Talk:7Q5

message: The Greek letters in the text should be entered as Unicode HTML entities, not pictures, since the latter look right only when the reader uses a specific screen resolution and font size.Jorge Stolfi 08:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek letters

message: The figure is very nice, but the fancy heading is not; perhaps it can be trimmed and the information entered as a text caption?Jorge Stolfi 08:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Figure

message: feel free to go ahead and make those edits. I wasn't sure how font changes might work, so I entered in the photos to keep a consistent images of the Greek letters.
-sm
I went ahead and changed the inline images to HTML character entities. Neckro 14:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  go ahead! 

message: Added text to the external links. --Justin.eiler 00:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Edit

message: Since this is not akin to R2-D2, can it get a more user-friendly title, along the lines of Rylands Library Papyrus P52? How about Qumran fragment 7Q5, since the "Q" is for Qumran anyway? The image suggests that the fragment is papyrus: is "parchment" in error? --Wetman 11:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: The article claims Secondly, the unique combination of letters ΝΝΗΣ found in line 4 is unique in the extant New Testament Greek lexicon. However, one only needs the first ten words of New Testament to determine that this claim is factually incorrect.  Matt 1:2 has ΕΓΕΝΝΗΣΕΝ ("begat").  I think whoever was trying explain O'Callaghan argument must have garbled it by omitting a very important qualification.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to original article to fix it.  Stephen C. Carlson 18:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It now looks like Derjonny1 did a great job of improving the article and removing the inaccuracy. Thanks!  Stephen C. Carlson 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual error

message: Not according to Essenes, not according to F. F. Bruce (pdf), and not according to The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr. & Edward Cook [Harper, San Francisco: 1996]), noting especially the Hodayot scrolls, and S3-4. 
So, pending documentation, I removed this point:
* Finally, the assertion that the Qumran community would have access to, and would consider as significant, an early copy of the Gospel of Mark is problematic. The Essenes were an emphatically legalistic group, isolated even from other Jewish sects, although recently it was discovered the “Gate of the Essenes” in Jerusalem. The writings of the early church were decidedly libertarian, particularly the section of Mark that immediately follows 6:52-53, wherein Jesus condemns the Jewish religious leaders for their religious legalism. --MonkeeSage 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Essenes where legalists???

message: I fail to see why an identication of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52-53 would provide a "strong argument for authentic Markan authorship", without evidence that the Qumran community actually attributed this text to Mark.  I've added a "citation needed" tag at this point. Grover cleveland 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing this passage, since no one's given a justification. Grover cleveland 18:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "strong argument for authentic Markan authorship" 

message: It would be very interesting to know exactly what kind of attempts have been made to make the fragment match other Greek texts.  In order to make this fragment match Mark 6:52-53, it is necessary to
* change one or more letters in the fragment
* omit a three-word phrase from the matching text
Given similar latitude, one might expect that it would be possible to match this fragment to many other things.  I have read somewhere else about some kind of computer analysis being performed -- could someone add details of this to the article? Grover cleveland 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found information on this in the Wallace external link and have added it to the article. Grover cleveland 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "all attempts to identify the fragment with any other known Greek text have failed." 

message: This is a highly opinionated statement, and should probably be removed or deleted as a "counter-argument".  As such, it is a poor argument.  To say the the papyrus is "so" small is to belittle it for no good reason.  It is as large as other fragments that have been positively identified.  To say that it is of "poor quality" is also highly opinionated.  Personally, I find this fragment to be in relatively good condition compared to other New Testament manuscripts such as Papyrus 26 (P26) and Papyrus 40 (P40) which are faded and much more difficult to read than this manuscript.  Finally, to say that "positive identification even of the individual letters is difficult at best" is somewhat misleading.  While there are several letters about which there are questions, many of them are quite clear.  By my count, between three major transcriptions (which can be found on the web) there is total agreement on about half of the visible letters.  Aside from that, two of the three transcriptions could be seen to agree on over half the letters.  Again, I feel that this "counter-argument" is poor at best and misleading at worst and should be removed or restated to take into account some of what I've mentioned. 76.185.183.212 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The papyrus is so small, and of such poor quality, that positive identification even of the individual letters is difficult at best" 

message: This statement really needs some citation or explanation of this mysterious "no consensus".  Three important transcriptions ALL read νησ while only disagreeing about the initial nu.  The alternate suggestion for the first nu is a gamma.  Personally, the letter does not look like a gamma.  The only way I can even understand an interpretation of this letter as a gamma is by unreasonably joining the serifs of both the obvious nu and the top of the previous vertical stroke. So, anyway, I think the statement is again poorly worded and somewhat misleading as few to none disagree about the last three letters.  Only O'Callihan appears correct to me on reading a second nu here.  I would challenge anyone here to show me your reconstruction of the supposed gamma... 76.185.183.212 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "There is no consensus that the letters ννησ are the best reading of the papyrus". 

message: Yet again, this is also a misleading statement and really needs to be reworded or at least clarification and citation given for the "unparalleled" comment, which I believe is false.  Delta and Tau are both "dental" letters and were sometimes interchangeable in ancient Greek, as was sufficiently pointed out in the original articles on 7Q5. 76.185.183.212 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...one must account for the replacement of original δ <d> with τ <t> in line 3, which is unparalleled." 

message: To my knowledge, the editio princeps (ie. first addition) did not read "iota + alpha" (this transcription can be found on the web with a brief search).  It merely has alpha, but interestingly, the alpha is preceded by a phi!  I certainly do not see and can't even force a phi in line 2 of the fragment.  Anyway, this should also be reworded, dropped, or cited. 76.185.183.212 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Instead, the reading of iota + alpha (which is the reading proposed in the first edition) has been reinforced." 

message: I'm afraid this is a very lame "counter-argument" and should be totally removed.  Scholars attempt to make identifications of all discovered texts.  Just because some of the other texts remain unidentified (ie. "unknown"), that does not mean that 7Q5 should remain so if its textual match is found.  Let me rephrase this as a question..."There is no reason why 7Q5 need be identified with any already-known work?"  On the one hand, sure, it could be from and unknown work, but if it fits a known work who would prevent its identification and for exactly what purpose?76.185.183.212 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other fragments found in the same Qumran cave represent otherwise unknown Greek texts, so there is no reason why 7Q5 need be identified with any already-known work." 

message: This is a biased statement that should be reworded or removed.  To bring out the bias, allow me to reword it from the perspective of those against whom the statement is biased:  "...which may explain both the motivation to reject the Gospel of Mark in the fragment and the desire of many to do away with such evidence."  Can you tell which "side" wrote which statement?  I thought so...  The statement should be reworded to be less confrontational or it should be removed altogether. 76.185.183.212 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "which may explain both the motivation to see the Gospel of Mark in the fragment and the reticence of many to hang so much on such a small thread." 

message: This is horribly worded, especially the first sentence (if one can call it that), and it walks a fine line.  Frankly, my thought is that the entire paragraph is irrelevant and should be deleted.  One cannot generalize about "Christian apologists" or about "*more* skeptical scholars".  Who wrote these things?  A militant teenage ninja apologist for atheism?  :-) 76.185.183.212 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most significantly in theological terms, according to Christian apologists such an identification would make a strong argument for the assertion that the miraculous, divine, and messianic attributions to Jesus were very early traditions in the Christian church. However, more skeptical scholars argue that it would only demonstrate that part of the current text of Mark is very early, not that all of it was, and while modern versions contain miraculous, divine, and messianic attributions, there is no way of confirming that the document to which 7Q5 originally belonged actually contained such attributions." 

message: It must be possible to give a statistical probability of this fragment being part of the gospel of Mark.  That is based on the stated evidence.
:Based on the stated evidence, I'd say 0.00000001 Grover cleveland 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical Analysis 

message: I'm moving the significance section up, so people can learn the importance before the details. Superm401 - Talk 08:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance 

message: The 'Significance' section needs a short explanation of why the year 68 CE is mentioned there. I couldn't find that date in the main Qumran article. Zonder (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 68 CE? 

message: Could you please attach the russian 7Q5 page here and vice versa?
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81_7Q5  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.100.75.72 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 7Q5. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050529080703/http://www.monografias.com:80/trabajos21/cambiar-pregunta/cambiar-pregunta.shtml to http://www.monografias.com/trabajos21/cambiar-pregunta/cambiar-pregunta.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From the opening paragraph: "In order to refute this on empirical grounds it is not sufficient to merely claim that leading papyrologists disagree but show objective/external evidence to the contrary such as peer reviewed journals where leading papyrologists are on record saying they disagree with the identification of 7Q5 as Mark’s Gospel. This does not exists! World Renowned Papyrologists and general sentiment in favor of the identification at the 1991 symposium is documented. Most summaries show those who oppose the identification are from a different discipline (biblical scholars mainly from the liberal perspective) and the proponents are actual papyrologists of Ancient Greek manuscripts."
This reads in an obviously biased way. Can we clean this up to make the article more neutral? 2620:0:1A10:7803:A8F3:9A19:5D2B:BC33 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in the intro paragraph