7Q5

THE GOSPEL AMONG THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

GIUSEPPE GUARINO

2

July, 2015

3

PREFACE I never had the opportunity to visit an

archeological site. I never physically entered the Qumran caves. I have neither seen nor touched the treasures they have so diligently guarded for centuries. But in the last few years, nothing has occupied my thoughts more than the search for the possible traces left by early Christians there.

Sometimes evidence of the past may be huge, majestic, like the Egyptian pyramids. Other times it is all hidden in small fragments. In the latter case it all depends on mans

4

deductive ability to reveal the truths hidden in the surviving evidence.

The latter is the case with the manuscript fragment called 7Q5 which stands for relic 5 of cave 7 in the Qumran site.

Many have tried to understand what 7Q5 actually bears witness to. I am sure many have spent sleepless nights trying to understand if it is possible to prove what was the content of the original complete manuscript I am one of them.

I felt the need to find answers to the puzzling questions that 7Q5 arises and share them with others.

In the pages that follow you will find my discoveries on 7Q5 and the results of my studies which have literally kept me awake for months especially during the hot Sicilian summer nights.

My work is far from being perfect. I know I nearly scratched the surface. Yet I think I have collected enough information to give a small but honest contribution to a better knowledge of such a wonderful discovery (that of the caves of Qumran) walking in the footsteps of

5

those who not only had a right to speak, but also felt the urge not to remain in silence.

I am convinced that even the longest journey is made of little, consistent steps forward and that is why I dare leave my modest contribution to this debate and subject.

Perhaps the greatest ambition of a writer is to dream of leaving enough traces of ink on the paper so that the curious people of tomorrow may find them worth enough spending sleepless nights to solve the mystery they hide.

I ask the reader to bear with me for the poor

quality of my English. It will be evident that I am

not a native speaker, but I hope this will be

overlooked and the reader will judge my ideas for

what they are and not the language in which they

are expressed.

6

7

CONTENTS

Introduction 11 1. The Dead Sea Scrolls 13 2. 7Q5 The Gospel of Mark ? 27 3. The Letters in 7Q5 33 Conclusion 45 Bibliography 55

8

9

INTRODUCTION

The famous papyrus fragment called 7Q5 (in the picture to the left) was found in a cave at the Qumran archeological site. It is remains of a completedated around 50 AD.

Some scholars believe it is part of the Gospel of Mark.

Is it really possible that the second Gospel had already been written at such an early date and had reached the Qumran caves site?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to underestimate the magnitude of such a discovery, if time and research will prove it tobe correct.

INTRODUCTION

The famous papyrus fragment called 7Q5 (in the picture to the left) was found in

cave at the Qumran archeological site. It is what

a complete scroll 50 AD.

Some scholars believe it is part of the

Is it really possible that the second Gospel had already been written at such an early date and had reached the Qumran caves site?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to underestimate the magnitude of such a discovery, if time and research will prove it to

10

Here we see the cave 7 Greek Papyri as

officially identified with progressive numbers.

Check them on the official website

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/

11

1

The Dead Sea Scrolls The discovery of the famous Dead Sea

Scrolls took place in the middle of the 20th Century but the meaning of their witness is still open field for theories and suggestions.

It was in 1947 that, by mere chance, a shepherd found some manuscripts inside a cave near the Dead Sea. Further investigation of the site led to the discovery of ten other caves which brought back to light a treasure of long lost documents dating from 250 BC to 68 DC.

The Dead Sea Scroll discovery and study led to

12

many public frenzies festering untenable and controversial theories to undermine the whole Christian core of beliefs and entirely try ti re-write the relationship between the Jewish and Christian faith.

However, time and a more scientific approach have proven the case for a less radical view of the Scrolls.

The Scrolls give us a better understanding of the Jewish world of the second temple, especially the years preceding the destruction brought by the Romans in 70 AD. The Scrolls also brought to light Old Testament (Tanakh1 for the Jews) manuscripts dating between the 3rd Century BC and the 1st century AD.

No evidence found in the caves can

reasonably be dated later than 68 AD, when

1 Tanakh is the Jewish way of identifying what we call the Old Testament. It is a word made by the initials of the three main divisions of the Old Testament made by the Jews: Torah (Law), Neviim (Prophets) and Kethubim (Writings). Jesus himself pointed out to such a division of Scriptures see Luke 24:44.

13

the Qumran site was abandoned. That is why the Scrolls have given scholars the opportunity to examine the Old Testament, canon and text, in light of manuscript evidence about one thousand years older than those that were available before.

The Dead Sea Scrolls by Stephen Hodge is a

very interesting book on the subject. It shows a scientific and sound approach to the matter. I strongly suggest the reading of his work to those who want a sober and reliable update on the Dead Sea Scrolls studies. I personally do not entirely endorse his views, but honestly speaking my approach is more apologetic than purely scientific.

Hodges maintains that at least 850 books were placed in the eleven Qumran caves. Most of the manuscripts surviving are in a fragmentary state. The so called

Great Isaiah Scroll (in the picture) is an exception, since it is preserved in its integrity.

14

The remarkable agreement of this manuscript with the so called Masoretic text has given fresh credibility to the traditional Tanakh in use among Jewish and Christian believers.

Once scholars had had the opportunity to study the great Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 (1QIsaa, copied in approximately 100 B.C.) and to compare it with the Masoretic Text, they were impressed with the results. Despite the fact that the Isaiah scroll was about a thousand years older than the Masoretic version of Isaiah, the two were nearly identical except for small details that rarely affected the meaning of the text. [] The results obtained from comparative studies of this kind have been repeated for many other scriptural books represented at Qumran. The large majority of the new scrolls do belong to the same textual tradition as the Masoretic Text. They are, however, centuries older and thus demonstrate in a forceful way how carefully Jewish scribes transmitted that text across the years. James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p.126

15

The most credited theory on the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they are the surviving evidence of a library in use of an Essenic monastic community that had its abode at Qumran.

The Essenes were a Jewish sect. They are never mentioned in the New Testament, though open reference is made there to other Jewish groups, like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes and Zealots. The argument based on silence has led some to suppose that more than simple sympathy existed between the ascetic community of Qumran and John the Baptist and even Jesus. But it was mere speculation.

The existence of a monastery is the best credited theory, but the archeological sites and the findings do not give definite evidence in this direction. It is not even sure that the extra biblical writings found in the caves really belonged to the sect of the Essenes.

Considering the variety of the writings found in the caves, some suppose they are simply manuscripts rescued from the destruction of Jerusalem accurately hidden in the caves.

16

One very important thing about the Scrolls is that they proved the case for the Hebrew language being spoken in Israel in the first century AD. In fact, the percentage of writings in Hebrew at Qumran is unexpectedly high: 80 percent of the total found. The rest are in Aramaic and only a few in Greek. Up until the discovery of the Scrolls it was commonly believed that Aramaic had replaced Hebrew after the Babylonian exile.

The Hebrew language has no parallel in history. It was spoken and written by Moses and it is read and understood today in the synagogues about 3500 years later. This is, to say the least, surprising, though it is noteworthy that the Jewish people itself, with its traditions, religion, culture, has survived centuries of diaspora, persecutions, hatred, migrations, etc never losing national identity.

Some overestimated the analogies between

the Christian doctrine of the Gospels and the teaching of the Essenes. This position was taken to the extreme, supposing that even

17

Jesus belonged to this sect. A better knowledge of the Scrolls has proven the case against such a gratuitous theory. Some of the teachings of Jesus might seem close to the beliefs of the Qumran community, but others do strongly and openly oppose them.

In any respect, it is no surprise that the Jewish religious thought of the time had much in common with Jesus teachings.

Jesus was not a Pharisee but he supported them against the party of the Sadducees concerning the belief in a future bodily resurrection. He agreed with both parties though and that of the Scribes, and they agreed among themselves, believing the Torah is Gods Word. He rejected the tradition of the Pharisees, but also the restrict views of the Sadducees.

In other words, Jesus never questioned the basic truths of the Judaism of the second temple, but at the same time he never accepted compromise and strongly supported the true spiritual meaning of the Law and the Tanakh in general.

18

The Qumran community was the abode of a sect of self-proclaimed Jewish elect, devoted to ascetic life. The Essenes gave up social life Jesus never did. He was always among all kinds of people, never scared to mingle with the commoners. Jesus openly taught his disciples to spread his doctrine among the heathens! See Matthew 28:19. Not to mention the mission given by the risen Messiah himself to Paul see Galatians 2:8-9. Too many Essenes practices and beliefs were radically against the teachings of Jesus and the Gospels to believe he was an Essene himself.

Another very notable difference between the Essen creed and Jesus teachings is the love for enemies that Jesus openly taught. Matthew 5:43-47. Before the Scrolls, it wasnt clear who Jesus was referring to when he spoke of people that were teaching hate for their enemies. Thanks to the contents of non-biblical Scrolls we know now that he was speaking against the Essenes, who taught in such a way.

Jesus started a non violent revolution, a spiritual renewal to change society in a radical

19

way changing one individuals heart at a time. He never supported or encouraged any military action to impose religion or thought. In this perspective his teaching had nothing in common with the aggressive attitude displayed in the Qumran writings and the Jewish expectations of the time in general.

The Messianic beliefs of the times of Jesus

were obviously based on an interpretation of the Tanakh. It is also clear that the various spiritual and even some pseudo-political movements originated from the Jewish religious background of the nation. They all were equally Jews, though each faction had its own expectations, plans and programs. Christianity did not originate outside of the Jewish world, but within. Its founder was a Jew, its leaders were Jewish. The first disciples kept the law like any other Jew would have done. The main, evident difference with the rest of the Jewish sects was that Christians received Jesus as the promised Messiah. Also, very soon the followers of Christ opened the door of salvation to non-Jewish converts. The

20

invitation in the Gospel of John (though he was a Jew) is clearly universal and, like in other parts of the New Testament, it was motivated by the failure of the Jewish nation to recognize that Jesus was the Messiah they had long waited for See John 1:11-12.

Supposing the Dead Sea Scrolls to be a

collection of manuscripts hidden in the caves to save them from the destruction brought by the Romans would explain the nature of the manuscripts and also their independence from the inhabitants of Qumran - whoever they might have been.

Even today it is hard to underestimate the responsibility felt by the nation of Israel for the preservation of the text of the Old Testament Bible definitely entrusted to them. It is possible to take a virtual tour of the museum where the Scrolls are preserved at

http://www.imj.org.il/panavision/shrine_inter_eng.html.

This building has been structured to survive a nuclear attack and preserve those precious witnesses of the Jewish Bible.

21

It is most probable that the people fleeing the city of Jerusalem because of the imminent destruction might have hidden the Scrolls to preserve them for future witness to Gods Word which is indeed what really happened.

Probably we will never know what happened, but it is a fact that those extraordinary documents were hidden in a safe place for almost two thousand years. Now they are being diligently studied, providing new providential light on the world where Christianity moved its first steps.

The facts about the eleven caves of Qumran

as recorded by Hodges are the following. The caves contained fragments of about

850 books. Only the so called Great Isaiah scroll is complete. Only ten manuscripts preserve more than fifty percent of the text found in the original manuscript.

223 manuscripts are biblical. The highest number of manuscripts of a

biblical book is that of the Psalms (39 mss). After that, the best attested is of course the Torah, the Law of Moses.

22

Worthy of mention is the finding of 8 manuscripts of the canonical book of the prophet Daniel.2

96 manuscripts have not been yet identified. The rest of the fragments witness to other

texts, like Tobias, Enoch, an apocriphon of the book of Genesis, the so called scroll of the temple, The Rule of the Community, The Scroll of War and several commentaries to the canonical books of the Old Testament.

As we said earlier, the language found in the manuscripts is quite important. Over 80 percent of the texts are written in the Hebrew language. Almost all the rest of the evidence is written in Aramaic.

In this book we will focus our attention on

2 One of Daniels manuscripts is as old as the 2nd Century BC. To my opinion this is a lethal blow to the theory that supposes the book of Daniel to be a collection of false (technically called post-eventum) prophecies written around the year 164 B.C. In fact, it is impossible that a book written just a few years earlier had been so easily accepted as canonical and had become of such importance in the Qumran community.

23

25 fragments in Greek found in cave no. 4 (6 fragments) and no. 7 (19 fragments).

It will try to understand what those manuscripts in Greek were doing in a Hebrew library. We will even dare support a possible identification for their contents.

We will bring forth suggestions and try to draw conclusions.

Eusebius Pamphilus, bishop of Cesarea in

the first half of the IV century, wrote a very important Ecclesiastical History. He bears a witness to a very interesting story on how the Christians in Jerusalem did not fall victims of the destruction of the city which took place in 70 AD, when Titus led the Roman army inside the city of David. He writes: The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella, Eusebius Pamphilus, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter V, Baker Book House, Reprint of 1991, p.86

24

I close this paragraph asking a question: Is it

possible that some of the Christian writings were taken away from Jerusalem to preserve them from destruction and that those manuscripts found their way in a cave at Qumran?

In the pages that follow, well take that possibility into serious consideration.

25

2

7Q5 The Gospel of Mark at Qumran?

7Q5 simply means that the fragment is the

manuscript identified by the number 5 and that it was found in the cave number 7 of Qumran.

It was originally part of a scroll written on only one side (recto).

20 Greek letters are visible. 10 are damaged. They are distributed on five lines.

Originally every line had from 20 to 23 letters.

Its maximum height is cm. 3.9. Its larger part measures cm. 2.7.

The fragment was at the Rockfeller

26

Museum in Jerusalem but now it is property of the Israelian Antiquities Authorities.

I give the official websites to the readers, in case they want to personally see the official pictures of this and other Qumran manuscripts.

http://www.antiquities.org.il/ http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-

the-archive/search#q=site:'Qumran,_Cave_7' In 1972 an article was published in the

magazine Biblica, where the scholar Jos O Callaghan3, set forth his theory that the remaining letters visible in 7Q5 were originally part of a scroll containing the gospel of Mark. He identified the 20 letters with Mark 6:52-53.

If a Gospel was actually among the Dead Sea Scrolls documents, this can have a direct influence on other branches of Bible studies

3 O Callaghans article has been published in Italian, along with other interesting articles on this subject in gdt, Giornale di Teologia, directed by Rosino Gibellini, 247, published by Queriniana, which has been a very important resource for my work.

27

concerning the origin of the gospels, their possible dates of composition, even the significance of the scrolls themselves.

The books I had read made it clear that there is no evidence of NT manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. By consequence, I thought so too. Up until I read the challenging results of the studies of Professor Carsten Peter Thiede, whom with excitement and very plausible suggestions, convincingly reiterated and demonstrated the possible identification of 7Q5 with the gospel of Mark.

As I said, such identification had been first suggested by father O Callaghan. He identified the fragments of cave 7 with other NT passages.

7Q6,1=Mark 4:28, 7Q6,2=Acts 27:38, 7Q8=James 1:23-24, 7Q4=1 Timothy 3:16-4:1-3, 7Q7=Mark 12:17, 7Q9=Romans 5:11-12, 7Q10=2 Peter 1:15, 7Q15=Mark 6:48.

But it all starts and mostly depends on the attribution of 7Q5. The possible identification of the other fragments is complementary and they all give us a picture impossible to be a consequence of mere coincidence, which

28

consistently presents evidence that in cave no. 7 there were manuscripts of the books of the New Testament.

I venture say that, if the possibility of Christian manuscripts in cave no. 7 has been so strongly refused, much is due to the preconceived minds relying on the results of the studies of scholars who believe that a relatively late date must be attributed to the books of the New Testament4.

The dating of the New Testament manuscripts has been long debated. There is no consensus among scholars of different factions. The traditional dating is not supported by modern scholars and a much letter date is usually attributed by them to most New Testament writings.

But if OCallaghan and his followers are right, the modern or liberal theories should definitely be revised in light of the new discoveries.

Supporting OCallaghans identification, the

4 C. Thiede and M. DAntona have written a book: Eyewitness to Jesus I strongly suggest the reader to buy.

29

independent work of other Bible scholars has led them to consider or reconsider the books of the New Testament to have been written at an earlier age than some had previously believed and argued.

It must not be forgotten that 7Q5 is a scroll. It is a long sheet of papyrus written only on

one side. Thiede is sure that the books of the NT were originally written in scrolls and only later copied like the codex manuscripts we possess. His reasoning is convincing, since it is obvious that the Christian religion would inherit, in its very first steps at least, the use of scrolls from the Jewish tradition.

Thiede dates 7Q5 around the year 50 A.D., agreeing substantially with the official possible date proposed for the fragment.

It is not easy for some scholars to be as optimistic about the antiquity of the Gospels as we know them, though the ancient witness of the Church is for the antiquity and apostolic origin of the Christian Scriptures.

It is self evident that if we believe that a copy of the Gospel was there in a cave in Qumran at such an early date, this could shake

30

the world of liberal studies and force many to seriously consider changing their views.

I close quoting Ferdinand Rohrhirsch, professor at the University of Eichstatt, who thinks and openly states that the voice of the opponents to the attribution of 7Q5, among whom is the credited textual critic Kurt Aland, is the result of prejudice and not of scientific observation: ... the hypothesis of O Callaghan is still standing, while all the refutations so far attempted have proven to be inconsistent or wrong.5

5 Marco e il suo Vangelo, Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi Il vangelo di Marco, Venezia, 30-31 may 1995, edited by Lucio Cilia, pag. 121.

31

3

The letters in 7Q5 Lets take a closer look at the letters of the

fragment individually. The identification of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52-

53 is not unanimously accepted. Though, I believe, if not abundant or overwhelming, at least sufficient and reasonable evidence has already been provided to this end by some scholars of the past 30 years.

It was Joseph O Callaghan who first noticed how the Greek letters of this papyrus fragment would not possibly combine with any other known Greek text except that of the Gospel of Mark 6:52-53.

32

The text of Mark 6:52-53 reads: for they had not understood about the loaves, because their heart was hardened. When they had crossed, they came to the land of Gennesaret and anchored there. (New King James Version).

This is the passage in the original Greek:

The original passage of Mark found in the

Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New

Testament is: . () ( ) .

The scroll has all letters in capital letters, no accents or punctuation which was the usual practice when it was copied.

This is how the text must have been in the scroll.

33

7Q5 fits the exact order of letters of the original Greek of the gospel of Mark if the second line reads , found in the phrase in verse 52.

Thiede is strongly convinced that the letter that is not perfectly readable after is what has survived of a and the identification with Mark is sure. The opposition to the reading in the second line has been very strong. Jos OCallaghan reminds that on the 12 April 1992 the papyrus went through an inspection by the most recent scientific tools (among which the stereomicroscope) by the Department of Identification and Legal Science of the National Israeli Police. The inspection excluded with absolute certainty that the ink was originally an I, since the superior part of the vertical line shows the beginning of an obliquely descending line, just like a N.6

6 Marco e il suo Vangelo, Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi "Il vangelo di Marco", Venezia, 30-31 maggio 1995, edited by Lucio Cilia, Edizioni San Paolo, pag.121.

34

Another very important detail is the space between Mark 6:52 and Mark 6:53, which is essential to prove our supposition. In the Greek of the original it reads: space - . In the books that we read today, we use periods and commas to help the understand when a phrase or a paragraph end. In manuscripts of the first century, such indication might be suggested to the reader leaving a space between one word and the following. Such seems to be the case here in 7Q5.

This is quite relevant, sin52 and 53, various editions of the New Testament put a title that introduces the new paragraph.

For example, the NKJV Interlinear New Testament separates verse 52 from 53 and the new section is introduced by the title given to the story that follows, which reads: Many Touch Jesus and Are Made Whole. The space

ant detail is the space between Mark 6:52 and Mark 6:53, which is essential to prove our

In the Greek of the original it reads:

. In the books

that we read today, we use periods and commas to help the reader understand when a phrase or a paragraph end. In manuscripts of the first century, such indication might be suggested to the reader leaving a space between one word and the following. Such seems to be the case here in

This is quite relevant, since between verse 52 and 53, various editions of the New Testament put a title that introduces the new

For example, the NKJV Interlinear New Testament separates verse 52 from 53 and the new section is introduced by the title given to

hat follows, which reads: Many Touch Jesus and Are Made Whole. The space

35

in such an old manuscrip was a conventional way to do something similar to what the editors of the NKJV have done today.

If we agree on the

identification, one peculiar variant reading of the manuscript, the change of the initial letter of the Greek word must be

taken into very serious consideration. If 7Q5 is Mark, then the scribe must have made a mistake in the initial of the word he spells .

Such a change in the spelling of the word might look, at first sight, as evidence against the positive identification, but, upon closer examination, might concur to prove it.

Changes of this type (d to t) are found in other very ancient manuscripts and also in inscriptions found in Jerusalem, that are misspelled because of the peculiar pronunciation of some Greek words where the spoken language might pronounce a t where in the written language we find a d.

36

Studying modern Greek for some time, one of the things which I suddenly noticed was the fact that the word (used also in the Biblical Greek) (transliterated in our alphabet as panta) is nowadays pronounced panda.

Something similar happens in English where the word better or letter are pronounced with an American accent.

In this perspective, the natural tendency to substitute d for t of some languages or t for d, like in the strong German pronunciation, must have affected the spelling of ancient Greek words in some of the many regions where Greek was spoken.

Supposition becomes fact when supported by evidence. Thiede relates in his book Eyewitness to Jesus that king Erod the Great forbade the entrance to the temple by the non Jewish with an inscription where the Greek word dryfacton (stone barrier) was misspelled tryfacton.

In this perspective, not only the change of a d to a t is not a problem, but it may even turn to support it.

Orsolina Montevecchi, a papyrologist of

37

worldwide fame, said on this matter: [] it is a frequent mistake there are many cases, in Biblical papyri, where a tau delta [] they are common variants. All the other Old and New Testament texts on papyrus have these little orthographic changes. I am even tempted to say that it would be suspicion if they werent there.

O Callaghan was able to identify the fragment by first considering the rare occurrence of (which reads in our alphabet nne) which is in the fourth of the surviving lines. Such a rare case has made very difficult to find any other possible identification in the Greek literature, but it is perfectly in agreement with the mention of Gennesaret made in Mark 6:53.

One major difficulty is to determine

7 Marco e il suo Vangelo, Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi Il vangelo di Marco, Venezia, 30edited by Lucio Cilia, Edizioni San Paolo, page 120.

worldwide fame, said on this matter: [] it is t mistake there are many cases, in

tau is mistaken for a [] they are common variants. All the

other Old and New Testament texts on papyrus have these little orthographic changes. I am even tempted to say that it would be uspicion if they werent there.7

O Callaghan was able to identify the fragment by first considering the rare

(which reads in our alphabet nne) which is in the fourth of the surviving lines. Such a rare case

find possible

identification in the Greek literature, but it is perfectly in agreement with the mention of Gennesaret made in Mark 6:53.

One major difficulty is to determine

Marco e il suo Vangelo, Atti del Convegno internazionale di , Venezia, 30-31 may 1995,

edited by Lucio Cilia, Edizioni San Paolo, page 120.

38

whether, during the days of Jesus, Gennesaret was a town, a region or a lake.

Carsten Thiede is convinced that Gennesaret was a town destroyed by the Romans around the time they burned down Jerusalem and the temple. This might be confirmed by a specific characteristic of 7Q5. In fact, if we want the surviving letters in the fragment to fit the identification with Mark, we must conclude that the complete manuscript omitted the phrase , which means to the land of, which is found in all the critical editions of the Greek New Testament today in print. So amended the text reads: When they had crossed, they came to Gennesaret ... (in Greek, ).

The omission of to the land of has been obtained by calculating the number of letters which should have been in each line of the original manuscript. Thiede believes that the omission of antedates its addition, since the latter must have been necessary and consequently added to the text only after the Roman destruction, in order to

39

avoid confusion with the lake bearing the same name.

In this context, there is one detail which we need to discuss, but, unfortunately, it is visible only in the original text of the gospel. Omitting before the name of Gennesaret will leave only the Greek proposition right before Gennesaret at least if we follow the reading of the so called Standard Text of the Greek New Testament, the critical text which enjoys today more credit among NT scholars. I am making specific reference to the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text, where I collected the following information.

In Mark 1:21, 2:1, 8:22, 9:33, 10:33, 10:46, 11:1, 11:11, 11:15, 11:27, 15:41 the preposition precedes the name of a town.

In Mark 1:14 is followed by the article and after that the name of the place, which in that case is the region of Galilee. The same happens in Mark 14:28 and Mark 16:7.

Mark 1:39 is similar to the two cases we just mentioned. There, between the preposition and the article , we find the further

40

description , all, which is part of the sentence throughout all Galilee. Also see Mark 10:1.

We conclude that: - when is followed by an article and

then by the name of the place the author speaks of a place, a region, a land.

- when the preposition is alone before the name spoken of by the evangelist, he invariably speaks of a town.

This being the case, Thiedes theory that the clarifying sentence to the land of might be a later addition is quite plausible.

A lot more simple than that is supposing that the omission of the words has taken place because of the very well attested practice of early scribes to omit whatever they thought superfluous. For example, P52, the oldest manuscript (indeed a fragment) of the gospel of John (dated no later than125 AD) omits in John 18:37 one of the two for this cause pronounced by Jesus, which are found in all the extant manuscript evidence of this book.

We might choose not to conclude like some do that the omission of the three

41

words supports the identification of 7Q5 with Mark and rest on the simple fact that it does not exclude it.

42

43

Conclusion

I am convinced that 7Q5 is the surviving

fragment of a complete manuscript which had the whole Gospel of Mark.

For various reasons: Because it is plausible and possible. Because up to this day it has not been

given in my opinion another hypothesis so convincing like O Callaghans: no other has given a satisfactory explanation of the presence of Greek papyri in Qumran cave 7.

Because both OCallaghan and Thiede

give a good reply to all the objections and

44

every time they do their point becomes even more convincing.

Because there are no valid reasons to

suppose that the gospel of Mark could have not been written before the year 70 AD

Reading Thiedes writings has been a

personal, incredible journey inside the potentials of a branch of New Testament studies that was unknown to me: Papyrology.

The approach of Thiede and OCallaghan to ancient papyri evidence and manuscripts in general is totally opposite to that found in biblical commentaries or textual criticism manuals. I am honest when I say that the blind opposition against their studies seems to me to be moved by the urgency of keeping the status quo of a good portion of the academic world alone.

Orsolina Montevecchis opinion is quite relevant: As a papyrologist I can say that the identification seems sure to me. The five lines which are still visible of which consists the fragment correspond to Mark 6:52-53. It is

45

extremely unlikely that it might coincide to any other text the traces are in different lines: once you find they coincide with a passage from Mark, it is quite difficult, practically impossible, that it might be some other text, even unknownAs far as the date of composition is concerned, I think we cant go later than the first half of the first century. Which is 50 AD at best, so this fragment of the gospel of Mark can be dated twenty years after the death of Christ.8

During the Venice congress we just quoted from, it was examined the opinion of Albert Dou of whom I have already spoken about earlier who has incredible credentials as professor at the Madrid University and is member of the Royal Academy of Science in Madrid. With the undeniable power of numbers on his side he boldly claims: 1) The probability to find by accident another text, which has the same number of spaces and letters and with a stichometry which oscillates

8 Marco e il suo Vangelo, Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi "Il vangelo di Marco", Venezia, 30-31 maggio 1995, a cura di Lucio Cilia, Edizioni San Paolo, p.122.

46

as that of 7Q5 in the case of the identification with Mark between 20 and 30 letters is 1 over 36,000,000,000. 2) From a mere calculation of probabilities point o view, consider a literary text like a mathematical neuter text, will create a mistake that is very hard to estimate and of which it has not been taken consideration in the preceding calculation. Being a literary text, which affects the above mentioned results, professor Dou proposes a new mathematical result: with the same stichometry of 7Q5, as before, the odds to find by chance another text is 1 over 900,000,000,000", page 122.

In 1972, in the Italian magazine Biblica

the Catholic papyrologist Jose O' Callaghan first identified 7Q5 with Mark 6:52-53. Obviously it shook the world of biblical studies. But, though his hypothesis might be unpleasant to the many scholars against the antiquity of the gospels, someone took the results of his studies very seriously.

Carsten P. Thiede continued the work of O' Callaghan giving a clear demonstration first

47

that he himself was convinced of the identification of 7Q5 with Mark and that he was also interested in convincing not only scholars, but also the public, that Mark was really in that cave. In order to ascertain the ink trait on a specific letter of the fragment, in 1992 Thiede did not hesitate to consult the Israeli Police Department. The result of analysis of the ink traces left on the papyri fragment further substantiated the identification with the gospel.

Such evidence should tear down towers of skepticism, but it seems like preconceived ideas are too rooted.

Thiede did not stop at 7Q5 or the Qumran evidence, but following a road that also other scholars have decided to take, he considered the possibility of redating various New Testament manuscripts. He dedicated particular attention to the Magdalen Papyri (P64) which he dated around the year 70 AD. If his suggestion is correct, it would mean a death blow to the theories of those who believe that the gospel of Matthew could have never have been written so early.

48

In this context we cant avoid mentioning J.A.T. Robinson who published in 1976 Redating the New Testament and in 1985 Priority of John, where he radically redates and antedates the New Testament.

But why is the age of manuscripts such an important issue? Because it can manage to demolish the whole building of New Testament dating system developed by major critics in just one strike.

Some critics simply dont believe the New Testament to be a product of the apostolic age, but the result of later Church activity. These conclusions are reached by analyzing the text of the New Testament as we have it but it isnt much: the building rests on the quicksand of personal opinions which are not arranged with sufficient elements.

This might be the dawn of a new era, when 7Q5 might supply definitive evidence that urge the ideas of scholars on the dates of the New Testament writings to be seriously reconsidered.

We cannot and will not underestimate the historical evidence that points at an early

49

Church that welcomed in the Canon of authentic Scripture only writings of proved apostolic origin where there were diligently collected first hand information of eyewitnesses of the person and ministry of Jesus.

Eusebius Pamphilus was Bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine in the fourth century. He wrote a rightly famous Ecclesiastical History, where he writes also about the circumstances of the composition of the Gospels.

So greatly, however, did the splendor of piety enlighten the minds of Peters hearers, that it was not sufficient to hear but once, nor to receive the unwritten doctrine of the gospel of God, but they persevered in every variety of entreaties, to solicit Mark as the companion of Peter, and whose gospel we have, that he should leave them a monument of the doctrine thus orally communicated, in writing. Nor did they cease their solicitations until they had prevailed with the man, and thus became the means of that history which is called the Gospel according to Mark. They say also, that the apostle (Peter,) having ascertained what

50

was done by the revelation of the spirit, was delighted with the zealous ardour expressed by these men, and that history obtained his authority for the purpose of being read in the churches. This account is given by Clement, in the sixth book of his Institutions, whose testimony is corroborated also by that of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis.9

Of course Eusebius words deserve more serious consideration than blind acceptance, but they must surely reflect what was the common, received belief of his time. His witness cannot be invalidated by the fact that he has a special reverence for the Scriptures, which he believes apostolic in origin and divine in content.

The school of thought of scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth century definitely travelled against this simple but strong awareness of the Christian Church, with fundamentally just one purpose (well hidden behind a spirit of honest research) which was to empty of meaning the Traditional Faith of

9 The Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius Pamphilus, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1991, p.64-65.

51

the Church. Such a tendency would not leave us so perplexed if it wasnt for the fact that such a disputable attitude comes not from enemies of the cross, but from professing Christians.

O Callaghan and Thiede, their approach and method of investigating manuscript evidence, their authentic scientific sense of responsibility, their sincere love for the truth of the reliability of the Gospels, convince both the intellect of the educated and the spirit of the honest believer.

On the basis of the results of the studies which identity the fragments of cave 7 at Qumran with portions of New Testament books, we can only hope that the day is not too far ahead when, at last, preconceptions will be put off and a new way of approaching the witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls will lead to new results in the studies dealing with the formation of the New Testament.

Further research is needed. So far, I would be very inclined to believe that Marks Gospel was really there at Qumran.

52

53

BIBLIOGRAFY

BAILLET M., Les manuscripts de la Grotte 7 de Qumran en le N.T., Biblica, LIII (1972). CARMIGNAC J., La nascita dei Vangeli Sinottici, edizioni Paoline, 1986. CILIA L. (ed.), Marco e il suo Vangelo, Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi Il vangelo di Marco, Venezia, 30-31 maggio 1995, Edizioni San Paolo, 1997. COMFORT P.W. (ed.), The Origin of the Bible, Tyndale House Publishers, 1982.

54

DALLA VECCHIA F. (ed.), Ridatare i Vangeli?, gdt 247, Giornale di Teologia, diretto da Rosino Gibellini, Editrice Queriniana, 1997. EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS, The Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius Pamphilus, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1991. HOLMES M.W. (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers, Baker Book House, 1992. HODGE S., I manoscritti del Mar Morto, Newton Compton Editori, 2011. METZGER B. M., The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 1968. MONTEVECCHI O., Bibbia e papiri, Luce dai papiri sulla Bibbia greca, Seminari de Papirologia, Institut de Teologia Fonamental, 1999. OCALLAGHAN J., El cambio d>t en los papiros biblicos, Biblica, LIV (1973). OCALLAGHAN J., Notas sobre 7Q tomaia en el Rochefeller Museum de Jerusalem, Biblica, LIII (1972).

55

OCALLAGHAN J., Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumran?, Biblica, LIII (1972). PICKERING W., The Identity of the New Testament Text, Thomas Nelson, 1977. THIEDE C. and DANCONA M., Testimone oculare di Ges, Edizioni Piemme, 1996. THIEDE C.P., The Earliest Gospel Manuscript?, The Qumran Fragment 7Q5 and its significance for New Testament Studies, The Paternoster Press, 1992. VANDERKAM J. C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, .William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994. WHISTON W., The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged, Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.

56

57