The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

430 DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT
7Q5, alternative identifications with Zech 7:3c-5 83 and also 1 En.
15:9d–10 were proposed. 84 All these texts fit much more within the context
of the Qumran library than New Testament texts do.
Since the proposed identification of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52–53 is textually
impossible, there is reason to abandon the hope of finding New
Testament documents at Qumran. O’Callaghan and especially Thiede,
however, are not very open to the scholarly criticism of their theories;
they pretend that their readings and identifications were definitely proved
and certain. 85 But the discussion has shown—in my view definitively—that
none of the fragments from Qumran can be proved to contain the text of
a Gospel or an Epistle from the New Testament. There is no textual
bridge between the New Testament and the library of Qumran. Hence,
there is no reason to speculate on the presence of Christians or Christian
documents at Qumran.
d. Pattern 4: Personal Links Between Essenism and the Primitive Church: The
Hypothesis of an Essene Quarter in Jerusalem (Pixner, Riesner)
A fourth pattern suggests not textual but local and personal links
between the Essene movement and early Christianity. The basic argument
is the assumption of an Essene quarter in Jerusalem, which is supposed
to be located on the southwestern hill of Jerusalem, today called
Mt. Zion, in the area of the Dormition Abbey. Traditionally, the Last
Supper and Pentecost are located in this area. So, if the view developed
by the Benedictine archaeologist Bargil Pixner and the German New
83. María Vittoria Spottorno, “Una nueva posible identificación de 7Q5,” Sef 52
(1992): 541–43; cf. the revised proposal in idem, “Can Methodological Limits Be Set
in the Debate on the Identification of 7Q5?” DSD 6 (1999): 66–77, esp. 72.
84. Cf. Spottorno, “Can Methodological Limits Be Set?” 66–77, esp. 76–77.
85. Cf. the quotations from an interview with José O’Callaghan (in the journal Vida
y Espiritualidad), in Spottorno, ibid., 66–77, esp. 66–67nn2–7. Thiede tried to redate a
well-known papyrus with text from the Gospel of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P 64 )
from 200 C.E. to 50 C.E.; cf. Carsten P. Thiede, “Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17
(Gregory-Aland P 64 ): A Reappraisal,” ZPE 105 (1995): 13–20, and pl. 9; Thiede and
D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus; idem, Der Jesus-Papyrus. His arguments, however, have
been thoroughly criticized by experts: cf. Stuart R. Pickering, “Controversy
Surrounding Fragments of the Gospel of Matthew in Magdalen College, Oxford,” in
New Testament Textual Research Update 3 (1995): 22–25; David C. Parker, “Was Matthew
Written before 50 C.E.? The Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew,” ExpTim 107 (1996):
40–43; Klaus Wachtel, “P 64/67 : Fragmente des Matthäusevangeliums aus dem 1.
Jahrhundert?” ZPE 107 (1995): 73–80; Rainer Riesner, “Rückfrage nach Jesus,” TBei
30 (1999): 328–41, esp. 337–39.