PDA

View Full Version : 1st century fragment of Mark -- Not what it's purported to be according to some



LostSheep
12-31-2017, 04:00 PM
This post I suppose is mainly directed to AP, who if I'm not mistaken said in another thread that the 1st century fragment of Mark that's been announced but not yet disclosed to the world is not what it's purported to be according to several Christians.

I'm a bit of an archaeology nut and I was wondering why some would think this. Can anyone who's heard of this idea (or agrees with it) please give their argument for lack of authenticity here?

I have sent a PM to AP regarding this thread.

Faber
12-31-2017, 05:25 PM
Could this refer to Dead Sea Scroll fragment 7Q5, a Greek fragment which Spanish papyrologist Jose O'Callaghan claims contains Mark 6:52-53? It sounds a little farfetched to think that a Christian document would be among the scrolls.

See https://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/7Q5_mark.html

One Bad Pig
12-31-2017, 05:31 PM
No, definitely a different fragment. The one LS refers to comes from mummy packing material.

QuantaFille
12-31-2017, 06:30 PM
I heard about the fragment some time back, and what I really want to know is why everyone seems so hush-hush about it. Has anyone dated it yet?

One Bad Pig
01-01-2018, 10:11 AM
I heard about the fragment some time back, and what I really want to know is why everyone seems so hush-hush about it. Has anyone dated it yet?
Everyone is hush-hush about it because they were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

QuantaFille
01-01-2018, 10:18 AM
Everyone is hush-hush about it because they were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

I know. I'm asking why.

One Bad Pig
01-01-2018, 10:28 AM
:nsm:

Adrift
01-01-2018, 12:45 PM
I know. I'm asking why.

Because the Green Collection, which is the name of the private collection of the founders of Hobby Lobby, want to make sure that all of their i's are dotted and t's are crossed before publishing their findings. They've been working intensely with a number of reputable archaeologists and scholars to get this just right, but have already gotten flack, mostly for the process used to come by the texts, which involved the destruction of mummy masks. But archaeology is a destructive process, and there really isn't any way around it. I think there was also a lot of nervousness about dates after the whole gospel of Jesus' wife hoax.