Among other things, this site
(http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/gospels4.html) points out
the following problems in O'Callaghan's claim that the fragment in question
is from the gospel of Mark:
1. Colin J. Hemer, an Anglican expert in exegesis and archaeology,
published an article in the German scholarly journal *Zeitschrift fur die
neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft* in which he argued that 7Q5 could contain a
passage written by Thucydides (a Greek historian who lived in Athens in the
period from 460 to 400 B.C.). Hemer said, "Dr. J. O'Callaghan has recently
demonstrated some interesting
coincidences between the 7Q Greek fragments and New Testament texts.
Whether these coincidences amount to decisive evidence for the
identifications he proposes is a different matter. On the current showing
they must all be held suspect."
TILL
This hardly sounds like the scholarly census that Walt, Jr., would have us
believe has practically settled the question of what document the 7Q5
fragment came from. I think maybe Walt's problem is that he reads something
in Josh McDowellian literature and accepts it as fact without checking it out.
2. The article states that O'Callaghan shows impressive "partial"
coincidences, but "in each case his hypothesis must presuppose the existence
of a textual error or variant," and points out that there are "(t)wo-line
fragments, so brief that multiple alternative identifications become
feasible." The author shows that "the chances of
coincidence are too high for any solution to be regarded as exclusive." He
further says, "There is, I think, no case where the suggestion offered
seems both
complete and exclusive. If any one part of the hypothesis were really
established, the fragments might indeed corroborate each other by their
association. But this condition is not fulfilled. Indeed, the pattern is
otherwise: the largest pieces lend their weight to the contrary conclusion."
3. The article goes on to say, "There are three evident 'prima facie'
objections to this solution: (a) it depends on the assumption of a variant
which omits a phrase... ; (b) it depends on the assumption that the only
complete letter preserved of [one Greek word] is a spelling error of initial
'd' for 't'; (c) it postulates in at least two places unlikely readings of
doubtful letters (to judge from the published notes and facsimiles)....
Scribal errors and unexpected textual variants may of course occur in a
primitive document, but a hypothesis which depends on them to turn a
partial coincidence into a complete one is precarious. The present case
bears more impressive testimony to the ingenuity of the scholar than to the
correctness of his solution. Diverse, while yet plausible, partial
reconstructions may be comparatively easy to find if we allow license to
assume any convenient error."
TILL
There is much more to the article, but this is sufficient to show that there
is hardly a scholarly consensus on the source of this fragment. Walt,
Jr.'s, attempt to establish an early authorship for the book of Mark on the
basis of the 7Q5 manuscript seems to be just another case of a biblical
inerrantist trying to manufacture evidence where no real evidence exists.
By the way, Walt faulted my methodology in proposing that there could exist
other texts that the identifiable letters in the fragment could fit. The
quotations above indicate that at least one scholar has shown how that the
letters would fit into a text written by Thucydides.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.