From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The O'Callaghan Case, part I
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:35:13 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>"The O'Callaghan Case", part I, from the September 1991 issue of
>30DAYS.

Just a few notes on some of the more obvious factual errors in this
article:

>Then, out of curiosity, he pored over the New Testament.  To his great
>surprise, he discovered that the fragment was a perfect match for a
>passage of the Gospel According to Mark: ... (Mark 6, 52-53) [...]
>Carsten Peter Thiede arrives at this well-argumented conclusion: "On
>"On the basis of the rules of paleographic research and the study of
>texts, it is certain that 7Q5 is Mark 6, 52-53, [...]

Far, from being a "perfect match" the 17 Greek letter involved can only be
made to fit the passage from Mark by making several rather poorly-founded
assumptions (for a detailed explanation of this point, see my previous
posting).

Moreover, as was also pointed out, the cluster of letters more closely fit
several passages from the Septuagint (i.e. the standard Greek translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures) than this passage from Mark (or from anywhere in
the NT).

>  Unlike the other
>manuscripts, they were not written on parchment or animal skins but on
>papyrus and because they were in Greek they were unique.  

Neither the fact that the fragments were on parchment or in Greek make them
unique findings at Q'mran; i.e. other examples of each exist (see any
standard reference on the Q'mran findings).

>The 7Q5 featured other details which also coincided, such as the white
>spacing between two letters where the caesura had been (the
>paragraphos) and the initial Kai (E), typical of the parataxis found
>in Mark.

Determining the extent to which this fact --even if true-- demonstrates
Marcan authorship, I will leave as an exercise to the reader.   ;)

>The need to avoid compromising the Church over a discovery that had
>still not been subject to the scrutiny of international science
>demanded caution.  [...]
>    But censorship has blocked the official release of news on the
>7Q5 outside the clique of experts, although one Italian religious
>affairs periodical has been commenting on the whole affair for some
>time [...]
>Now after many years, a Lutheran scientist has broken the mysterious
>silence on the 7QS.

It is simply not true to claim that O'Callaghan's assertion has "not been
subject to the scrutiny of ... science" or that "censorship has blocked the
official release of [the] news".

There have been over a half dozen popular books (and a innumerable popular
articles) written about 7Q5 since O'Callaghan's original publication.
(Indeed, one can only wonder if the author read his own article as it makes
reference to several of these.)

For a reference listing of over 50 technical articles --written in just the
first three years following the initial publication-- see my earlier
posting.

>The work of Fr. O'Callaghan, the latest researcher into the Dead Sea
>Scrolls, [...]

??? 

O'Callaghan is hardly "the latest researcher ...".  This statement doesn't
even make sense.

>Controversy surrounds the fragment even though it has been subject to
>numerous computerized tests.  Oxford was the venue for the most recent
>when the fragment was compared with a whole range of examples of
>Greek-Christian literature.  So far, the only answer the computers
>continue to give for the identity of the 7Q5 is Mark 6, 52-53.

This is not even close to true.  

See above.

>The cracks in the "academia" wall of historic exegesis are now
>widening.  But the dogmas of rationalist exegesis, which are proving
>to be increasingly irrational, seem to continue to enjoy the support
>of ecclesiastical officialdom.   ... [etc. etc.]

This is of course the standard attack on scholarly criticism.  I'd like to
respond with two points:

First, anyone who makes the claims that your standard NT scholar wouldn't
be hysterically delighted to find a scrap from the gospels from this period
in the history of the church is demonstrating nothing other than how
unfamilar they are with either the nature of NT scholarship or with the
people doing it.

Second, this line of argument --i.e. "My brilliant proposal is not being
accept by The Experts just because _They_ have too much to lose if I'm
right"-- is the standard cry of the crank.  And, unfortunately, at the
bottom this line of reasoning offers us only two, very sharply defined,
mutually exclusive propositions:

  1] That there is not an honest, credible expert with a grain of common
     sense or integrity to be found anywhere in the world,

or

  2] That he, the accuser, is wrong.

I leave it to the reader to decide for himself which of these is the more
likely.

NICHAEL                                                              __
nichael@bbn.com  --                            Be as Passers-by.  -- IC