Refutation of C. P. Thiede

     In his book entitled "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity," (1) Carsten Thiede continues to reject the identification of certain Greek papyrus fragments from Qumran Cave 7 with various portions of I Enoch that was made in 1988 by G. Wilhelm Nebe. (2) Thiede does this in spite of the fact that this identification was substantiated and augmented in my article that appeared in Revue de Qumran #70, (3) along with additional identifications made by Emile Puech in the same issue. (4) In Chapter VII of his book, (which is entitled "Mark, Paul and the Great Debate"), Thiede devotes 17 out of 30 pages to this task, while continuing to maintain the late Jose O'Callaghan's (5) identification of the 7Q4 duo with I Timothy 3:16-4:3. (6) The remainder of this chapter, which is a defense of O'Callaghan's identification of fragment 7Q5 with Mark 6:52-53, (7) focuses on a topic that was outside of the intended scope of the two articles that appeared in Revue de Qumran #70.
     [Note: Readers who are unfamiliar with the papyrus fragments in question, or do not understand the manner in which they are designated by scholars, can refer to footnote number (8) for explanatory information].
     Anyone who has read Thiede's book or plans to do so must take into consideration the images shown below, as both of them reveal the horizontal papyrus fibers that are common to both fragments 7Q4,1 and 7Q8. These matching fibers clearly indicate the original contiguous relationship between these two fragments, which means that they need to be studied as if they were one single papyrus fragment or ensemble. (9) It is also highly probable that fragment 7Q12 is likewise a part of this ensemble, although the quality of these photographs is not sufficiently clear for me to establish this observation with certainty. The original location of 7Q8 to the immediate right of 7Q4,1 clearly reveals the fact that the Greek letters on 7Q8 negate O'Callaghan's identification of 7Q4 with I Timothy 3:16-4:3 and, conversely, the letters on 7Q4,1 likewise rule out O'Callaghan's identification of 7Q8 with James 1:23-24. Nebe's identification of 7Q4,1 and 7Q8 with I Enoch 103:3-4 & 103:7-8 is confirmed, however, because the Greek letters on these two fragments, along with those of 7Q12, correctly match those of the Enochian text.

     The image at left, which appears at the end of my article in Revue de Qumran #70, is mentioned only once by Thiede in his entire book, by way of a brief and misleading reference on page 163. The image itself does not appear anywhere in his book, nor is there to be found any adequate verbal description of it. Furthermore, in endnote #12 on page 241, Thiede provides a reference to my article in Revue de Qumran yet he excludes the page number for the image. In other words, my article ends on page 211 while Puech's starts on page 213 (according to endnote #13). But page 212 is certainly part of my article and it is not blank. In essence Thiede is silent about what this photograph reveals, especially with regard to fragment 7Q8 and its original physical position to the immediate right of fragment 7Q4,1. This omission on the part of Thiede is the most glaring shortcoming of Chapter VII of his book, showing that the avoidance of the obvious is the only advantage Thiede has in this matter.
     The image shown above on the right is derived from a color photograph of the papyrus fragments from Qumran cave 7 that was taken in 1996 while these fragments were on display in Rimini, Italy. (10) Although not as clear as the image to the left, it still shows how the horizontal fibers are identical for both fragments 7Q4,1 and 7Q8. Ironically, this exhibition, which was entitled "Dalla Terra Alle Genti," was originally planned by Carsten Thiede. (11)
     With the above photographs in mind, the reader of Chapter VII of "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity" will notice that Thiede continues to treat 7Q4,1, 7Q8, and 7Q12 as separate fragments, while always keeping his readers ignorant of the basic fact that two of these fragments, if not all three, must be studied together as a single ensemble. It readily follows that all the arguments he presents in favor of O'Callaghan's identifications are now pointless, since they are based upon or serve to uphold the obsolete and erroneous view that fragments 7Q4,1 and 7Q8 are separate scraps of papyrus, each from a different manuscript or scroll. There is no longer any need to refute these arguments, as the photographs clearly speak for themselves.
     There is a need, however, to address Thiede's objections to the Enochian identification of these fragments. These objections, about 13 in number, display a considerable variation in quality, relevance, and veracity. Although some of them in their own right merit a detailed response, most of Thiede's objections can be readily dismissed as a waste of "too much printer's ink." (12) None the less, they are all enumerated below for the purpose of refuting them, one by one. My intention for doing so is not only to uphold the truth, but also to provide the reader with useful information, some of which is difficult to locate or is rendered in a foreign language. To this end I have also added my comments in response to some of Thiede's claims regarding fragment 7Q5.
     A list of Thiede's objections is arranged below following the order that they appear in his book. Page numbers are given, along with hyperlinks to web pages that contain more detailed or lengthy information. It is possible that some of this information is little known or is being presented for the first time. It is my hope that this inclusion of new or obscure information will not only be of benefit to the reader but will also serve to address those concerns about the 7QEnoch Identification that are reasonable and valid.

Thiede's Objections to the 7QEnoch Identification:

A. Thiede's ad hominum attacks:

1. I have been lured by fantasy and my research is guided by the presumption that 1 Timothy could not have been written earlier than 68 AD, when Qumran fell to the Romans. (p. 160-1)
     My response: Although I wrote Carsten Thiede in September of 1997 about my observations regarding the matching papyrus fibers, I have never received a response or any other type of communication from him. I was also completely unaware of his opinions regarding this matter until I discovered and purchased his book while browsing in an Orlando bookstore during a rainy Saturday afternoon in February of 2002. (13)
     The implications of the matching papyrus fibers between 7Q4,1 and 7Q8 are arrestingly simple: O'Callaghan's attempted identifications for these fragments are history. Nebe's Enochian identification has been substantiated. Fact is not fantasy.
     On a personal level, my motivation to study the Qumran Cave 7 fragments was due to my curiosity about the controversy that has surrounded them since 1972. Because of my conservative theological bias, I would "like" to believe that these fragments are indeed a part of the New Testament. I have also entertained for a long time the hope that first century evidence for the Bible and Christianity will eventually come to light. I also believe that more New Testament papyri and other early manuscripts will be discovered. I cannot, however, evade or downplay the truth about the Qumran Cave 7 fragments.
     For Thiede to "pigeonhole" someone whom he does not know is unethical, to say the least.

B. Objections to Nebe:

2. There is no evidence for the existence of a Greek translation of 1 Enoch in the 1st. century AD. (p. 161)
     My response: Neither is there any such manuscript evidence for the New Testament, especially 1 Timothy. As for the Epistle of Enoch, which contains Chapter 103, you just saw a picture of it. Details forthcoming.
3. The eta on line 1 of 7Q4,1 presents an insurmountable obstacle to the Enochian identification. (p. 162)
     My response: Thiede provides a reasonably good copy of Rubinger's photograph of the 7Q4 duo. If one were to look at this photo for the eta in question, he would not find it. Furthermore, he would be unable to find any line 1 of text at all. The eta and line 1 are simply not there. The little known account of how this eta came into existence begins in the 1950s. Click HERE for details.
4. The identification of 7Q4,2, the smaller companion to 7Q4,1, by O'Callaghan is far more plausible than that of Nebe. (p. 163)
     My response: The style of handwriting found on fragment 7Q4,2 is very similar to that of 7Q4,1. The orientation of the fibers and the color of the papyrus are different, however. The handwriting may match but the papyrus does not. O'Callaghan's identification is less plausible than that of Nebe's because O'Callaghan has situated the smaller fragment too close to the larger one. Details forthcoming.
5. Nebe's Enochian identification for fragment 7Q8 cannot be substantiated. (p. 163)
     My response: Yes it can, look at the above photograph.

C. Objections to Muro:

6. I ignore 7Q4,2, the smaller companion fragment to 7Q4,1. (p. 163)
     My response: I don't. Although the style of handwriting is similar, the papyrus is different. These two fragments are not contiguous, nor do they belong close to each other. Some physical distance between the two is necessary. Details forthcoming.
7. Fragment 7Q12 does not belong next to the bottom edge of 7Q4,1 because the papyrus fibers do not match. (p. 163)
     My response: The horizontal papyrus fibers are not supposed to match, as 7Q12 is below 7Q4,1, not alongside it. Details forthcoming.
8. The paleographical incompatibilities among certain letters found among fragments 7Q4,1, 7Q8, and 7Q12 prove that they cannot be parts of the same manuscript. (p. 163-5)
     My response: The fibers match, and the incompatibilities are not intractable. If Thiede can assert that 7Q5 has a nu on line 2 and an alpha on line 5, it makes little sense that he denies the possibility that fragments 7Q4,1 and 7Q8 are from the same hand. Details forthcoming.

D. Objections to Puech:

9.   Fragment 7Q8 is too small to be given any serious consideration. (p. 165)
     My response: It is not too small because it belongs alongside fragment 7Q4,1, as revealed in the above photographs. Details forthcoming.
10. Puech "adds" letters to the fragments in order to substantiate their Enochian identification. (p. 165)
     My response: It is not necessary for him to do so. Details forthcoming.
11. He also ignores the paleographical incompatibilities that differentiate fragments 7Q4,1, 7Q8, and 7Q12 from each other. (p. 165)
     My response: He doesn't. Details forthcoming.
12. Puech's identification of fragments 7Q11, 7Q13, and 7Q14 is an unconvincing "game" because these same three fragments can also be identified with portions of 1 Timothy. (p. 166-7)
     My response: Although Thiede is able to "identify" these three fragments with portions of 1 Timothy, he does not include fragment 7Q8 as an example, in spite of his asserting in endnote 16 that "almost anything can be done" with this fragment. Details forthcoming.
13. Puech also ignores 7Q4,2, the smaller companion fragment to 7Q4,1. (p. 166)
     My response: He doesn't, as he proposed his own Enochian identification for this fragment in a previous article that appeared in Revue Biblique. Details forthcoming.

Some of Thiede's claims concerning Fragment 7Q5:

1. In Thiede's own words: "...there is no alpha anywhere in Greek papyri which looks even remotely like the traces of ink on the papyrus." (p. 172)
     My response: I am compiling a list of examples of such alphas, starting with those from Qumran Cave 7. This is where you too can join in the fun, by adding your own examples of such. Click HERE for details.
2. Herbert Hunger "demonstrated" that a nu was "the only conceivable reconstruction on the basis of all types of Ns in Greek papyri." (p. 174-5)
     My response: I have read Hunger's article and have found it to be inadequate. Details forthcoming.
3. The use of an electronic stereo microscope has "rediscovered" the "previously invisible" diagonal stroke of a N. (p. 175)
     My response: It did not reveal strokes from a nu or anything new. In fact, it looks more like an iota followed by an alpha. Then what is to be made of that dark spot in Thiede's photograph that resembles a slanted line? Is it writing or is it poopie? Click HERE for details.

Presented below are the footnotes, followed by information regarding the various editions of Thiede's book, along with critical reviews of it that were written by others.

1. Avraham Bronstein in The Commentator, Vol. 66, Issue 12, May 7, 2002. Click HERE.

2. Rob Kugler in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol 4, 2002-2003. Click HERE.

Some of the printed editions of
"The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity":

bookcover200007.jpg (7836 bytes)

Hardcover:
Lion Publishing / St. Martin's Press
Great Britain
July, 2000
ISBN 0745942628

bookcover200107.jpg (6834 bytes)

Paperback:
Lion Publishing / St. Martin's Press
Great Britain
July, 2001
ISBN 0745950507

bookcover200109.jpg (4752 bytes)

Hardcover:
Palgrave / St. Martin's Press
New York
September, 2001
ISBN 0312293615
(Note: This is the edition referred to in this web site.)

bookcover200109.jpg (4752 bytes)

Paperback:
Palgrave / Macmillan
New York
February 1, 2003
ISBN 1403961433

bookingerman.jpg (5421 bytes)

German translation:
"Die Messias-Sucher: Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer
und die judischen Ursprunge des Christentums"
Kreuz Verlag, Stuttgart
September 2002
ISBN 3783121507

bookinitalian.jpg (4621 bytes)

Italian translation:
"I Rotoli del Mar Morto e le radici ebraiche del cristianesimo"
Mondadori
Milan
Fall 2003
ISBN 8804489901