José O’Callaghan, “¿Papiros neo-testamentarios en la cueva 7 de QumraÆn?” Biblica 53 (1972), pp. 91–100; English translation by W.L. Holladay, “New Testament Papyri in QumraÆn Cave 7?” Supplement to the Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972), pp. 1–14.
The fragments were identified as coming from Exodus 28:4–7, 43–44, and the Epistle of Jeremiah (in Roman Catholic Bibles, the epistle is chapter 6 of Baruch). See Maurice Baillet, “I. Fragments de Papyrus,” in Baillet, Jozef T. Milik and Roland de Vaux, Les ‘petites grottes’ de QumraÆn, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, vol. 3 (hereafter, DJD 3) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), p. 43.
See, for example, Stefan Enste, Kein Markustext in Qumran (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 45 (Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). But see Carsten Peter Thiede, Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth (Leominster, UK: Gracewing; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1995), pp. 189–197.
See DJD 3–3a, pp. 142–145, esp. p. 144.
See DJD 3, pp. 143–144. More recently, chief scroll editor Emanuel Tov has also suggested that all the fragments from this cave are from the Septuagint: “probably all biblical,” he writes; see Tov, “The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert—An Overview and Analysis of all the Published Texts,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, Proceedings of the Conference Held at Hampton Court, Herefordshire, 18–21 June 2000, edited by E.D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov (London: British Library, 2002), p. 150.
Wilhelm Nebe (“7Q4-Möglichkeit und Grenze einer Identifikation,” Revue de QumraÆn 13 , pp. 629–633) proposed that 7Q4.1 is part of 1 Enoch 103:3–4, that 7Q4.2 is from 98:11, and that 7Q8 is possibly from 103:7–8. Emile Puech (“Notes sur les fragments grecs du manuscrit 7Q4 = 1 Hénoch 103 et 105, ” Revue Biblique 103 , pp. 592–600; and “Sept fragments de la Lettre d’Hénoch [1 Hén 100, 103 et 105] dans la grotte 7 de QumraÆn [= 7QHén gr],” Revue de QumraÆn 18:70 , pp. 313–323) concurred that 7Q4.1 contains text from 1 Enoch 103:3–4, but disagreed with Nebe’s contention that 7Q4.2 is part of 98:11, preferring to place this fragment in 1 Enoch 105:1. He further proposed that 7Q11 is part of 1 Enoch 100:12, that 7Q13 belongs to 103:15, and that 7Q14 preserves traces of 103:12.
David Estrada and William White, The First Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978).
Ernest Muro, “The Greek Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 7 (7Q4, 7Q8, & 7Q12 = 7QEn gr = Enoch 103:3–4, 7–8),” Revue de QumraÆn 18:70 (1997), pp. 307–312.
They conclude that 7Q4.1, 7Q8, 7Q12, and 7Q14 contain text from 1 Enoch 103:3–8, 12; 7Q4.2 contains text from 98:11 or 105:17; 7Q11 contains text from 100:12; and 7Q13 contains text from 103:12. Thus, their identifications include only two pieces listed by the Spanish scholar (7Q4 and 7Q8)—but not the other seven (7Q5, 7Q6.1, 7Q6.2, 7Q7, 7Q9, 7Q10, and 7Q15).
For a translation from the Ethiopic, the only version that contains the entire book, see Ephraim Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), vol. 1, pp. 5–89, esp. pp. 72–89.
In 1992 the Spanish scholar Vittoria Spottorno (“Una nueva posible identificacion de 7Q5,” Sefarad 52 , pp. 541–543) proposed that 7Q5 preserves text from the Book of Zechariah (7:3b–5), and provided a transcription to support her view. Spottorno’s identification, however, presents problems such as doubtful readings of several Greek letters and variations from all known Greek texts of Zechariah 7:3–5. For example, in verse 4, her lineup of letters requires Spottorno to omit “of hosts” to produce the shorter reading “the Lord” (compare NRSV, “the Lord of hosts”); and in verse 5, her reconstruction requires a longer text: “the priests of the land” (instead of the NRSV’s “the priests”).
The original French reads “Papyrus fin, très abîmé, et disloqué à droite” (DJD 3, p. 144).
Muro’s findings are described and illustrated in great detail on his Web site, www.breadofangels.com.
It should be noted, perhaps with some surprise, that in his recent commentary on 1 Enoch, one prominent scholar dismisses the notion that any of the Greek fragments is from this pseudepigraphic book. George Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, 81–108, Hermeneia series (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), pp. 10–11.