?

If I may - I hope I do so -, I´ll try to elaborate on the hypothesis
proposed by J. O´Callaghan, heavily propagated by C.P. Thiede, and then the
alternative proposal for 7Q5 by M.V. Spottorno and the paleographical
investigation by E. Puech. In between comes the handling of F. Rohrhirsch´s
treatment of the case focusing primarily on the probabilities and
plausibilities of all the proposals based on Popper´s views on scientific
research (and not relying on a text-critical or papyrological methodology)

---

From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:46:25 -0500

>not of Mark but of Zechariah? ... Any comments from anyone who´s read the

On a related note, it is worth noting that W Slaby has pointed out (in
Eichstu:tter Studient, Neue Folge Bd 32, 1992) that if one restricts the
reading of 7Q5 to the sure letters only (i.e. no conjectural emendations,
etc) the only possible identification is Lk 3:19-21.

(See also, p198 n17 of G Stanton's book.)

Nichael
--
Nichael Cramer
[email-masked]
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/