7Q5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Among the Dead Sea scrolls, 7Q5 is the designation for a papyrus fragment discovered in Cave 7 of the Qumran community. The significance of this fragment is derived from an argument made by Joset O´Callaghan in his work ¿Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumrân? (New Testament Papyri in Cave 7 at Qumran?) in 1972, later reasserted and expanded by German scholar Carsten Peter Thiede in his work The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? in 1982. The assertion is that the previously unidentified 7Q5 is actually a fragment of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6 verse 52-53. The illustration at right gives a clear picture of how much text is conserved on the fragment 7Q5.
[edit] Argument
The argument is weighted on two points. First, the spacing before the word και <kai> ("and") signifies a paragraph break, which is consistent with the normative layout of Mark in early copies. Secondly, the combination of letters ννησ <nnes> found in line 4 is highly characteristic and may point at the word Γεννησαρετ <Gennesaret>, found three times in the New Testament. 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" (Thiede n. 31, pp. 40-41).
Several counterarguments exist.
- The papyrus is so small, and of such poor quality, that positive identification even of the individual letters is difficult at best, although identifications on similar circumstances such as literature or other subjects have been accepted with not so much discussion.
- There is no consensus that the letters ννησ are the best reading of the papyrus. Furthermore, apart from Gennesaret, the word εγεννησεν <egennesen> ("begot") is cited as another word in the Greek lexicon containing those four letters. In fact, this conjecture was proposed by the authors of the first edition (editio princeps) published in 1962. In such case the fragment might be part of some genealogy.
- In order to identify the fragment with Mark 6:52-53, one must account for the replacement of original δ <d> with τ <t> in line 3, which is unparalleled.
- As the lines of a column are always more or less of the same length, it must be assumed that the words επι την γην <epi ten gen> ("to the land") were omitted, a variant which is not attested elsewhere.
- The identification of the last letter in line 2 with nu has been strongly disputed because it does not fit into the pattern of this Greek letter as it is clearly written in line 4. Instead, the reading of iota + alpha (which is the reading proposed in the first edition) has been reinforced.
- The computer search performed by Thiede assumed that all the disputed letter identifications made by O'Callaghan were correct. However, a similar search performed by scholar Daniel Wallace, but allowing other possible identifications for the disputed letters, found sixteen matches ([1]).
- Other fragments found in the same Qumran cave represent otherwise unknown Greek texts, so there is no reason why 7Q5 need be identified with any already-known work.
[edit] Significance
It is hard to overstate the significance that a positive identification of 7Q5 as Mark 6:52-53 would have on biblical literary criticism, which may explain both the motivation to see the Gospel of Mark in the fragment and the reticence of many to hang so much on such a small thread. The Qumran community was disbanded no later than 68 AD, which would make that the latest possible date for any documents stored there. This would make 7Q5 the earliest existing fragment of New Testament canonical text, predating P52 by almost 100 years.
Most significantly in theological terms, according to Christian apologists such an identification would make a strong argument for the assertion that the miraculous, divine, and messianic attributions to Jesus were very early traditions in the Christian church. However, more skeptical scholars argue that it would only demonstrate that part of the current text of Mark is very early, not that all of it was, and while modern versions contain miraculous, divine, and messianic attributions, there is no way of confirming that the document to which 7Q5 originally belonged actually contained such attributions.
