Jump to content

7Q5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fragment 5 from Cave 7 of the Qumran Community in its entirety

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 7Q5 is the designation for a small Greek papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran Cave 7. It contains about 18 legible or partially legible Greek letters and was published in 1962 as an unidentified text. The editor assigned the fragment to a date between 50 BCE and 50 CE on the basis of its handwriting.[1] In 1972, the Spanish papyrologist Jose O'Callaghan argued that the papyrus was in fact a fragment of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6, verses 52 and 53. While some New Testament textual scholars have been unpersuaded by this argument, a vocal minority continue to support the identification of the fragment as a part of the Gospel of Mark.[2][3] The New Testament academic discipline does not include the science of papyrology. The majority of people opposing the identification of 7Q5 are biblical studies people who by nature of the field don’t have papyrological training.[4] Most papyrologists in the field of the science of papyrology support the identification of 7Q5 as a fragment of Mark’s Gospel dated to pre-68CE as seen by opinions assessed at the 1991 symposium at Eichstatt University.[5][6] The papers presented and summary of the symposium is recorded in a book edited in 1992 by B. Mayer entitled “Christen und Christliches in Qumran”.[7] The professional Papyrologists accepted the identification of 7Q5 as Mark’s gospel and they include Herbert Hunger, Carsten Peter Thiede, Orsolina Montevecchi, Fernandind Rohrhirsch[8] There were some other supporters and dissenters of 7Q5 who presented papers (Harald Risesenfeld, C. Martini, Camilie Focant, Stuart Pickering and Rosalie Cook) but they are not professional papyrologists. Furthermore some of the world’s greatest papyrologists have given statements to support the identification of 7Q5 as Mark 6.[9] This includes Orsolina Montevecchi,[10] President (later honorary president) of International Papyrological Association, Sergio Daris Honorary President of the Papyrological Association,[11] Heikki Koskenniemi[12] and Herbert Hunger[13][14][15]

O'Callaghan's proposed identification

[edit]

O'Callaghan challenged the reading of the original edition of the fragment, largely because he misunderstood the original editor's use of an iota subscript in line 2 of the fragment.[16] The Greek text below shows O'Callaghan's reconstruction with bold font representing proposed identifications with characters from 7Q5:[17]

Argument

[edit]
The 7th Cave at Qumran, where 7Q5 was found.

O'Callaghan's argument is as follows:

  1. According to O'Callaghan, in line 2 "after the ⲱ, the ⲁ suggested by the editors seems inadmissible. The traces of the facsimile are too uncertain to allow a satisfactory reading, even though one comes to discover the left vertical stroke and the peculiar descending contour of a ⲛ similar to that of line 4."[18] By reading a nu after the omega, O'Callaghan was able to reconstruct the words [α]υτων η [καρδια], which could be matched with a passage in Mark's gospel.
  2. O'Callaghan pointed out that the combination of letters ννησ <nnēs> in line 4 may be part of the word Γεννησαρετ <Gennēsaret>.
  3. O'Callaghan argued that the spacing before the word και <kai> ("and") suggests a paragraph break, which is consistent with the normative layout for Mark 6:52-53.
  4. Furthermore, a computer search "using the most elaborate Greek texts ... has failed to yield any text other than Mark 6:52-53 for the combination of letters identified by O'Callaghan et al. in 7Q5".[19]

The reasons why some New Testament scholars (non-professional papyrologists who are amateurs and not professionals in the field)[20][21] have rejected O'Callaghan's arguments include the following:

  • Several of the letters read or reconstructed by O'Callaghan are highly debatable to them (especially the nu in line 2).[22]
  • The spacing before the word και <kai> ("and") proposed as a paragraph break may not be indicative of anything.
  • In papyri spacings of this width can be also found within words (Pap. Bodmer XXIV, plate 26; in Qumran in fragment 4Q122).
  • Other examples in the Qumran texts show that the word και <kai> ("and") usually was separated with spacings – and this has nothing to do with the text's structure (as proposed by O'Callaghan).
  • The sequence ννησ can be also found in the word εγεννησεν <egennēsen> ("begot"), a very common word used in biblical genealogies and the reconstruction suggested by the original editor.[1]

Carsten Peter Thiede who is a Papyrologists responded to the objections of Daniel B. Wallace and other scholars in fields other than papyrology who are the primary people objecting to the identification that they commit “a kind of fallacy of analogy that no papyrologist would commit.”[23] Thiede continued in the prestigious Westminster Journal that “is it really too much to expect that in a paper published in 1994, the detailed analysis by the great papyrologist Herbert Hunger of Vienna, Austria, published in 1992, in favor of Mark 6:52-53 and already answering the objections raised by Wallace- should have been noticed.”[24]

Further counterarguments

  • To make the identification of the fragment with Mark 6:52-53, O'Callaghan had to substitute a δ (delta) ⟨d⟩ for the τ (tau) ⟨t⟩ found in line 3 of 7Q5.[25] Carsten Thiede provided over 25 ancient documents where the d/t shift occurs.[26]

There are numerous texts with the d to t shift including text dated 42CE, papyrus 66, papyrus 4, papyrus 75 as recorded in Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumrân? ("New Testament Papyri in Cave 7 at Qumran?")[27]

  • The words επι την γην <epi tēn gēn> ("to the land") in line 4, which are found in Mark 6:53, would have to be considered as being omitted from 7Q5 in order to fit into its column. However, this omission is found in no extant manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[25] There are other documents which omission of the words on to the land are not present in manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel[28] Omissions by scribal typo does not remove an identification of a text. papyrus 45 of Mark’s gospel does not have “to the other side” and yet it is clearly part of full pages of Mark’s gospel.[29]
  • The identification of the last letter in line 2 with nu does was thought to not fit into the pattern of this Greek letter as it is clearly written in line 4 by amateur papyrologists.[30] However, the electron microscope at the Investigation Department of the Israel National Police clearly shows a diagonal line for the “NU”. This fits Mark’s Gospel as shown on image 2 that is also in the book which recorded the 1991 Qumran symposium papers presented for consideration of 7Q5 as Mark’s Gospel[31]
  • The computer search performed by Thiede matched Herbert Hungers 22 point analysis that confirmed 7Q5 is the Gospel of Mark.[32][33]
    • A similar search performed by scholar Daniel Wallace, which allowed other identifications for the disputed letters, found sixteen matches.[25] However, when the letters confirmed by the Department of Investigations electronic microscope is included, 7Q5 only fits Mark’s Gospel.[34]
    • A computer search performed with the undisputed letters of the fragment 7Q5 does finds the text Mk 6:52-53, because the undisputed letter τ in line 3 does fits to this text.[35][36]

Anachronism found in Mark's Gospel

  • Another potential problem with identifying 7Q5 as Mark's gospel is the argument that Mark 12:13–17 may potentially contain a reference to Vespasian's Fiscus Judaicus imposed in 71 AD, meaning the gospel had to be written after this date, while 7Q5 dates to before 50 AD.[37] However, this potential problem is cleared as most of the early church leaders and about half of the manuscripts of Family 35 from Mark’s Gospel show that it was written about 42/43 CE timeframe so this aligns with the date of Mark’s gospel being written and in Qumran before 68CE[38]

Significance

[edit]

If 7Q5 was actually a fragment of Mark 6:52–53 and was deposited in the cave at Qumran by 68 AD, it would become the earliest known fragment of the New Testament, predating P52 by at least some if not many decades. Yet, since the amount of text in the manuscript is so small, even a confirmation of 7Q5 as Markan "might mean nothing more than that the contents of these few verses were already formalized, not necessarily that there was a manuscript of Mark's Gospel on hand".[39] Since the entirety of the find in Cave 7 consists of fragments in Greek, it is possible that the contents of this cave are of a separate "Hellenized" library than the Hebrew texts found in the other caves.

Sunday April 12th, 1992 7q5 was examined forensically in the Investigations Department of the Israel National Police. The investigation was carried out by Chief Inspector Sharon Landau in the presence of Dr Joseph Almog, the Director of the Israel Division of Identification and Forensic Science and Curator Joseph Zias. The decisive parts of the analysis were “recorded by a TV team from the Bavarian Television Company, ARD.”[40] From the examination of line 2 of fragment 7Q5 under the stereo microscope, Thiede believed he saw the diagonal middle stroke of a NU, "as demanded by the identification of 7Q5 as Mark 6:52-53”[41] Yet, another examination by Stephen Pfann using the Rokefeller Museum's Olympus SZ4045 Zoom Stereo Microscope with an Olympus Cold Light Illuminator 3000 detected no traces of the alleged diagonal and instead concluded that the original editors were correct in reading an iota: "The iota is absolutely an iota."[42] Computer print outs of the letter “NU” as well as other letters of 7Q5 corroborated it as Mark’s Gospel were made by the use of stereo microscope in the independent Department of Investigations at the Israel National Police office. The computer print outs were added the appendix of the book Eichstatt symposium on Qumran along with majority of scholarly essays corroborating 7Q5 as Gospel of Mark[43][44]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ a b M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux (eds.), Les 'petites grottes' de Qumrân (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan III; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 144.
  2. ^ Elliot, J. K. (2003). "Book Notes". Novum Testamentum. 45 (2): 203. JSTOR 1561021. ... Qumran ms. 7Q5 ... is captioned as if it contains a fragment of Mark: it was of course O'Callaghan who made that controversial — and now virtually universally rejected — identification of this Dead Sea text as a piece of the New Testament ...
  3. ^ Gundry (1999), p.698. Carlo Maria Martini, S.J., Archbishop of Milan and part of the five-member team which edited the definitive modern edition of the Greek New Testament for the United Bible Societies agreed with O'Callaghan's identification and assertions.
  4. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=orsolina+montevecchi+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGuIjSjeKMAxVil4kEHaDnGpkQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=orsolina%20montevecchi%207q5&f=false
  5. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqR6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT67&dq=papyrologists+eichstatt+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWwMb78uGMAxVQhYkEHSNcAh4Q6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=papyrologists%20eichstatt%207q5&f=false
  6. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA40&dq=eichstatt+7q5+symposium&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPtrbx9eGMAxWBjYkEHfDtCgMQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=eichstatt%207q5%20symposium&f=false
  7. ^ https://www.academia.edu/121198113/Christen_und_Christliches_in_Qumran_edited_by_Bernhard_Mayer_Eichst%C3%A4tter_Studien_NF_32_Regensburg_Verlag_Friedrich_Pustet_1992_Pp_268_43_plates_DM_88_00_ISBN_3_7917_1346_9
  8. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=k5-J92rnKOEC&pg=PA371&dq=christen+christliches+qumran+7q5+mayer&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEgeOV_-OMAxXPFjQIHWTWFcM4HhDoAXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=christen%20christliches%20qumran%207q5%20mayer&f=false
  9. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA40&dq=eichstatt+7q5+symposium&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPtrbx9eGMAxWBjYkEHfDtCgMQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=eichstatt%207q5%20symposium&f=false
  10. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=orsolina+montevecchi+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGuIjSjeKMAxVil4kEHaDnGpkQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=orsolina%20montevecchi%207q5&f=false
  11. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=-VsPAQAAMAAJ&q=s+daris+7q5&dq=s+daris+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIn9LdheSMAxUMJNAFHWmWGzUQ6AF6BAgFEAM#daris%20thought
  12. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqR6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT66&dq=%C2%A0koskenniemi+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi72cG6h-SMAxXCOjQIHdFgO8kQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=%C2%A0koskenniemi%207q5&f=false
  13. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqR6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT66&dq=7q5+heikki&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6kLSM9-GMAxVprIkEHWw9BJYQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=7q5%20heikki&f=false
  14. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=nnFXAAAAYAAJ&q=orsolina+montevecchi+7q5&dq=orsolina+montevecchi+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV-fz9jeKMAxWHCnkGHSVVBx44ChDoAXoECAUQAw#orsolina%20montevecchi%207q5
  15. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=orsolina+montevecchi+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTp5OljuKMAxWtv4kEHbogKMc4FBDoAXoECAYQAw#v=onepage&q=orsolina%20montevecchi&f=false
  16. ^ Brent Nongbri, "The Strange 'nu' Story of 7Q5," Variant Readings (March 19, 2022) https://brentnongbri.com/2022/03/19/the-strange-nu-story-of-7q5/: "It’s not the case that O’Callaghan judged the editors’ omega–iota-space-alpha sequence to be a bad reading in need of improvement. Rather, he appears to have failed to understand that Baillet and Boismard rendered the script ⲱⲓ (omega–iota) by means of a printed ῳ employing the iota subscript. O'Callaghan took the printed ῳ to represent just one letter–ⲱ–and then believed the editors had misconstrued the following vertical line ("el palo vertical") as part of an alpha." Nongbri cites as the source of this observation Stuart R. Pickering and Rosalie R.E. Cook, Has a Fragment of the Gospel of Mark Been Found at Qumran? (Sydney: Macquarie University Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1989).
  17. ^ VanderKam, James; Peter Flint (2004). The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (First HarperCollins paperback ed.). New York: HarperCollins. p. 315. ISBN 0-06-068465-8.
  18. ^ Brent Nongbri, "The Strange 'nu' Story of 7Q5," Variant Readings (March 19, 2022) https://brentnongbri.com/2022/03/19/the-strange-nu-story-of-7q5/.
  19. ^ Thiede n. 31, pp. 40-41
  20. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqR6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT66&dq=%C2%A0koskenniemi+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicxar7hOeMAxWZhIkEHdjTJv4Q6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=%C2%A0koskenniemi%207q5&f=false
  21. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=orsolina+montevecchi+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGuIjSjeKMAxVil4kEHaDnGpkQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=orsolina%20montevecchi%207q5&f=false
  22. ^ Robert H. Gundry, "No NU in Line 2 of 7Q5: A Final Disidentification of 7Q5 With Mark 6:52-53," Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (4): 698–707. doi:10.2307/3268112.
  23. ^ https://www.galaxie.com/article/wtj57-2-12
  24. ^ https://www.galaxie.com/article/wtj57-2-12
  25. ^ a b c [clarification needed]
  26. ^ https://www.galaxie.com/article/wtj57-2-12
  27. ^ Biblica 53 (1972) 91-100. Translated into English by W. L. Holladay in Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972) supplement no. 2.
  28. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=SxdkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=manuscripts+on+the+land+omitted+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiomdTRhueMAxXq78kDHYPBK9EQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=manuscripts%20on%20the%20land%20omitted%207q5&f=false
  29. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=iMuDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA181&dq=papyrus+45+mark+to+the+other+side+omitted&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt-KmTieiMAxWUq4kEHQ6vOWQQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=papyrus%2045%20mark%20to%20the%20other%20side%20omitted&f=false
  30. ^ Gundry (1999)
  31. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=SxdkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=manuscripts+on+the+land+omitted+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiomdTRhueMAxXq78kDHYPBK9EQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=manuscripts%20on%20the%20land%20omitted%207q5&f=false
  32. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA39&dq=hunger+hunger+analysis+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOhIeXiOeMAxWbq4kEHfhyLfgQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=hunger%20hunger%20analysis%207q5&f=false
  33. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&dq=hunger+hunger+analysis+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOhIeXiOeMAxWbq4kEHfhyLfgQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=hunger%20hunger%20analysis%207q5&f=false
  34. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA190&dq=ibykus+analysis+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib0NDIiOeMAxU1wvACHUhyHeAQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=ibykus%20analysis%207q5&f=false
  35. ^ See Wallace, footnote 18.
  36. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA190&dq=ibykus+analysis+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib0NDIiOeMAxU1wvACHUhyHeAQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=ibykus%20analysis%207q5&f=false
  37. ^ Zeichmann, Christopher (2017). "The Date of Mark’s Gospel Apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The Taxation Episode (12:13–17) as Evidence". https://www.academia.edu/34194619/The_Date_of_Mark_s_Gospel_Apart_from_the_Temple_and_Rumors_of_War_The_Taxation_Episode_12_13_17_as_Evidence(2017)
  38. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=Pzr7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PR63&dq=colophon+mark+gospel+10th+year+ascension&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2kPjdieeMAxWX8MkDHYXZB8sQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=colophon%20mark%20gospel%2010th%20year%20ascension&f=false
  39. ^ Picirilli, Robert E. (2003). The Gospel of Mark (first ed.). Nashville, TN: Randall House Publications. p. 11. ISBN 0-89265-500-3.
  40. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth. Gracewing. ISBN 978-1-56338-136-2.
  41. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth. Gracewing. ISBN 978-1-56338-136-2.
  42. ^ Robert H. Gundry, "No NU in Line 2 of 7Q5: A Final Disidentification of 7Q5 With Mark 6:52-53," Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (4): 698–707. doi:10.2307/3268112.
  43. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=7q5+israel+1992+microscope+NU&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTuMb57uSMAxWnjIkEHfkTIwYQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=1992&f=false
  44. ^ https://www.academia.edu/121198113/Christen_und_Christliches_in_Qumran_edited_by_Bernhard_Mayer_Eichst%C3%A4tter_Studien_NF_32_Regensburg_Verlag_Friedrich_Pustet_1992_Pp_268_43_plates_DM_88_00_ISBN_3_7917_1346_9

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
  • Enste, Stefan (2000). "Kein Markustext in Qumran. Eine Untersuchung der These: Qumran-Fragment 7Q5 = Mk 6,52-53". NTOA. 45. Freiburg/Göttingen.
  • Estrada, David; White, William Jr. (1978). The First New Testament. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc. ISBN 0-8407-5121-4.
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to 7Q5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7Q5&oldid=1286777601"