Part 2 | Home Page | Site Map | Contact

     In 1972 the late Fr. Jose O'Callaghan endeavored to identify Qumran fragment 7Q5 with Mark 6:52-53. (1) His attempt to do so involved a two-fold process that has not been entirely convincing. On the one hand, he had to adapt the standard Greek text of the Gospel of Mark in order to make it fit his proposed identification. (2) Furthermore, he had to take into account certain letters on the papyrus fragment that did not match those in the Greek text of Mark 6:52-53. (3) This two-fold procedure of explaining such discrepancies ordinarily follows upon the otherwise certain identification of a manuscript with a known text. This only makes sense, as one needs to be certain of the identification of a manuscript beforehand in order to resolve any discrepancies that may be found to exist between the text and orthography of the manuscript in question and that of the known text used for comparison. In the case of 7Q5, however, this procedure was not followed, simply because the fragment is too small and has too few letters in order to form the basis of a firm identification with Mark 6:52-53. Consequently, the process of accounting for textual and orthographic discrepancies, which ordinarily is based upon the observation of an identified manuscript, ironically became the basis for the proposed identification itself.
     In spite of this backward approach, O'Callaghan maintained that his identification was correct and a scholarly controversy ensued. Part of this controversy involved differences of opinion regarding the decipherment of certain badly preserved letters on the papyrus fragment, especially those following the tw in line 2. For O'Callaghan to be correct, this tau and omega must be followed by a nu, rather than by an iota adscript and a possible alpha as was first suggested in 1962 by Boismard in the editio princeps. (4) Although the infrared photograph of 7Q5 in the editio princeps lacked clarity and sharpness, in none the less appeared to substantiate Boismard's initial decipherment. The same could be said for a much clearer photograph of 7Q5 which was taken in 1972 by David Rubinger, the noted Israeli photographer. (5) These two photographs, which are accompanied by a highlighted diagram of 7Q5, are presented below alongside of each other in order to show the difficulty O'Callaghan and his supporters have encountered in trying to find the nu in line 2 that is required for identifying 7Q5 with Mark 6:52-53.

     Although the controversy surrounding the Marcan identification of 7Q5 had diminished by the late 1970s, it was revived in 1984 by Carsten Peter Thiede with his publication in Biblica of an article on the Qumran cave 7 fragments, including 7Q5. (6) Since then, the renewed debate has led Thiede to publish numerous books and articles in support of O'Callaghan, some of which draw upon evidence gleaned from novel sources and techniques. One of the novel approaches employed by Thiede has been the use of a sophisticated microscope and high-resolution photography in order to discern certain Greek letters on fragment 7Q5 in a manner that would validate O'Callaghan's claims. In early 1992, Qumran fragment 7Q5 was examined at the Division of Identification and Forensic Science of the Israel National Police. The resultant photographs and analysis were published later that year by Thiede. (7) Two different copies of the close-up photograph that was published by Thiede showing the disputed portion of line 2 have been reproduced below.

     According to Thiede, the upper left portion of the diagonal stroke of a nu is visible to the immediate right of what had mistakenly been regarded by Boismard and others to be an iota. (See the portion outlined in red in image #6 below.) Furthermore, this iota, in Thiede's opinion, is really the left vertical stroke of the nu in question, while the right half of this nu can be found in the traces of Boismard's alpha that follows. Thiede accounts for the absence of a complete diagonal stroke by explaining that the dark spot near the top of the mistaken iota is a fault (Verwerfung) in the surface of the papyrus that was caused by the heavy pressure of the pen exerted by the scribe when he commenced writing the diagonal stroke. (8)

     In view of the above, Thiede concluded that this photograph clearly shows a nu, not an iota followed by part of an alpha. Thiede maintains his confidence in his observations and considers the matter definitively settled despite acknowledging the fact that the laboratory analysis was unable to find traces of ink where such clearly existed at one time. To be fair, he mentions three examples: the left vertical stroke of the kappa in line 3, the join of the alpha and iota in the kai of line 3, and the right vertical stroke of the disputed nu in line 2. (9) In spite of his awareness of the shortcomings of his microscopic analysis, Thiede published his results along with his diagrammatic reconstruction of the nu under consideration. Two versions of his reconstructed nu are shown in images #7 and #8 below.

     In spite of all this technological prowess, not everyone has been convinced by Thiede's photographs and diagrams. Others have minutely examined the evidence for themselves and have concluded that there can't possibly be a nu on line 2 of 7Q5. Ironically, in some cases, such observations and conclusions can be based on the same photographic enlargement that Thiede himself used. A few examples of such alternative interpretations of Thiede's photograph are as follows:
     1. It is possible to see in this photograph evidence of the terminations of strokes as highlighted in image #9 below. These rounded terminations rule out the possibility of a connecting diagonal stroke as in the letter nu and, furthermore, lend support to Boismard's earlier reading of an iota adscript followed by the initial trace of an alpha. (10)

     2. This same photograph reveals an additional obstacle that thwarts the attempt to find evidence for the letter nu. If one were to extend the purported diagonal stroke downward at the same angle as that of the sharp upper edge of the elongated dark spot until it met the trace of ink at the lower right corner of the photograph, he would observe that this stroke goes too far to the right. If one were to follow the bottom edge of this same dark spot, the extended line would go even farther to the right. As shown in the darkened area in image #10 below, a straight continuation of Thiede's purported diagonal stroke does not meet the lower ink trace at its left termination, it clearly misses it.

     3. The angle of the elongated dark spot near the top of the iota presents yet another difficulty if this high-resolution image were to be used for the purpose of reconstructing a nu. Not only does a continuation of this line miss the left termination of the ink trace at the bottom as explained above, it also follows an angle different from that of its counterparts as shown above in images #7 and #8. The angle of the diagonal stroke in these two diagrams, both of which were drawn atop the Rubinger photograph instead of the enlargement, is steeper in order for them to meet the ink trace at the bottom in the desired manner. It is also likely that the surface area covered by the diagonal stroke in both reconstructions excludes a portion of the upper area of the dark spot as found in the enlargement. In image #7, all the surviving traces of ink are shown except for that of the newly revealed dark spot, which is essential for Thiede's reconstruction of a nu. Lastly, the contrived nature of this reconstruction is evident in image #8 where one can see traces of the bottom of the serif of the alpha protruding below the curve of the awkwardly rendered diagonal stroke of an imaginary nu.
     4. In spite of its clarity, the enlargement is unfortunately cropped along the right edge, thus omitting a significant part of the area where traces of the right vertical stroke and serifs of a nu might be found. The traces of ink that suggest an alpha, however, are sufficiently and clearly visible.
     5. In addition to all of the above, one can also compare Thiede's photographic enlargement to that of the same portion of other photographs of 7Q5, as shown in the set of images below. When Thiede's photograph (Image #11) is compared with that of the editio princeps (Image #12), it is evident that Thiede's image reveals nothing new. Both images show the same dark areas, especially the area which Thiede maintains is the upper portion of the diagonal stroke of a nu. The next two images (#13 and #14), lack the dark area that can be associated with the diagonal stroke of a nu. In all likelihood, the similarities and differences among these photographs can be attributed to the direction of the source of light used by the photographer. In the case of Thiede's photograph and that of the editio princeps, (#11 and #12), the similarities between both are due to the fact that the light source for both comes from the right. The differences presented by the other two photographs can be explained by noting that the light source for image #13 is somewhat diffuse, perhaps coming from the bottom, while that of image #14 comes from the left.

     As stated above, it is ironic that the photograph used by Thiede to bolster his views has also been used to undermine them. Where Thiede claims to see the letter nu, others claim to see something else. Shortly after the publication of this photograph, Stephen Pfann minutely examined 7Q5 at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem and concluded that the surface irregularity in question was most likely due to fecal remains from insects that had eaten portions of the papyrus. (12) The question remains: What is that dark spot in the photograph of Thiede's nu? The humor that follows is inescapable: Is it a trace of writing that will demolish two centuries of higher critical scholarship, or is it simply poopie?

FOOTNOTES

     Note: Click HERE to read Part 2.

March 23, 2003 / April 2, 2003