7Q5: Is it 'Mark' and does it matter?
PTET
I am putting together a web page discussing the controversy over the
7Q5 fragment from Qumran, and O'Callaghan and Thiede's assertion that
it comes from "The Gospel Of Mark".
http://www.dreamwater.net/ptet/bible-7q5.html
I'd be very interested to hear any further evidence or thoughts on the
matter.
Kind regards
PTET
Matthew Johnson
My first thought is: although it is certainly true that there are
glaring weaknesses to the positions of O'Callaghan and Thiede, you are
seriously overstating the case when you say "On the information
available, there is no reason to believe that the 7Q5 fragment formed
part of an early 'Gospel Of Mark'. "
In particular, I am surprised you do not even mention the electron
microscope evidence, the attempted rebuttal of it, and the mysterious
silence of Thiede's critics after his refutation of the rebuttal.
Finally, although it is true, as you say, that the wording of Mark
6:52-3 would have to be changed, it is a pretty trivial change. Any of
many thousands of NT manuscripts have more surprising differences from
the Nestle-Aland text; it takes little imagination to see how the
change Thiede proposes could have appeared in 7Q5 and disappeared from
all other witnesses.
Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for sound interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://belogor.perm.ru/plaer.htm for moving Christian music
Christian Spiritual music.
PTET
Thanks for your response!
matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<wv3x8.15510$t65....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
> My first thought is: although it is certainly true that there are
> glaring weaknesses to the positions of O'Callaghan and Thiede, you are
> seriously overstating the case when you say "On the information
> available, there is no reason to believe that the 7Q5 fragment formed
> part of an early 'Gospel Of Mark'. "
>
Here's a few points:
* The fragment is so small, and it's wording so unclear, that a
positive identification with *any* text seems impossible on the
current evidence.
* Qumran was a Jewish Essene settlement. There is no evidence (beyond
the disputed 7Q5) that they had *any* contact with early Christianity.
* The claims made for 7Q5 (that it "proves" that all four Gospels were
written before 70 CE) are so ludicrous as to raise serious questions
about the integrity of those backing Thiede's claims.
> In particular, I am surprised you do not even mention the electron
> microscope evidence, the attempted rebuttal of it, and the mysterious
> silence of Thiede's critics after his refutation of the rebuttal.
>
Here's a quote from an apologetic website on the subject:
"Using electron microscopy, infrared photography, and other evidence,
Thiede dated 7Q5 to as early as 50 AD..."
http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb4.09.htm
Could you explain to me why you think that the "electron microscope
evidence" would have a bearing on the *content* of the fragment rather
than just the date (which is hardly at dispute)?
> Finally, although it is true, as you say, that the wording of Mark
> 6:52-3 would have to be changed, it is a pretty trivial change. Any of
> many thousands of NT manuscripts have more surprising differences from
> the Nestle-Aland text; it takes little imagination to see how the
> change Thiede proposes could have appeared in 7Q5 and disappeared from
> all other witnesses.
>
I think the issue here is that the change makes a mockery of Thiede's
proposal that "the math" proves that 7Q5 *had* to come from Mark.
If you have any further information (preferably with references in
support of your assertions) I'll be happy to add them to my page.
Very kind regards
PTET
"7Q5: Is it 'Mark' and does it matter?"
http://www.dreamwater.net/ptet/bible-7q5.html
Matthew Johnson
>Dear Matthew
>
>Thanks for your response!
>
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<wv3x8.15510$t65....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>>
>> My first thought is: although it is certainly true that there are
>> glaring weaknesses to the positions of O'Callaghan and Thiede, you are
>> seriously overstating the case when you say "On the information
>> available, there is no reason to believe that the 7Q5 fragment formed
>> part of an early 'Gospel Of Mark'. "
>>
>Here's a few points:
>
>* The fragment is so small, and it's wording so unclear, that a
>positive identification with *any* text seems impossible on the
>current evidence.
And that is overstating the case. Yes, the fragment is small, but so
what? As Thiede pointed out, many comparably small fragments with
comparably 'unclear' writing have been identified with far less
controversy.
Besides: when you take into account Thiede's electron microscope
evidence, the wording does not look so 'unclear'.
>* Qumran was a Jewish Essene settlement. There is no evidence (beyond
>the disputed 7Q5) that they had *any* contact with early Christianity.
That is one of the weak points of Thiede's argument, true.
>* The claims made for 7Q5 (that it "proves" that all four Gospels were
>written before 70 CE) are so ludicrous as to raise serious questions
>about the integrity of those backing Thiede's claims.
I have to admit that when I read Thiede's book, I didn't see this
claim that it proves _all_ the four canonical Gospels were written
before 70 AD. I saw only the claim that it proves Mark was so early.
>> In particular, I am surprised you do not even mention the electron
>> microscope evidence, the attempted rebuttal of it, and the mysterious
>> silence of Thiede's critics after his refutation of the rebuttal.
>>
>
>Here's a quote from an apologetic website on the subject:
>
>"Using electron microscopy, infrared photography, and other evidence,
>Thiede dated 7Q5 to as early as 50 AD..."
>http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb4.09.htm
>
>Could you explain to me why you think that the "electron microscope
>evidence" would have a bearing on the *content* of the fragment rather
>than just the date (which is hardly at dispute)?
Because that website's statement of the 'electron microscope evidence'
is woefully incomplete. You are going to have to cave in and get a
copy of Thiede's book itself, referred to on that same website:
Thiede, C. P. and M. D'Ancona. The Jesus Papyrus. New York, 1996.
There you will see the details, which I can sketch only a little: the
electron microscope evidence showed that Thiede's controversial
assertions about the text itself, such as that a certain few strokes
were really a single letter 'nu', really were correct. I think there
were other conjectural readings of his confirmed by the microscope,
but I don't remember; I don't have Thiede's book accessible as I write
this.
Now when you get a copy of the book itself, and see yourself the image
of the papyrus with and without electron microscopy, you will see that
it is an amazingly sloppy 'nu', but it is _clearly_ a 'nu'.
In all the 'scholarly' websites denouncing Thiede for his conclusion,
I have never heard this discussed. The failure to even mention it is
not even honest, much less scholarly.
>> Finally, although it is true, as you say, that the wording of Mark
>> 6:52-3 would have to be changed, it is a pretty trivial change. Any of
>> many thousands of NT manuscripts have more surprising differences from
>> the Nestle-Aland text; it takes little imagination to see how the
>> change Thiede proposes could have appeared in 7Q5 and disappeared from
>> all other witnesses.
>I think the issue here is that the change makes a mockery of Thiede's
>proposal that "the math" proves that 7Q5 *had* to come from Mark.
I weakens his claim, true. But again, 'makes a mockery'
of it is really overstating the case. After all the only report I
heard of someone running Ibykus and finding other matches was _before_
Thiede published the electron microscope evidence, and assuming Thiede
was wrong about the 'nu'.
BUSHBADEE
(PTET) writes:
>
>* Qumran was a Jewish Essene settlement. There is no evidence (beyond
>the disputed 7Q5) that they had *any* contact with early Christianity.
>
While I agree with most of what you have said, there is much evidence that
Christianity had much early contact with the essenes,. (Note the changed
order).
There are many essene writings which Christianity seems to have lifted whole
cloth into the NT.
You can find a lisst of these passages in the Weiss-Abbeg book. Including the
sermon on the mount which evidently predates Christianity by some 200 years
according to many writers.
.
.
I DO NOT FOLLOW MANY OF THESE NEWS GROUPS
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
PTET
matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<hq3y8.45156$t65....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> >* The fragment is so small, and it's wording so unclear, that a
> >positive identification with *any* text seems impossible on the
> >current evidence.
>
> And that is overstating the case. Yes, the fragment is small, but so
> what? As Thiede pointed out, many comparably small fragments with
> comparably 'unclear' writing have been identified with far less
> controversy.
I've not seen Thiede's "new" evidence. One of his chief critics Ernest
Muro intends to provide a further refutation in due course.
http://www.breadofangels.com/7qenoch/rebuttals/cpthiedeorigins/index.html
But I have to say, at first view, Thiede's case looks just as weak. It
would be bizarre to find a "Christian" fragment amongst the Essene
Jewish papers at Qumran; the "mathematical" analysis looks just as
ropey; and even if 7Q5 *did* contain a line similar to "Mark", the
implications would be more likely to be troublesome for the "early
Gospel argument" than helpful, since the most likely explanations
would involve Christianity borrowing a Jewish Essene story.
> I have to admit that when I read Thiede's book, I didn't see this
> claim that it proves _all_ the four canonical Gospels were written
> before 70 AD. I saw only the claim that it proves Mark was so early.
I did not say that *Thiede* made this claim; but most of his
"supporters on the web" (for what that's worth;>) seem to...
> Now when you get a copy of the book itself, and see yourself the image
> of the papyrus with and without electron microscopy, you will see that
> it is an amazingly sloppy 'nu', but it is _clearly_ a 'nu'.
I'll see if I can get hold of a copy.
> >I think the issue here is that the change makes a mockery of Thiede's
> >proposal that "the math" proves that 7Q5 *had* to come from Mark.
>
> I weakens his claim, true. But again, 'makes a mockery'
> of it is really overstating the case.
I'll consider changing my wording... But the overwhelming opinion
seems to be that Thiede's claims are just silly.
Nice talking to you - thanks for the references :>
PTET
"7Q5: Is it 'Mark' and does it matter?"
PTET
> In article <JkLx8.31459$uV....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, pt...@mailandnews.com
> (PTET) writes:
>
> >* Qumran was a Jewish Essene settlement. There is no evidence (beyond
> >the disputed 7Q5) that they had *any* contact with early Christianity.
>
> While I agree with most of what you have said, there is much evidence that
> Christianity had much early contact with the essenes,. (Note the changed
> order).
>
> There are many essene writings which Christianity seems to have lifted whole
> cloth into the NT.
> You can find a lisst of these passages in the Weiss-Abbeg book. Including the
> sermon on the mount which evidently predates Christianity by some 200 years
> according to many writers.
Thanks bushbadee... I'll check out your reference. I've already
updated my page to note that Qumran fragments dating from 100-75 BCE
contain elements repeated in (much) later New Testament writings.
Regards
Matthew Johnson
[snip]
>I'll consider changing my wording... But the overwhelming opinion
>seems to be that Thiede's claims are just silly.
But this 'overwhelming opinion' is among what group? The academic
scholars who built their careers publishing conjecture as fact? I am
not the only one in this NG who finds that quite unconvincing. It is
about as convincing as the claims of another infamous guild, the AMA,
that they alone know what good, scientific medicine is.
Yet the deafening silence this guild has greeted the microscopic
evidence with is clear proof that their condemnation of Thiede is not
scientific at all.
[snip]
PTET
matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<6Rmz8.20565$iJ....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> [snip]
> >I'll consider changing my wording... But the overwhelming opinion
> >seems to be that Thiede's claims are just silly.
>
> But this 'overwhelming opinion' is among what group? The academic
> scholars who built their careers publishing conjecture as fact? I am
> not the only one in this NG who finds that quite unconvincing. It is
> about as convincing as the claims of another infamous guild, the AMA,
> that they alone know what good, scientific medicine is.
>
> Yet the deafening silence this guild has greeted the microscopic
> evidence with is clear proof that their condemnation of Thiede is not
> scientific at all.
>
> [snip]
Hmmm... Deafening silence like this:
"The English textual critic J.K. Elliot had called The Earliest Gospel
Manuscript? by Thiede a 'publication cashing in on human
gullibility.'" - Quoted in The Jesus Legend, 1995, G. A. Wells, p155.
"Thiede's Dead Sea Scroll's scenario is preposterous; his theory about
the Markan fragment among the Dead Sea Scrolls has been
discredited..." - Who Wrote the New Testament?, 1996, p9, Burton L.
Mack, John Wesley Professor of New Testament at the School of Theology
at Claremont.
I think the issue is that Thiede seems to have turned into a bit of a
crank... Perhaps if he came up with something new, rather than just
rehashing old data, he'd be taken more seriously.
Sure, the AMA doesn't know all there is to know about medicine. But
that doesn't make your Aunty Mabel an expert on cancer treatment - or
double Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling an expert on Vitamin C...
And remember, an identification for 7Q5 with "Mark" wouldn't be all
roses for Christianity...
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote
>> although [] there are glaring weaknesses to the positions of
>> O'Callaghan and Thiede, you are seriously overstating the case[]
>* The fragment is so small, and it's wording so unclear, that a
>positive identification with *any* text seems impossible on the
>current evidence.
Which is different from "there is no reason to believe"
>* Qumran was a Jewish Essene settlement.
Qumran was a settlement by a Jewish sect. Who they were is hotly
debated.
>There is no evidence (beyond the disputed 7Q5) that they had *any*
>contact with early Christianity.
http://www.biu.ac.il/Spokesman/scholar/archeol3.html
On another front, Dr. Eshel recently published his analysis of
a Dead Sea Scroll demonstrating that the scroll is a prayer for the
welfare of the Kingdom of God and that of Alexander Janneus (in Hebrew
-- Jonathan), a member of the Hasmonean dynasty who reigned between
103 and 76 BCE.
Since the Dead Sea scrolls are believed to be the property of a
community who opposed the Hasmonean rulers and High Priests, Eshel's
interpretation raises the unanswered question -- how did a prayer for
the welfare of a Hasmonean king reach the Qumran community?
http://www.oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/SCR/NN_Spr00/STBQ.html
Josephus Flavius, writing only several years after the Roman
siege and capture of Jerusalem in ad 70, indicates that two
streams of refugees from the city were formed [] and
the other (far less discussed today) that moved eastward and
whose ultimate destination was Machaerus [] It is a reasonable
surmise that the same and other refugees, all fleeing eastward
towards the trans-Jordanian territories, would have seized whatever
opportunities they could to hide away any texts of holy writ they had
>>[electron microscope evidence]
I take it that evidence contradicts the assertions made at
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/7Q5.html
In aother post PTET cites:
http://www.breadofangels.com/7qenoch/rebuttals/cpthiedeorigins/index.html
from there I went to:
http://www.breadofangels.com/7qenoch/article1.html
refering to that, 7Q12 as part of 7Q4,1 I will agree with, adding 7Q8
looks a bit iffy to me.
FWIW these are two discussions of the evidence against Thiede
and O'Callaghan's views
http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/subject/hd/fak8/papy/logs/log.started970625/0323.html
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside-0995/sep95/gospels4.html
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede.txt.final.reply
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html
discusses the dating of all Gospels and refers to the dating of
7Q5.
http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html
has a picture of 7Q5 and the Tau discussed in the heidelberg URL
doesn't seem so obvious to me.
The following look to be good background for Qumran.
http://mosaic.lk.net/g-qumran.html
http://www.kalia.org.il/Qumran/Archeological/main.html
The following gives a detailed map of where the caves are
http://www.kbyu.org/deadsea/where_maps.asp
clearly cave 7 is part of the Qumran community. (As opposed to 1,2,3
and 11 which could just barely be argued as separate purely based on
geography. I don't know how the contents bear on the question.)
Robert
PTET
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote in message news:<IOJz8.24966$iJ.2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> pt...@mailandnews.com (PTET) writes:
> >matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote
> > [snip]
> >* The fragment is so small, and it's wording so unclear, that a
> >positive identification with *any* text seems impossible on the
> >current evidence.
>
> Which is different from "there is no reason to believe"
Take your pick ;>
>
> [snip]
> >There is no evidence (beyond the disputed 7Q5) that they had *any*
> >contact with early Christianity.
>
Oops - this was an obvious error on my part. Apologies. (Thanks for
the links).
What I should have said is that there is no evidence of Christian
writings from Qumran... That said, as I understand things, several
passages from those found in the New Testament are very similar to the
Qumran "Manual of Discipline" dating from 100-75 BCE...
http://library.sebts.edu/smadden/Qumran/qumranlibrary006.htm
> [snip]
>
> >>[electron microscope evidence]
>
> I take it that evidence contradicts the assertions made at
> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/7Q5.html
Apparently they do... Thiede identifies a "nu" and not a "ny":
The page http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/7q5.htm states:
"...when one allows for different possibilities than just
O'Callaghan's for the partially legible letters, the Ibycus program
does, indeed, seem to permit other texts to be identified with 7Q5. In
my own cursory examination of the TLG via Ibycus, I found sixteen
texts which could possibly fit (though only if one stretched both his
or her imagination and the textual evidence)...."
"[Footnote: ...even allowing O'Callaghan his nu in line 2... The
passages found include Ezek 23:36; Josephus, Vita 42-3; Vita 236;
Bellum 5.528; 7.380-1; Philo Cher. 44; 119; Plant. 135; Plant. 136;
Mut. 173; Thucydides, Hist. 1.10.2; 1.60.1; 3.109.2; 4.67.4; 5.82.5;
8.55.1.]"
Thanks again for the excellent links.
"7Q5: Is it 'Mark' and does it matter?"
Matthew Johnson
wrote:
>pt...@mailandnews.com (PTET) writes:
>>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote
>
>>> although [] there are glaring weaknesses to the positions of
>>> O'Callaghan and Thiede, you are seriously overstating the case[]
[snip]
>>>[electron microscope evidence]
>
>I take it that evidence contradicts the assertions made at
>http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/7Q5.html
That is correct. The image scanned in at that site is all they had to
go on before looking in the electron microscope. The so-called
'scholars' _refusal_ to consider the electron microcope is the
simplest proof that they are not being scholarly in condemning
Thiede's claims. On the contrary: their un-scholarly behavior is well
documented in sociology as 'guild' behavior, not 'scholarly' or
'objective' at all.
[snip]
PTET
> >http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/7Q5.html
>
> That is correct. The image scanned in at that site is all they had to
> go on before looking in the electron microscope. The so-called
> 'scholars' _refusal_ to consider the electron microcope is the
> simplest proof that they are not being scholarly in condemning
> Thiede's claims. On the contrary: their un-scholarly behavior is well
> documented in sociology as 'guild' behavior, not 'scholarly' or
> 'objective' at all.
That's not the case at all... Thiede identifies a "nu" and not a "ny",
and supports this claim with the photograph in the link above.
However, the review of O'Callaghan and Thiede's claims by Daniel B.
Wallace, Ph.D. in 1992 *included* consideration of the letter "nu" in
the text:
"...when one allows for different possibilities than just
O'Callaghan's for the partially legible letters, the Ibycus program
does, indeed, seem to permit other texts to be identified with 7Q5. In
my own cursory examination of the TLG via Ibycus, I found sixteen
texts which could possibly fit (though only if one stretched both his
or her imagination and the textual evidence)...."
"[Footnote: ...even allowing O'Callaghan his nu in line 2... The
passages found include Ezek 23:36; Josephus, Vita 42-3; Vita 236;
Bellum 5.528; 7.380-1; Philo Cher. 44; 119; Plant. 135; Plant. 136;
Mut. 173; Thucydides, Hist. 1.10.2; 1.60.1; 3.109.2; 4.67.4; 5.82.5;
8.55.1.]"
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/7q5.htm
O'Callaghan and Thiede's claims appear to have been treated fairly
from the outset, and rejected on reasonable grounds.
I have collected references to comments on Peter Carton Thiede's other
claims for early Bible manuscripts in a new web page. They are not
pretty reading.
"Collected responses to Peter Carston Thiede"
http://dreamwater.net/ptet/misc-thiede.html
...If you think that Thiede has been unfairly treated, Matthew, I'd be
interested to see any references in support of that claim.
"7Q5: Is it 'Mark' and does it matter?"
Matthew Johnson
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<wj1A8.6736$od6....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
>> On Wed, 01 May 2002 04:03:52 GMT, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote
>> [snip]
>> >I take it that evidence contradicts the assertions made at
>> >http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/7Q5.html
>>
>> That is correct. The image scanned in at that site is all they had to
>> go on before looking in the electron microscope. The so-called
>> 'scholars' _refusal_ to consider the electron microcope is the
>> simplest proof that they are not being scholarly in condemning
>> Thiede's claims. On the contrary: their un-scholarly behavior is well
>> documented in sociology as 'guild' behavior, not 'scholarly' or
>> 'objective' at all.
>
>That's not the case at all... Thiede identifies a "nu" and not a "ny",
What _are_ you talking about? There is no such thing as a letter 'ny'.
>and supports this claim with the photograph in the link above.
But the photograph I found at that link was NOT from the electron
microsope image. It lacked the diagonal stroke of the letter 'nu'.
This stroke shows us _clearly_ under the electron microscope.
>However, the review of O'Callaghan and Thiede's claims by Daniel B.
>Wallace, Ph.D. in 1992 *included* consideration of the letter "nu" in
>the text:
Yes, he "included consideration", but there is _still_ no mention of
the electron microscope evidence. The electron microscope evidence
leaves no room for doubt: it _is_ a 'nu'. Yet the "included
consideration" you are so proud of still considers it only as a
dubious possibility.
>"...when one allows for different possibilities than just
>O'Callaghan's for the partially legible letters, the Ibycus program
>does, indeed, seem to permit other texts to be identified with 7Q5. In
>my own cursory examination of the TLG via Ibycus, I found sixteen
>texts which could possibly fit (though only if one stretched both his
>or her imagination and the textual evidence)...."
>
>"[Footnote: ...even allowing O'Callaghan his nu in line 2... The
>passages found include Ezek 23:36; Josephus, Vita 42-3; Vita 236;
>Bellum 5.528; 7.380-1; Philo Cher. 44; 119; Plant. 135; Plant. 136;
>Mut. 173; Thucydides, Hist. 1.10.2; 1.60.1; 3.109.2; 4.67.4; 5.82.5;
>8.55.1.]"
>http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/7q5.htm
>
>O'Callaghan and Thiede's claims appear to have been treated fairly
>from the outset, and rejected on reasonable grounds.
What is fair about including only as a dubious possibility what the
electron microscope evidence shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable
doubt?
>I have collected references to comments on Peter Carton Thiede's other
>claims for early Bible manuscripts in a new web page. They are not
>pretty reading.
That is a matter of opinion. I consider them good evidence that he has
_not_ been 'treated fairly from the outset'.
>"Collected responses to Peter Carston Thiede"
>http://dreamwater.net/ptet/misc-thiede.html
>
>...If you think that Thiede has been unfairly treated, Matthew, I'd be
>interested to see any references in support of that claim.
You just gave one. Words like "So, ignoring all the hype, the whole
caboodle is a confidence trick" are obviously not 'fair treatment'.
PTET
matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<t3nB8.12692$n3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> [snip]
> What _are_ you talking about? There is no such thing as a letter 'ny'.
>
My apologies ;> I had taken the "ny" reference from the link to the
electron microscope picture:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/7Q5.html
> [snip]
>
> But the photograph I found at that link was NOT from the electron
> microsope image. It lacked the diagonal stroke of the letter 'nu'.
> This stroke shows us _clearly_ under the electron microscope.
>
> >However, the review of O'Callaghan and Thiede's claims by Daniel B.
> >Wallace, Ph.D. in 1992 *included* consideration of the letter "nu" in
> >the text:
>
> Yes, he "included consideration", but there is _still_ no mention of
> the electron microscope evidence. The electron microscope evidence
> leaves no room for doubt: it _is_ a 'nu'. Yet the "included
> consideration" you are so proud of still considers it only as a
> dubious possibility.
Wallace "allowed" Thiede his "nu" back in 1992, and came up with more
possibilities for 7Q5 than Mark...
Wallace also noted: "Thiede makes the remarkable statement that
'leaving theological arguments aside, the earliest possible date for
this gospel, historically speaking, is AD 30, the year of the last
event recorded in it, the resurrection of Jesus' (p. 25). Thiede's
assessment that higher critical reconstructions - especially as
regards the synoptic problem - are merely 'theological arguments'
strikes me as a bit na ve and ought to signal the reader to Thiede's
antecedent eagerness to accept O'Callaghan's identification of 7Q5. No
reputable NT scholar - regardless of his theological underpinnings or
views of gospel priorities - dates Mark this early."
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/7q5.htm
You would, of course, reject any suggestion that Thiede's matching of
7Q5 with "Mark" might possibly be a result of him seeing what he
wanted to see.
> [snip]
> That is a matter of opinion. I consider them good evidence that he has
> _not_ been 'treated fairly from the outset'.
Your opinion is apparently not shared by Puech, Muro, Wallace, Vermes,
Mack, Elliot, Skeat or any of the other scholars who have rejected
Thiede's claims.
*You* think he's been treated unfairly. *I* think he's been treated
fairly. Do you have any references to any scholars who have expressed
a recent opinion in favour of Thiede? Or are you just clutching at
straws?
Kind regards
"7Q5: Is it 'Mark' and does it matter?"
http://dreamwater.net/ptet/bible-7q5.html
"Collected responses to Peter Carston Thiede"
http://dreamwater.net/ptet/misc-thiede.html
Matthew Johnson
>Hi Matthew
>
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<t3nB8.12692$n3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>> [snip]
>> What _are_ you talking about? There is no such thing as a letter 'ny'.
>>
>
>My apologies ;> I had taken the "ny" reference from the link to the
>electron microscope picture:
>http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/7Q5.html
Interesting that the only comment I find on that page indicating
_where_ the image is from is the all-too brief 'This is the photo
from: Bernhard Mayer "Christen und Christliches in Qumran"' So how do
you know that this is even from an electron microscope picture?
>> [snip]
>>
>> But the photograph I found at that link was NOT from the electron
>> microsope image. It lacked the diagonal stroke of the letter 'nu'.
>> This stroke shows us _clearly_ under the electron microscope.
>>
>> >However, the review of O'Callaghan and Thiede's claims by Daniel B.
>> >Wallace, Ph.D. in 1992 *included* consideration of the letter "nu" in
>> >the text:
>>
>> Yes, he "included consideration", but there is _still_ no mention of
>> the electron microscope evidence. The electron microscope evidence
>> leaves no room for doubt: it _is_ a 'nu'. Yet the "included
>> consideration" you are so proud of still considers it only as a
>> dubious possibility.
>
>Wallace "allowed" Thiede his "nu" back in 1992, and came up with more
>possibilities for 7Q5 than Mark...
But by his own admission, he did _not_ do a thorough study! So how can
you put this forth as 'evidence'? How can you present _this_ as
'scholarly' or 'fair'?
For his own words were "In my own cursory examination of the TLG via
Ibycus, I found sixteen texts which could possibly fit".
Please pay attention this time: he said CURSORY examination. But
Thiede had quoted a peer-reviewed article that agreed with him that
the odds of any other text matching were infinitesimal. Unless you are
willing to admit the peer-reviewed journals in NT studies or
papyrology (I forget which it was -- it was in Thiede's book) publish
articles based on cursory judgements, you must admit that the latter
article carries more weight that Wallace's comment.
So if Wallace is interested in serious scholarly refutation of
Thiede's claim, he will publish an examination based on Ibycus that is
NOT merely 'cursory'. And if _you_ are interested in serious scholarly
refutation of Thiede's claim, you will refer to that instead of to his
'cursory examination'.
>Wallace also noted: "Thiede makes the remarkable statement that
>'leaving theological arguments aside, the earliest possible date for
>this gospel, historically speaking, is AD 30, the year of the last
>event recorded in it, the resurrection of Jesus' (p. 25).
But this was a _preliminary_ date he suggested while trying to find
the 'terminus a quo'! How can you criticize him for this, unless you
are yourself quite ignorant of how scholars establish the terminus a
quo and terminus ad quem?
> Thiede's
>assessment that higher critical reconstructions - especially as
>regards the synoptic problem - are merely 'theological arguments'
>strikes me as a bit na ve and ought to signal the reader to Thiede's
>antecedent eagerness to accept O'Callaghan's identification of 7Q5. No
>reputable NT scholar - regardless of his theological underpinnings or
>views of gospel priorities - dates Mark this early."
And neither did Thiede. That was merely a preliminary estimate of the
terminus a quo.
Again, if you are interested in serious scholarly refutation, you will
not set up and attack straw men.
>http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/7q5.htm
>
>You would, of course, reject any suggestion that Thiede's matching of
>7Q5 with "Mark" might possibly be a result of him seeing what he
>wanted to see.
>
>> [snip]
>> That is a matter of opinion. I consider them good evidence that he has
>> _not_ been 'treated fairly from the outset'.
>
>Your opinion is apparently not shared by Puech, Muro, Wallace, Vermes,
>Mack, Elliot, Skeat or any of the other scholars who have rejected
>Thiede's claims.
That is a useless tautology. Besides: I note you still have a hedge
there, the word 'apparent'. Now if only you had been so careful on
your website.
>*You* think he's been treated unfairly. *I* think he's been treated
>fairly.
And that "you say", "I say" retort is about what all the criticisms of
Thiede on your website boil down to. You call _this_ 'scholarly'? I do
not. Don't fool yourself into thinking that quoting scholars makes
your website scholarly. It certainly doesn't make it convincing
either. Try actually reading the book you criticize first.
> Do you have any references to any scholars who have expressed
>a recent opinion in favour of Thiede? Or are you just clutching at
>straws?
Since I am not the one who held up a 'cursory examination' as
evidence, I am not the one who is 'clutching at straws'.
[snip]
PTET
Thank you for taking the time to write again.
matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<mq1C8.1441$Sh....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> [snip]
> And that "you say", "I say" retort is about what all the criticisms of
> Thiede on your website boil down to. You call _this_ 'scholarly'? I do
> not. Don't fool yourself into thinking that quoting scholars makes
> your website scholarly. It certainly doesn't make it convincing
> either. Try actually reading the book you criticize first.
>
> > Do you have any references to any scholars who have expressed
> >a recent opinion in favour of Thiede? Or are you just clutching at
> >straws?
>
> Since I am not the one who held up a 'cursory examination' as
> evidence, I am not the one who is 'clutching at straws'.
>
> [snip]
I do not pretend that my website is "scholarly", and am welcome to
take your criticisms on board.
However, for all your huffing and puffing (;>) I note that have not
named any experts or research which states that Thiede *has* been
treated unfairly - except for his own book.
If Wallace was able to match 7Q5 with works other than "Mark" from
only a "cursory examination", do you really think that a more detailed
examination would find *less* matches? I don't - although of course
that is only my opinion.
I think you (and Thiede) are clutching at straws, but that's only my
opinion too. No doubt you will be able to cite recent research which
backs Thiede's claims. I will be happy to add it to my web page.
Very kind regards
Matthew Johnson
>Dear Matthew
>
>Thank you for taking the time to write again.
You are welcom.
>
>matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<mq1C8.1441$Sh....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>> [snip]
>> And that "you say", "I say" retort is about what all the criticisms of
>> Thiede on your website boil down to. You call _this_ 'scholarly'? I do
>> not. Don't fool yourself into thinking that quoting scholars makes
>> your website scholarly. It certainly doesn't make it convincing
>> either. Try actually reading the book you criticize first.
>>
>> > Do you have any references to any scholars who have expressed
>> >a recent opinion in favour of Thiede? Or are you just clutching at
>> >straws?
>>
>> Since I am not the one who held up a 'cursory examination' as
>> evidence, I am not the one who is 'clutching at straws'.
>>
>> [snip]
>
>I do not pretend that my website is "scholarly", and am welcome to
>take your criticisms on board.
Then what _are_ you trying to achieve with it?
>However, for all your huffing and puffing (;>) I note that have not
>named any experts or research which states that Thiede *has* been
>treated unfairly - except for his own book.
How often do these experts openly state such judgements? Not very
often. So the fact that I haven't cited any really does not prove
much.
>
>If Wallace was able to match 7Q5 with works other than "Mark" from
>only a "cursory examination", do you really think that a more detailed
>examination would find *less* matches?
Yes. In fact, his more detailed examination in that web page (listed a
little further on) _did_ find less matches, but more plausible ones.
> I don't - although of course
>that is only my opinion.
Then read that same website again.
>I think you (and Thiede) are clutching at straws, but that's only my
>opinion too.
And it is a false opinion, based on a mis-judgement. I thought I
already made it clear that I do not support Thiede's view with the
same certainty he does. After all, Ezekiel is a _much_ more likely
book to be at Qumran than the Gospels (I still want to see why Thiede
missed this in his search). Rather, I see most of the so-called
'scholarly' reaction to his view as 'guild behavior' which really has
very little in common with responsible scholarship. _THAT_ is what I
am attacking.
> No doubt you will be able to cite recent research which
>backs Thiede's claims. I will be happy to add it to my web page.
Somebody else in the thread already did that, although the 'recent
research' was really mostly statements by experts whose expertise
wasn't _quite_ a match for what should be required.
I am also still waiting for an explanation of what that image on the
website really is: you advance it as 'proof' as if it were an electron
microscope image, yet the website itself
(http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/7Q5.html) made _no_ such
claim. If it is an electron microscope image, then one of the two,
Thiede or Mayer, does not know how to use an electron microscope. But
since _neither_ gave any of the relevant details (scanning type of
microscope, maginifcation factor, electron energy...), who can tell
from _these_ citations?
In fact, I hope it will make you happy that when I looked back at
Thiede's book, I was disappointed to see that _his_ figures did not
include the electron microscope image either! I'm not exactly happy
with his advancing this as if we should believe the evidence of his
eyes without showing it to us, either.
But somehow, I don't find that _nearly_ as irritating as your habit of
citing the experts with such comments as:
>Your opinion is apparently not shared by Puech, Muro, Wallace, Vermes,
>Mack, Elliot, Skeat or any of the other scholars who have rejected
>Thiede's claims.
That's like saying "they're the experts. Trust them".
Do I _really_ need to explain why this is not convincing?
PTET
matthew...@newsguy.com (Matthew Johnson) wrote in message news:<x9GC8.9308$Sh....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> On Thu, 09 May 2002 01:08:51 GMT, pt...@mailandnews.com (PTET) wrote:
> [snip]
> >I do not pretend that my website is "scholarly", and am welcome to
> >take your criticisms on board.
>
> Then what _are_ you trying to achieve with it?
Do I _really_ need to explain? (Only kidding ;>)
I've been involved in lots of discussions on religion, science, etc.
with people of various beliefs... Thiede's name came up lots and I
thought it would be useful to collect information about him in one
place.
My website is a collection of things I've read and opinions I've
formed. I like to give the authorities because, as amateurs, we rely
on scholars for our knowledge. I think it's a good idea for people to
check out authorities for themselves... Is that such a bad thing? ;>
I posted here because I wanted to be able to demonstrate that I had
given Thiede's claims a "fair crack of the whip" by seeking opinions
in his favor...
> [snip]
> >I think you (and Thiede) are clutching at straws, but that's only my
> >opinion too.
>
> And it is a false opinion, based on a mis-judgement. I thought I
> already made it clear that I do not support Thiede's view with the
> same certainty he does. After all, Ezekiel is a _much_ more likely
> book to be at Qumran than the Gospels (I still want to see why Thiede
> missed this in his search). Rather, I see most of the so-called
> 'scholarly' reaction to his view as 'guild behavior' which really has
> very little in common with responsible scholarship. _THAT_ is what I
> am attacking.
Perhaps the "guild behavior" would be more friendly if Thiede's
methods and conclusions weren't (according to the "guild" ;>) more
problematic... and if his scholarship was more responsible...
> > No doubt you will be able to cite recent research which
> >backs Thiede's claims. I will be happy to add it to my web page.
>
> Somebody else in the thread already did that, although the 'recent
> research' was really mostly statements by experts whose expertise
> wasn't _quite_ a match for what should be required.
Who says? I have provided every opinion I can find on behalf of Thiede
as well as against him. The most recent research (bar Thiede) seems to
be by Puech and Muro in 1998, and my understanding from Muro himself
is that he considers that Thiede has added nothing substantive to his
arguments since then.
http://www.breadofangels.com/7qenoch/rebuttals/cpthiedeorigins/index.html
> I am also still waiting for an explanation of what that image on the
> website really is: you advance it as 'proof' as if it were an electron
> microscope image, yet the website itself
> (http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/7Q5.html) made _no_ such
> claim. If it is an electron microscope image, then one of the two,
> Thiede or Mayer, does not know how to use an electron microscope. But
> since _neither_ gave any of the relevant details (scanning type of
> microscope, maginifcation factor, electron energy...), who can tell
> from _these_ citations?
I agree of course, and will change the description on my web page.
However, at the very least it was advanced as evidence for Thiede's
position - not against him.
> In fact, I hope it will make you happy that when I looked back at
> Thiede's book, I was disappointed to see that _his_ figures did not
> include the electron microscope image either! I'm not exactly happy
> with his advancing this as if we should believe the evidence of his
> eyes without showing it to us, either.
>
> But somehow, I don't find that _nearly_ as irritating as your habit of
> citing the experts with such comments as:
>
> >Your opinion is apparently not shared by Puech, Muro, Wallace, Vermes,
> >Mack, Elliot, Skeat or any of the other scholars who have rejected
> >Thiede's claims.
>
> That's like saying "they're the experts. Trust them".
I don't think it is. An argument from authority is only as good as
one's authority... The qualifications of those mentioned are available
for all to see.
If Thiede really does have support within the academic community as
those arguing on the new on his behalf repeatedly claim, then I think
it is reasonable to expect *someone* to be able to cite some research
or recent opinion on his behalf. No?
Anyway, if you want to pick holes in any of my other web pages, feel
welcome ;>