[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
> in spite of the obvious anachronism. 2 Peter hails from the early 2nd
> 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.
If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.