(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
7Q5: Revision history - Wikipedia Jump to content

7Q5: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

10 November 2024

26 September 2024

2 September 2024

17 May 2024

10 May 2024

6 May 2024

8 April 2024

4 April 2024

3 April 2024

17 February 2024

18 December 2023

24 August 2023

29 July 2023

28 July 2023

23 July 2023

  • curprev 20:1220:12, 23 July 2023 Quirkyhndl talk contribs 14,214 bytes +15 changed "contains" to "may potentially contain" in the "Anachronism" section, as Zeichmann's argument is based on an apophatic argument that no denari were ever found in the area. Thus, asserting that Mark 12:13-17 contains such a reference is an assumption based on Zeichmann's theory alone and thus misleading.. undo

30 June 2023

16 May 2023

2 May 2023

  • curprev 22:2022:20, 2 May 2023 147.105.3.203 talk 11,693 bytes −1,856 My previous edit was published prematurely. The "further counterarguments" section, as I said, is excessive and relies too much on one scholar (Wallace). Finally, the "citation needed" under the "Consequences" section is unnecessary, as it is an obvious inference that a pre-70 AD dating would indeed be a setback for mainstream scholarship which does not hold to a pre-70 AD date. I welcome corrections but a lot of these NT pages are heavily skewed as if to cast doubt on conservative scholars. undo Tag: Reverted
  • curprev 22:1722:17, 2 May 2023 147.105.3.203 talk 13,549 bytes −636 The idea that the Fiscus Judaicus is referenced in Mark 12 is not supported in wider scholarship and sounds like a polemic (see https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/78041/is-mark-1213-17-a-reference-to-the-fiscus-judaicus). DeletionsThis page provides excessive counterarguments sourced from only one scholar and does not appear "neutral", regardless of whether this hypothesis is false (which it very well may be). undo Tags: Reverted references removed

20 March 2023

9 March 2023

5 March 2023

24 January 2023

29 December 2022

7 December 2022

29 October 2022

26 August 2022

21 August 2022

5 August 2022

  • curprev 00:4900:49, 5 August 2022 162.211.155.149 talk 13,219 bytes +384 There a political war going on over this article. Many editors of this article are determined to suppress any evidence or argument that 7Q5 is, or plausibly could be, a fragment of Mark. The fact that there is strong evidence it is and a many papyrologists believe it is undo

24 June 2022

26 March 2022

25 March 2022

19 March 2022

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)