Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] Re. Das N eue Testament nach den ältesten griechischen Handschriften

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Jan Krans To: Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism]
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 14, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jan Krans" <jlhkrans@...>
      To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:40 PM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re. Das Neue Testament nach den ältesten
      griechischen Handschriften


      > Peter Head wrote:
      >
      >> Thanks for this. Hopefully the photos will be more useful than these
      >> dates! (and 7Q4 and 7Q5 - what a [pointless] bonus)
      >>
      >> Peter
      >
      > Jaroš is a declared defender of O'Callaghan's and Thiede's
      > identifications, and perhaps of Thiede's view on P64 as well. For 7Q, see
      > Karl Jaroš, ‘Die Qumranfragmente der Höhle 7 (7Q) im Computertest,’ in
      > Aegyptus 80 (2000), pp. 147-168 and his review of Stefan Enste, Kein
      > Markustext in Qumran (2000), in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des
      > Morgenlandes 91 (2001), pp. 378-394. For a critical response to Jaroš, see
      > Hans Förster, ‘7Q5 - Und was?,’ in Analecta Papyrologica XIV-XV
      > (2002-2003), pp. 197-208.
      >
      > Greetings,
      > Jan Krans
      > Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam


      I must admit to being intrigued by 7Q5 when it was first proposed as a
      fragment of Mark by O'Callaghan until other fragments were identified as
      texts that far post date the DSS caches and it became clear that 7Q5 was a
      fragment of Enoch. Puech, E. "Des fragments grecs de la Grotte 7 et le
      Nouveau Testament? 7Q4 et 7Q5, et le papyrus Magdalen grec 17 = P64." Revue
      Biblique 102, no. 4 (1995): 570-84;

      Additionally, a pre-destruction Gospel of Matthew just did not hold water
      and I go with the expert paleographers on P1, 64, 67.

      Carston Thiede and a sensationalist journalist, Matthew d'Ancona published a
      book in 1996 titled "Eyewitness to Jesus" claiming that these papyrus
      fragments date to the mid 1st century based on their speculative dating of
      the zierstil biblical uncial script. An online review can be found at:


      http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/thiede.htm

      and more recently at:

      http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm

      ..and Bruce Metzger gives a scathing review in the August 1996 issue of
      Bible Review.

      I consider the Thiede/d'Ancona "theory" to be "National Enquirer"
      scholarship.

      Jack Kilmon
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.