D.H. Cross

Does anybody know when Cave 7 in Qumran was sealed? I've just heard the claim that it was sealed AD 68. But most scholars say all of the documents found inside should be dated between AD 180 and 200. The person I spoke with says that this later dating reflects only willful ignorance, and a vast liberal conspiracy to cover up the "fact" that fragments of Matthew predate Mark.

Peter Kirby

Actually, I think what scholars say is that nothing found at Qumran comes from the New Testament.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Aspirin99

What? There was no NT manuscripts found in cave 7.

D.H. Cross

According to Wikipedia, A Spanish Jesuit, José O'Callaghan, has argued that one fragment (7Q5) is a New Testament text from the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 6, verses 52-53. Mainly, the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew is what I'm talking about...but were they ni the caves at all? All I've found is that the Magdalen Papyrus was found "in upper Egypt".

Jedi Mind Trick

There does seem to be some dispute that 7Q5 is new testament material.
LINK

Aspirin99

My understanding is that of the fragment that was found, the only clear word that could be read reliably was "kai" - in other words, "and". Nothing else could be deciphered with any reliability. This is wishful thinking at best and dishonest scholarship at worst.

Ben C Smith

There is an existing thread on this board dealing with the Magdalene papyrus. I would begin there.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Both the identification of 7Q5 from Qumran Cave 7 as Mark and the redating of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew to the mid-20th century were trumpted by the late Carsten Thiede around the same time.

Other than the fact that Thiede was in all likelihood wrong on both counts, there is very little other connection between them.

Stephen

andrewcriddle

Possibly that should be 'the redating of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew to the mid-late 1st century'

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

You're right. :banghead: