[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Cave 7 Fragments
Jack Kilmon wrote:
> Although 7Q5 is intriguing, identification with Mk 6:52-53 rests
> solely on
> a paucity of words. If O'Callaghan's "Qumran New Testament" were only
> 7Q5, some serious discussion among scholars could be appropriate with
> reference to alternative possibilities..but O'Callaghan lost me with his
>
> claims of 7Q7 (Acts 27:38); 7Q10 (2 Peter 1:15); 7Q4 (1 Tim 3:16-4:3).
> Christian writings in DSS has been fodder for conspiracy stories for
> years
> in spite of the obvious anachronism. 2 Peter hails from the early 2nd
> century
> CE and given the latest possible date of deposit, a "Mark fragment"
> would have
> to be the autograph.
A big part of O'Callaghan's (and now Thiede's) complaint about such
responses is that they are form/source critical assertions, not
paleographical ones. If in fact these fragments did turn out to be
what O'Callaghan says they are, then such judgments would either have
to be re-evaluated (i.e. tossed out) or held in spite of paleographic
evidence to the contrary. While I have no opinion either way on the
Cave 7 fragments, I do think that O'C has a legitimate gripe here.
He made his suggestions based on paleography, and it seems reasonable
to me that refutation of them should follow the same track.
Dave Washburn
dwashbur@nyx.net
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.