Jump to content

7Q5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fragment 5 from Cave 7 of the Qumran Community in its entirety

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 7Q5 is the designation for a small Greek papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran Cave 7. It contains about 18 legible or partially legible Greek letters and was published in 1962 as an unidentified text. The editor assigned the fragment to a date between 50 BCE and 50 CE on the basis of its handwriting.[1] In 1972, the Spanish papyrologist Jose O'Callaghan argued that the papyrus was in fact a fragment of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6, verses 52 and 53. Some New Testament textual scholars who aren’t professional papyrologists have been unpersuaded by this argument, prominent papyrologists continue to support the identification of the fragment as a part of the Gospel of Mark.[2][3][4] Papyrologists at the Eichstatt symposium believe 7Q5 is Mark 6.[5] This includes Orsolina Montevecchi,[6] President (later honorary president) of International Papyrological Association, Sergio Daris Honorary President of the Papyrological Association,[7] Heikki Koskenniemi[8] and Herbert Hunger.[9][10][11]

O'Callaghan's proposed identification

[edit]

O'Callaghan challenged the reading of the original edition of the fragment, largely because he misunderstood the original editor's use of an iota subscript in line 2 of the fragment.[12] The Greek text below shows O'Callaghan's reconstruction with bold font representing proposed identifications with characters from 7Q5:[13]

Argument

[edit]
The 7th Cave at Qumran, where 7Q5 was found.

O'Callaghan's argument is as follows:

  1. According to O'Callaghan, in line 2 "after the ⲱ, the ⲁ suggested by the editors seems inadmissible. The traces of the facsimile are too uncertain to allow a satisfactory reading, even though one comes to discover the left vertical stroke and the peculiar descending contour of a ⲛ similar to that of line 4."[14] By reading a nu after the omega, O'Callaghan was able to reconstruct the words [α]υτων η [καρδια], which could be matched with a passage in Mark's gospel.
  2. O'Callaghan pointed out that the combination of letters ννησ <nnēs> in line 4 may be part of the word Γεννησαρετ <Gennēsaret>.
  3. O'Callaghan argued that the spacing before the word και <kai> ("and") suggests a paragraph break, which is consistent with the normative layout for Mark 6:52-53.
  4. Furthermore, a computer search "using the most elaborate Greek texts ... has failed to yield any text other than Mark 6:52-53 for the combination of letters identified by O'Callaghan et al. in 7Q5".[15]

Some New Testament scholars [16][17] have rejected O'Callaghan's arguments include the following:

  • Several of the letters read or reconstructed by O'Callaghan are highly debatable to them (especially the nu in line 2).[18]
  • The spacing before the word και <kai> ("and") proposed as a paragraph break may not be indicative of anything.
  • In papyri spacings of this width can be also found within words (Pap. Bodmer XXIV, plate 26; in Qumran in fragment 4Q122).
  • Other examples in the Qumran texts show that the word και <kai> ("and") usually was separated with spacings – and this has nothing to do with the text's structure (as proposed by O'Callaghan).
  • The sequence ννησ can be also found in the word εγεννησεν <egennēsen> ("begot"), a very common word used in biblical genealogies and the reconstruction suggested by the original editor.[1]

Papyrologist Carsten Peter Thiede responded to the objections of Daniel B. Wallace and other scholars that they commit “a kind of fallacy of analogy that no papyrologist would commit.”[19] Thiede continued in the prestigious Westminster Journal that “is it really too much to expect that in a paper published in 1994, the detailed analysis by the great papyrologist Herbert Hunger of Vienna, Austria, published in 1992, in favor of Mark 6:52-53 and already answering the objections raised by Wallace- should have been noticed.”[20]

Further counterarguments

  • To make the identification of the fragment with Mark 6:52-53, O'Callaghan had to substitute a δ (delta) ⟨d⟩ for the τ (tau) ⟨t⟩ found in line 3 of 7Q5.[21] Carsten Thiede provided over 25 ancient documents where the d/t shift occurs.[22]

There are numerous texts with the d to t shift including text dated 42CE, papyrus 66, papyrus 4, papyrus 75 as recorded in Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumrân? ("New Testament Papyri in Cave 7 at Qumran?")[23]

  • The words επι την γην <epi tēn gēn> ("to the land") in line 4, which are found in Mark 6:53, would have to be considered as being omitted from 7Q5 in order to fit into its column. However, this omission is found in no extant manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[21] There are other documents which omission of the words on to the land are not present in manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel[24] Omissions by scribal typo does not remove an identification of a text. papyrus 45 of Mark’s gospel does not have “to the other side” and yet it is clearly part of full pages of Mark’s gospel.[25]
  • The identification of the last letter in line 2 with nu does was thought to not fit into the pattern of this Greek letter as it is clearly written in line 4 by amateur papyrologists.[26] However, the electron microscope at the Investigation Department of the Israel National Police clearly shows a diagonal line for the “NU”. This fits Mark’s Gospel as shown on image 2 that is also in the book which recorded the 1991 Qumran symposium papers presented for consideration of 7Q5 as Mark’s Gospel[27]
  • The computer search performed by Thiede matched Herbert Hungers 22 point analysis that confirmed 7Q5 is the Gospel of Mark.[28][29]
    • A similar search performed by scholar Daniel Wallace, which allowed other identifications for the disputed letters, found sixteen matches.[21] However, when the letters confirmed by the Department of Investigations electronic microscope is included, 7Q5 only fits Mark’s Gospel.[30]
    • A computer search performed with the undisputed letters of the fragment 7Q5 does finds the text Mk 6:52-53, because the undisputed letter τ in line 3 does fits to this text.[31][32]

Anachronism found in Mark's Gospel

  • Another potential problem with identifying 7Q5 as Mark's gospel is the argument that Mark 12:13–17 may potentially contain a reference to Vespasian's Fiscus Judaicus imposed in 71 AD, while 7Q5 dates to before 50 AD.[33]

Argument for an earlier date

  • Colophons in the 12th century manuscripts of Family Kr(Family 35) from Mark’s Gospel claim that the work was written 10 years after the death of Jesus, rendering a date of 40-43 CE.[34] The late dating of these colophons and absence of earlier testimony from previous writers in earlier centuries make this tradition unlikely to be reliable in dating Mark's gospel.

Significance

[edit]

If 7Q5 was actually a fragment of Mark 6:52–53 and was deposited in the cave at Qumran by 68 AD, it would become the earliest known fragment of the New Testament, predating P52 by at least some if not many decades. Yet, since the amount of text in the manuscript is so small, even a confirmation of 7Q5 as Markan "might mean nothing more than that the contents of these few verses were already formalized, not necessarily that there was a manuscript of Mark's Gospel on hand".[35] Since the entirety of the find in Cave 7 consists of fragments in Greek, it is possible that the contents of this cave are of a separate "Hellenized" library than the Hebrew texts found in the other caves.

Sunday April 12th, 1992 7q5 was examined forensically in the Investigations Department of the Israel National Police. The investigation was carried out by Chief Inspector Sharon Landau in the presence of Dr Joseph Almog, the Director of the Israel Division of Identification and Forensic Science and Curator Joseph Zias. The decisive parts of the analysis were “recorded by a TV team from the Bavarian Television Company, ARD.”[36] From the examination of line 2 of fragment 7Q5 under the stereo microscope, Thiede believed he saw the diagonal middle stroke of a NU, "as demanded by the identification of 7Q5 as Mark 6:52-53”[37] Yet, another examination by Stephen Pfann using the Rokefeller Museum's Olympus SZ4045 Zoom Stereo Microscope with an Olympus Cold Light Illuminator 3000 detected no traces of the alleged diagonal and instead concluded that the original editors were correct in reading an iota: "The iota is absolutely an iota."[38] Computer print outs of the letter “NU” as well as other letters of 7Q5 corroborated it as Mark’s Gospel were made by the use of stereo microscope in the independent Department of Investigations at the Israel National Police office. The computer print outs were added the appendix of the book Eichstatt symposium on Qumran along with majority of scholarly essays corroborating 7Q5 as Gospel of Mark[39][40]

Forensic Science Conclusion of 7Q5 as the Gospel of Mark

[edit]

While some New Testament scholars allege that 7Q5 cannot be the Gospel of Mark based on their analysis of the papyri; the leading papyrologists have agreed based on their speciality in their discipline of papyrology that 7Q5 is the Gospel according to Mark.[41][42] Furthermore Thiede and a team of specialists used forensic science to confirm 7Q5 is Mark’s Gospel.[43][44]

The analysis of papyrologists have definitively answered the objections of the skeptics to confirm that 7Q5 is the Gospel of Mark. Furthermore, even with the alleged disputes of skeptics, the papyrus still reads as Mark 6. For example, the d/t change and not having the words “on to the land” does not exclude the papyrus from reading as Mark 6.

  • Size of the papyrus

Other papyrus such as 7Q1 and 7Q2 are equally small with only a few words but can yet be definitely identified. Similarly, 7Q5 has enough letters to be positively identified as the Gospel of Mark.[45]

  • D/T change

Some allege that the d/t change on a word makes it impossible to be the gospel according to Mark. However, over 25 different papyrus have a similar d/t change and are positively identified.[46][47] The D/T shift is seen in New Testament papyrus as well such as Papyrus 4, Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75[48]

  • Missing the letters “Onto the land”

The text still reads as Mark 6 whether the words for onto the land are included or not. Furthermore, many papyri have unique variants. Papyrus 45 had several words missing for “on to the other side” and yet the text is still Mark 5. Similarly, missing words does not disqualify 7Q5 as Mark 6.[49]

  • NU in line 2

After some disputes of the letter NU; the great papyrologist Herbert Hunger created a 22 point analysis in which the NU in line 2 was clearly seen through reconstruction.[50] Furthermore, third party analysis at the Israel National Police Department confirms a NU on line 2 which is consistent with the Gospel of Mark.[51][52]

  • Date of the fragment

Some allege that Mark’s gospel was not written until after 70CE and therefore the fragment couldn’t be Mark 6 since the Qumran cave was sealed in 68CE.

All sources of antiquity place the Gospel of Mark as being produced during the Apostolic age. Most of the ancient manuscripts with a colophon subscribe that Mark’s Gospel was written about 10 years after the ascension of Jesus. This places Mark’s gospel about 41-44 CE. The ancient historian Eusebius Chronicle also mentions Mark Gospel as being written about 10 years after the ascension of Jesus. Futhermore, within the Acts of the Apostle John Mark is called Servant of the Word (Acts 13:5) which is a title used for a gospel writer (Luke 1:2). Luke mentions Mark role as servant in Acts 13 which places the composition of Mark’s Gospel prior to the missionary trip in 46CE in Acts 13. This aligns with ancient manuscripts, church fathers and ancient historians placing the composition of Mark’s Gospel as the 10th year of Jesus ascension.

Furthermore, the fragment was analyzed by the Israeli National Police using Electronic Stereo Microscope and the lab analysis confirm that a NU is in line 2. This print out is included in the book Christen und Christliches in Qumran by B. Mayer which included papers presented at the 1991 Qumran Symposium[53]

  • Computer Analysis Confirms 7Q5 only matches Mark 6

The Ibykus computer program was used to run analysis on the letters confirmed by analysis and third party Israel National Police Department liaisons and the Gospel of Mark is the only extant text which fits 7Q5[54]

  • Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis by Prof Albert Dou showed that the fragment has a 1:900 Billion chance to be a document other than Mark 6. His analysis confirms that 7Q5 is the Gospel according to Mark[55]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ a b M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux (eds.), Les 'petites grottes' de Qumrân (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan III; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 144.
  2. ^ d'Ancona, Matthew (15 February 2000). The Jesus Papyrus: The Most Sensational Evidence on the Origin of the Gospel Since the Discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls. PRH Christian. ISBN 978-0-385-48898-3.
  3. ^ Elliot, J. K. (2003). "Book Notes". Novum Testamentum. 45 (2): 203–205. doi:10.1163/15685360360623510. JSTOR 1561021. ... Qumran ms. 7Q5 ... is captioned as if it contains a fragment of Mark: it was of course O'Callaghan who made that controversial — and now virtually universally rejected — identification of this Dead Sea text as a piece of the New Testament ...
  4. ^ Gundry (1999), p.698. Carlo Maria Martini, S.J., Archbishop of Milan and part of the five-member team which edited the definitive modern edition of the Greek New Testament for the United Bible Societies agreed with O'Callaghan's identification and assertions.
  5. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth. Gracewing. ISBN 978-1-56338-136-2.
  6. ^ d'Ancona, Matthew (15 February 2000). The Jesus Papyrus: The Most Sensational Evidence on the Origin of the Gospel Since the Discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls. PRH Christian. ISBN 978-0-385-48898-3.
  7. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1992). The Earliest Gospel Manuscript?: The Qumran Papyrus 7Q5 and Its Significance for New Testament Studies. Paternoster Press. ISBN 978-0-85364-507-8.
  8. ^ Fletemier, Curt (13 November 2018). The Divine Pen Strokes: Our First-Century Manuscripts of the New Testament. WestBow Press. ISBN 978-1-9736-3411-9.
  9. ^ Fletemier, Curt (13 November 2018). The Divine Pen Strokes: Our First-Century Manuscripts of the New Testament. WestBow Press. ISBN 978-1-9736-3411-9.
  10. ^ Ancient Narrative. Barkhius Pub. 2002. ISBN 978-90-77922-26-2.
  11. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth. Gracewing. ISBN 978-1-56338-136-2.
  12. ^ Brent Nongbri, "The Strange 'nu' Story of 7Q5," Variant Readings (March 19, 2022) https://brentnongbri.com/2022/03/19/the-strange-nu-story-of-7q5/: "It’s not the case that O’Callaghan judged the editors’ omega–iota-space-alpha sequence to be a bad reading in need of improvement. Rather, he appears to have failed to understand that Baillet and Boismard rendered the script ⲱⲓ (omega–iota) by means of a printed ῳ employing the iota subscript. O'Callaghan took the printed ῳ to represent just one letter–ⲱ–and then believed the editors had misconstrued the following vertical line ("el palo vertical") as part of an alpha." Nongbri cites as the source of this observation Stuart R. Pickering and Rosalie R.E. Cook, Has a Fragment of the Gospel of Mark Been Found at Qumran? (Sydney: Macquarie University Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1989).
  13. ^ VanderKam, James; Peter Flint (2004). The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (First HarperCollins paperback ed.). New York: HarperCollins. p. 315. ISBN 0-06-068465-8.
  14. ^ Brent Nongbri, "The Strange 'nu' Story of 7Q5," Variant Readings (March 19, 2022) https://brentnongbri.com/2022/03/19/the-strange-nu-story-of-7q5/.
  15. ^ Thiede n. 31, pp. 40-41
  16. ^ Fletemier, Curt (13 November 2018). The Divine Pen Strokes: Our First-Century Manuscripts of the New Testament. WestBow Press. ISBN 978-1-9736-3411-9.
  17. ^ d'Ancona, Matthew (15 February 2000). The Jesus Papyrus: The Most Sensational Evidence on the Origin of the Gospel Since the Discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls. PRH Christian. ISBN 978-0-385-48898-3.
  18. ^ Robert H. Gundry, "No NU in Line 2 of 7Q5: A Final Disidentification of 7Q5 With Mark 6:52-53," Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (4): 698–707. doi:10.2307/3268112.
  19. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). "7Q5—Facts or Fiction?". Westminster Theological Journal. 57 (2).
  20. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). "7Q5—Facts or Fiction?". Westminster Theological Journal. 57 (2).
  21. ^ a b c [clarification needed]
  22. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). "7Q5—Facts or Fiction?". Westminster Theological Journal. 57 (2).
  23. ^ Biblica 53 (1972) 91-100. Translated into English by W. L. Holladay in Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972) supplement no. 2.
  24. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=SxdkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=manuscripts+on+the+land+omitted+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiomdTRhueMAxXq78kDHYPBK9EQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=manuscripts%20on%20the%20land%20omitted%207q5&f=false
  25. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=iMuDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA181&dq=papyrus+45+mark+to+the+other+side+omitted&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt-KmTieiMAxWUq4kEHQ6vOWQQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=papyrus%2045%20mark%20to%20the%20other%20side%20omitted&f=false
  26. ^ Gundry (1999)
  27. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=SxdkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=manuscripts+on+the+land+omitted+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiomdTRhueMAxXq78kDHYPBK9EQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=manuscripts%20on%20the%20land%20omitted%207q5&f=false
  28. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA39&dq=hunger+hunger+analysis+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOhIeXiOeMAxWbq4kEHfhyLfgQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=hunger%20hunger%20analysis%207q5&f=false
  29. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&dq=hunger+hunger+analysis+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOhIeXiOeMAxWbq4kEHfhyLfgQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=hunger%20hunger%20analysis%207q5&f=false
  30. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA190&dq=ibykus+analysis+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib0NDIiOeMAxU1wvACHUhyHeAQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=ibykus%20analysis%207q5&f=false
  31. ^ See Wallace, footnote 18.
  32. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA190&dq=ibykus+analysis+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib0NDIiOeMAxU1wvACHUhyHeAQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=ibykus%20analysis%207q5&f=false
  33. ^ Zeichmann, Christopher (2017). "The Date of Mark’s Gospel Apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The Taxation Episode (12:13–17) as Evidence". https://www.academia.edu/34194619/The_Date_of_Mark_s_Gospel_Apart_from_the_Temple_and_Rumors_of_War_The_Taxation_Episode_12_13_17_as_Evidence(2017)
  34. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=Pzr7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PR63&dq=colophon+mark+gospel+10th+year+ascension&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2kPjdieeMAxWX8MkDHYXZB8sQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=colophon%20mark%20gospel%2010th%20year%20ascension&f=false
  35. ^ Picirilli, Robert E. (2003). The Gospel of Mark (first ed.). Nashville, TN: Randall House Publications. p. 11. ISBN 0-89265-500-3.
  36. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth. Gracewing. ISBN 978-1-56338-136-2.
  37. ^ Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth. Gracewing. ISBN 978-1-56338-136-2.
  38. ^ Robert H. Gundry, "No NU in Line 2 of 7Q5: A Final Disidentification of 7Q5 With Mark 6:52-53," Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (4): 698–707. doi:10.2307/3268112.
  39. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=7q5+israel+1992+microscope+NU&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTuMb57uSMAxWnjIkEHfkTIwYQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=1992&f=false
  40. ^ Glessmer, Uwe (1994). "Christen und Christliches in Qumran? Edited by Bernhard Mayer. Eichstätter Studien NF 32. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1992. Pp. 268; 43 plates. DM 88.00. ISBN 3 7917 1346 9". Dead Sea Discoveries. 1: 137–140. doi:10.1163/156851794X00086.
  41. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=tDgqAQAAMAAJ&q=all+the+leading+papyrologist+agreed+7q5&dq=all+the+leading+papyrologist+agreed+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNgfyu6uWNAxV3C3kGHXItJFcQ6AF6BAgGEAM#all%20the%20leading%20papyrologist%20agreed%207q5
  42. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=SxdkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=leading+papyrologists+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIq6SC6-WNAxUXk4kEHTh5JCEQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=leading%20papyrologists%207q5&f=false
  43. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=thiede+forensic+science&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB0aLjweWNAxVFC3kGHdtqJpkQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=forensic%20science&f=false
  44. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA195&dq=thiede+forensic+science&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB0aLjweWNAxVFC3kGHdtqJpkQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=thiede%20forensic%20science&f=false
  45. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA199&dq=7q5+size+7q2&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFsoaKwuWNAxXYjIkEHZVUCn0Q6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=7q5%20size%207q2&f=false
  46. ^ https://www.galaxie.com/article/wtj57-2-12
  47. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&dq=7q5+d+to+t&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIruWkwuWNAxXJjIkEHRMQBvAQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=7q5%20d%20to%20t&f=false
  48. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/42609678
  49. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=iMuDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA181&dq=papyrus+45+mark+to+the+other+side+omitted&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt-KmTieiMAxWUq4kEHQ6vOWQQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=papyrus%2045%20mark%20to%20the%20other%20side%20omitted&f=false
  50. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA197&dq=NU+line+2+herbert+hunger&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwilsMjaxOWNAxWTlYkEHScTMvEQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=NU%20line%202%20herbert%20hunger&f=false
  51. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA196&dq=NU+line+2+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB_M2PxOWNAxWvhYkEHfyuH60Q6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=NU%20line%202%207q5&f=false
  52. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&dq=NU+line+2+7q5&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB_M2PxOWNAxWvhYkEHfyuH60Q6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=NU%20line%202%207q5&f=false
  53. ^ https://www.lavia.org/english/Archivo/Qumran%207Q5EN.html
  54. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA190&dq=7q5+ibykus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQiNCCxeWNAxWmj4kEHTHBPCsQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=7q5%20ibykus&f=false
  55. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&dq=7q5+albert+dou&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU_YSdxeWNAxWUm4kEHfU7KJgQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=7q5%20albert%20dou&f=false

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
  • Enste, Stefan (2000). "Kein Markustext in Qumran. Eine Untersuchung der These: Qumran-Fragment 7Q5 = Mk 6,52-53". NTOA. 45. Freiburg/Göttingen.
  • Estrada, David; White, William Jr. (1978). The First New Testament. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc. ISBN 0-8407-5121-4.
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to 7Q5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7Q5&oldid=1294835729"