[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The most recent thorough discussions of which I'm aware came at the end of
1995, with Emile Puech's piece in Biblique of October 1995, and
Graham Stanton's article in the December 1995 issue of Bible Review, each
of which covered Thiede's claims in two areas -- the cave 7 fragments from
Qumran, and P. Magdalen 17 == P64 in Nestle-Aland.
Regarding 7Q5, if Thiede claims that "he has assigned it to GMark," he is
appropriating the work of someone else without attribution. The assignment
to Mark 6.52-53, for what it's worth, was made by the Spanish papyrologist
Jose/ O'Callaghan, as reported in the Times (1972) -- these details are from
Stanton's article mentioned above.
To make your own assessment of Thiede's work (and O'Callaghan's) you need
to read more than one of Thiede's books, as his claims shift
according to his audience. Sometimes they disappear, as in his
highly publicized article in the journal <German>Zeitschrift fu%r
Papyrologie und Epigraphik (ZPE)</German> of January 1995
(publicized right before Christmas 1994, and available in the
University of Pennsylvania Library, as at other university libraries,
sometime after February, 1995.
According to Stanton:
Early copies of the journal were searched by scholars as if they
were looking for gold nuggets. Unfortunately, the article turned
out to be something of a damp squib. As is appropriate in an
academic journal, it set out a number of proposals on technical
points concerning the fragments, some of which are certainly correct.
Most crucially, however, it contained adiscrepancy between Thiede's
earlier claim as made in the <i>Times</i> and what he claimed in his
scholarly expositions. In his scholarly exposition, Thiede
concluded only that the Magdalen papyrus was <i>late</i> first century,
the date most scholars assign to the composition of Matthew's Gospel.
(BR, 12/1995: 39)
Stanton goes on to offer substantial and specific points countering
Thiede's work on the Matthew 26 papyrus fragments known as P64.
In addition to Puech's work cited above, on both of Thiede's
claims, articles are said to be underway from Peter J. Parsons and
TC Skeat, each of whom is a major figure in papyrology.
Scholarly assessment of Thiede's work on P. Magdalen 17, but not on 7Q5
so far as I know, is available on the World Wide Web. Some notes for the
article he had underway were posted by Stuart Pcikering on
firstname.lastname@example.org, and can be retrieved from the Web server