![]() |
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. Some New Testament textual scholars who aren’t professional papyrologists have been unpersuaded by this argument, prominent papyrologists continue to support the identification of the fragment as a part of the Gospel of Mark. [2] [3] [4] Papyrologists at the Eichstatt symposium believe 7Q5 is Mark 6. [5] This includes Orsolina Montevecchi, [6] President (later honorary president) of International Papyrological Association, Sergio Daris Honorary President of the Papyrological Association, [7] Heikki Koskenniemi [8] and Herbert Hunger. [9] [10] [11]
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. [12] The Greek text below shows O'Callaghan's reconstruction with bold font representing proposed identifications with characters from 7Q5: [13]
ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ΣΥΝΗΚΑΝ ΕΠΙ ΤΟΙΣ ΑΡΤΟΙΣ, | hou gar synēkan epi tois artois, |
Proposed reconstruction: | Mark chapter 6 verses 52-53 (New Revised Standard Version): |
O'Callaghan's argument is as follows:
Some New Testament scholars [16] [17] have rejected O'Callaghan's arguments include the following:
Papyrologist Carsten Peter Thiede responded to the objections of Daniel B. Wallace and other scholars that they commit “a kind of fallacy of analogy that no papyrologist would commit.” [19] 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.” [20]
Further counterarguments
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?") [23]
Anachronism found in Mark's Gospel
Argument for an earlier date
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". [35] 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.” [36] 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” [37] 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." [38] 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 [39] [40]
While some New Testament scholars allege that 7Q5 cannot be the Gospel of Mark based on their analysis of the papyri; the leading papyrologists have agreed based on their speciality in their discipline of papyrology that 7Q5 is the Gospel according to Mark. [41] [42] Furthermore Thiede and a team of specialists used forensic science to confirm 7Q5 is Mark’s Gospel. [43] [44]
The analysis of papyrologists have definitively answered the objections of the skeptics to confirm that 7Q5 is the Gospel of Mark. Furthermore, even with the alleged disputes of skeptics, the papyrus still reads as Mark 6. For example, the d/t change and not having the words “on to the land” does not exclude the papyrus from reading as Mark 6.
Other papyrus such as 7Q1 and 7Q2 are equally small with only a few words but can yet be definitely identified. Similarly, 7Q5 has enough letters to be positively identified as the Gospel of Mark. [45]
Some allege that the d/t change on a word makes it impossible to be the gospel according to Mark. However, over 25 different papyrus have a similar d/t change and are positively identified. [46] [47] The D/T shift is seen in New Testament papyrus as well such as Papyrus 4, Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 [48]
The text still reads as Mark 6 whether the words for onto the land are included or not. Furthermore, many papyri have unique variants. Papyrus 45 had several words missing for “on to the other side” and yet the text is still Mark 5. Similarly, missing words does not disqualify 7Q5 as Mark 6. [49]
After some disputes of the letter NU; the great papyrologist Herbert Hunger created a 22 point analysis in which the NU in line 2 was clearly seen through reconstruction. [50] Furthermore, third party analysis at the Israel National Police Department confirms a NU on line 2 which is consistent with the Gospel of Mark. [51] [52]
Some allege that Mark’s gospel was not written until after 70CE and therefore the fragment couldn’t be Mark 6 since the Qumran cave was sealed in 68CE.
All sources of antiquity place the Gospel of Mark as being produced during the Apostolic age. Most of the ancient manuscripts with a colophon subscribe that Mark’s Gospel was written about 10 years after the ascension of Jesus. This places Mark’s gospel about 41-44 CE. The ancient historian Eusebius Chronicle also mentions Mark Gospel as being written about 10 years after the ascension of Jesus. Furthermore, within the Acts of the Apostle John Mark is called Servant of the Word (Acts 13:5) which is a title used for a gospel writer (Luke 1:2). Luke mentions Mark role as servant in Acts 13 which places the composition of Mark’s Gospel prior to the missionary trip in 46CE in Acts 13. This aligns with ancient manuscripts, church fathers and ancient historians placing the composition of Mark’s Gospel as the 10th year of Jesus ascension.
Furthermore, the fragment was analyzed by the Israeli National Police using Electronic Stereo Microscope and the lab analysis confirm that a NU is in line 2. This print out is included in the book Christen und Christliches in Qumran by B. Mayer which included papers presented at the 1991 Qumran Symposium [53]
The Ibykus computer program was used to run analysis on the letters confirmed by analysis and third party Israel National Police Department liaisons and the Gospel of Mark is the only extant text which fits 7Q5 [54]
Statistical analysis by Prof Albert Dou showed that the fragment has a 1:900 Billion chance to be a document other than Mark 6. His analysis confirms that 7Q5 is the Gospel according to Mark [55]
... 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 ...
{{cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (help)