>In fact, you can read all about Jose O'Callaghan's finding and defense =
of it; however, it is all written in Italian; therefore, =20
>I would suggest Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede's work "The Earliest Gospel =
Manuscript? The Qumran Papyrus 7Q5 and
> Its Significance for New Testament Studies",1992; Exeter-Carlisle.
Remember how Walter was claiming how more and more scholars were being
convinced of this in the "last 5 years"? BUNK!! Not only does this
previously posted url, http://www.webcom.com/blcjr/eclectic.html
debunk him, THERE'S MORE! Page 12 of the August 96 issue of _Bible
Review_ contains a book review by one of Walter's OWN scholars that
concludes JUST THE OPPSITE!
Bruce M. Metzger, who Walter has quoted in support of his as yet
unproven reconstructability claim, reviews Thiede's 96 book,
_Eyewitness to Jesus:Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin
of the Gospels_. Apparently this book covers both 7Q5 and the Magdalen
fragments, more on those latter. Metzger describes 7Q5, "Alas, it
contains only a dozen complete letters and parts of eight others, and
one cannot be certain what this text is." Then he says of Thiede and
O'Callaghan's identification of Mark 6:52-53, quote:
"But to come to this conclusion, Thiede and O'Callaghan have had to
make a number of assumptions concerning doubtful letters and variant
readings of the fragments - assumptions that MOST OTHER SCHOLARS HAVE
=46OUND QUITE UNPERSUASIVE. [My emphasis] It is significant that the
Munster Institute, established by Kurt Aland to maintain a world-wide
catalogue of New Testament Greek manuscripts, has not registered 7Q5
as a New Testament papyrus text."
Now when someone claims something about "most scholars", who is more
believable, Bruce Metzger or Walt? Perhaps Walt can explain just who
all these other scholars are and why this fragment is unregistered if
it has such support. After all Walt did recognize the importance of
THIS VERY SAME registry when he said:
>>One of the clearest examples of this is in the Papyrus 9 fragment=20
>>which is accepted in the official list of papyri by Kurt Aland=20
>>(world renowned textual critic...and not a man of christian faith by =
the way)=20
>>and most other recognized scholars in this field.=20
Theide, just like Walt, sees what he wants to so he can support his
Wholly Babble delusion. This is even clearer re the Magdalen fragment
of Matthew, P64. Theide wants to redate it to "about 66". Metzger
tears his a new ahole for not including photos of his evidence and
after examining the originals says it is plain to see why! For a much
more detailed description of this fiasco see the url above and also
this one.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede2.txt
Here is a brief extract:
In the case of the fragments of P. Magdalen 17, these steps are
described in the beginning of Colin Roberts's first publication
of the fragments (HTR 46, 1953). A sound basis in method is
crucial to the further exercise of critical thought.
Thiede's January 1995 article in <italics>Zeitschrift fu%r
Papyrologie und Epigraphik </italics> provides a casebook
demonstration of mistaken methods which invalidate his
inference about the date of the copy of the Gospel of Matthew
represented by the P. Magdalen 17 fragments. First of all, his
redating is opposed to a formidable foursome, that of Bell,
Skeat, Turner, and Roberts, all of whom agreed with Roberts
that these fragments should be redated from the third or fourth
centuries to ca. 200 ce. As indicated again later, Thiede does
not explain why the judgments of these eminent papyrologists is
faulty.
====================================================================
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.