7Q5 from the Dead Sea Scrolls is a copy of the Gospel of Mark that pre-dates 68 CE closure of Qumran caves

In 1972 Papyrologist Jose O’Callaghan identified manuscripts 7Q5 as the Gospel of Mark and 7Q4 1,2 as Paul’s First Letter to Timothy

The papyrological scholarly consensus has remained that 7Q5 is a copy of the Gospel of Mark.

Primary opposition to identifying 7Q5 as a copy of the Gospel of Mark and 7q4 as 1 Timothy is from New Testament Scholars who by nature of their disciplines are not papyrologists

1991 a symposium was held that contained a discussion on 7q5. The papyrologists were in favor and have expressed this sentiment in written publications.

A record of this symposium is contained in B. Mayers book “Christen und Christliches in Qumran”.

Objections made to the identification of 7Q5

  • Size of the papyrus

  • D/T letter exchange

  • Missing text “onto the land”

  • NU in line 2

  • Date of the fragment

Objections to the arguments against the identification of 7Q5 as Mark’s Gospel

  • Size of the papyrus

    • 7Q5 is a small fragment but 7Q1 and 7Q2 are similarly very small and yet have still been reliably identified. 7Q5 has enough letters on it to identify it

  • D/T Exchange

    • Some critics object that the change of d/t on a word makes it impossible to identify the fragment as a copy of the Gospel of Mark

    • Over 25 different papyrus have had positive identifications that also contain the d/t shift. The D/T change is also in New Testament papyrus such as Papyrus 4, Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75

  • Missing the letter “On to the land”

    • Many papyrus have variants and the text can still read as the 6th chapter of the Gospel of Mark without these words. As an example, Papyrus 45 has the words “on to the land” missing and the text is still identified as Mark chapter 5

  • “NU” in Line 2

    • Some critics object to the identification because the claim is made that there is not a “Nu” in line 2 of the fragment.

    • Papyrologist Herbert Hunger 22 point analysis demonstrated the NU in line 2. Additionally, the 3rd party analysis by the Forensic Department of the Israeli National Police confirmed the NU in line 2. This event was recorded on TV by the Bavarian TV company ARD. Any claims to a NU not being present doesn’t meet the standard of objective evidence to refute the live TV recording and print outs of the analysis that confirmed a NU in line 2