Nichael Lynn wrote: >Rather, History has shown --all breast-beating aside-- that the legend of >the lone genius who suffers endless years of supression at the hands of the >entrenced "guild" only to emerge victorious and to be shown to have been >"right all along" is virtually always exactly that: a fairy tale. Everybody (well, almost) will agree: for every lone "scientific" that pretends to hold a revolutionary new discovering and who is apart from the scientific community, there are a hundred or more opportunists, lunatics or say-what-you-wish that play that role, but: a) the case exists, and it's not so infrequent in Humanities: think in Tesni'ere's work or Frege's logic, or the time of the true recognition of Saussure's theories, etc. The sad fact is that the usual ending is not the victorious showing-up, but posthumous recognition. b) This is not the case here since O'Callaghan fits not the figure: I mean, I don't think he has being ostracised from academia. c) Classical philology is (or at least I have always been foolishly proud to think so) one of the most open fields of scientific knowledge, in the sense that no one is required to show his credentials before adducing the argument. At least I used to think that a sound reasoning is heard by the scientific community without consideration of the individual background (OK: it is not exactly so: but it is so in far more cases that any other speciality I know about). God (via Jim West) wrote: >As the voice of God >said to Augustine, "tolle, lege"; so I say to those interested in 7Q5- >"tolle, lege" Stanton's book!!!! I should think that, as Bavinck wrote, an outline, or at least anything that falls nearer the prove than the insult could have been a good idea. Now that nothing less that the voice of God and the ire of the listowners has been invoked, let's put an end to the dispute. First thing I'll do Monday after work hours is look for Stanton's book, and see the evidence he adduces. I have my mind open to any reasoning and clear evidence, but somehow I feel I would prefer to think I am not going to find in that book the following epitheta, all taken from previous letters about O'Callaghan's hypothesis. right,left,outa theory that simply will not wash the whole nonsense This is absolutely false There is NO, I repeat, NO Dead Sea Scrolls expert who support the notion that NT documents have been found among the scrolls these suggestions are simply tortured This procedure is bogus, foolish, and could only be accepted by persons who simply do not know anything about texts or readings Thiede is hardly a big gun in Scrolls studies. This is simply an effort to bolster a silly theory by the flashing of some so called "big name". only those who have huge presuppositions about the composition and dating of the NT could hold such impossible views such rubbish. ___________________________________________________________________ Daniel Rian~o Rufilanchas c. Santa Engracia 52, 7 dcha. 28010-Madrid Espan~a e-mail: danielrr@mad.servicom.es