Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is 7Q5 a fragment of the Gospel Mark?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    For once, I agree with shunya.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Here is the evidence as it is presented to be from Mark's gospel.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5

    http://www.studibiblici.eu/7Q5%20and...0of%20Mark.pdf
    Last edited by 37818; 03-07-2014, 01:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    It likely isn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    started a topic Is 7Q5 a fragment of the Gospel Mark?

    Is 7Q5 a fragment of the Gospel Mark?

    Friends

    Some claim 7Q5 is a fragment of the Gospel Mark.

    Originally posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5
    Among the Dead Sea scrolls, 7Q5 is the designation for a small Greek papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran Cave 7 and dated before anyone claimed to be able to identify it by its style of script as likely having been written sometime between 50 B.C.E. and 50 C.E. The significance of this fragment is derived from an argument made by Spanish papyrologist Jose 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 majority of scholars have not been convinced by O'Callaghan's and Thiede's identification[1][2] and it is "now virtually universally rejected".[3][4]
    I consider the fragment translation hypothetical and the word too unconnected, including questionable assumptions of some of the marginal letters to be a stretch for there to be a reasonable interpretation that it is from the Gospel of Mark.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-17-2014, 03:13 PM.

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Raphael, 11-20-2017, 04:29 PM
63 responses
21,608 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X