Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

1st Century Fragment of Mark

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Oh, I didn't realize that was the only method they were employing.
    If I recall correctly, it is the only one that was mentioned by Wallace, but we know very little other than what he said rather spontaneously.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Source?
      http://www.livescience.com/49489-old...ummy-mask.html
      Source: LiveScience

      Scholars who work on the project have to sign a nondisclosure agreement that limits what they can say publicly. There are several reasons for this agreement. One is that some of the owners of these masks simply do not want to be made known, Evans said. "The scholars who are working on this project have to honor the request of the museums, universities, private owners, so forth."

      The owners of the mummy masks retain ownership of the papyrus sheets after the glue on them is dissolved.

      Evans said that the only reason he can talk about the first-century gospel before it is published is because a member of the team [Raphael: i.e. Dan Wallace] leaked some of the information in 2012. Evans was careful to say that he is not telling Live Science anything about the first-century gospel that hasn't already been leaked online.

      Soon after the 2012 leak, speculation surrounded the methods that the scholars used to figure out the gospel's age.

      Evans says that the text was dated through a combination of carbon-14 dating, studying the handwriting on the fragment and studying the other documents found along with the gospel. These considerations led the researchers to conclude that the fragment was written before the year 90. With the nondisclosure agreement in place, Evans said that he can't say much more about the text's date until the papyrus is published.

      © Copyright Original Source



      http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/li...el-mummy-mask/
      Source: cnn

      News of the fragment first came to light in 2012 when its existence was (perhaps inadvertently) announced by Daniel Wallace, founder of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts at Dallas Theological Seminary.
      No one saw the text then, and no one has seen it now; though it has been mentioned repeatedly by a select group of people who evidently have been given access to it, its planned date of publication has been consistently pushed back, from an original plan of 2013 to 2015 and now, just this week, all the way to 2017.

      © Copyright Original Source

      Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
      1 Corinthians 16:13

      "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
      -Ben Witherington III

      Comment


      • #78
        Thank you, Raphael; that was a very useful post.

        Originally posted by psstein View Post
        I can't be the only person who doesn't see this as a big find, right? Almost all critical scholars think Mark was written between 60 and 75, so if this is a first century fragment, it just supports what's already known.
        While almost everyone half-knowledgeable believes Mark to have been written in the first century, there are still the fringe holdouts and a fragment from the first century would would remove any doubt of that (then again, you still have guys who claim John was from the third...). It also would lend more credence to an early date in the first century. What I mean is, it's unlikely any fragment was the absolute first, so any writing of it presumably would have come from earlier still. It's more plausible to posit an initial date of, say, 50 AD if you have a fragment from 90 AD than if your earliest fragment is from 350.

        But a lot really depends on how good the arguments are for an early date on the fragment to begin with. Paleography, for example, can only give you a range of dates, but Rafael's article does indicate they're using other methods as well.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by psstein View Post
          I can't be the only person who doesn't see this as a big find, right? Almost all critical scholars think Mark was written between 60 and 75, so if this is a first century fragment, it just supports what's already known.
          In addition to what the others have said, I see it as a further nail against the arguments of those like Gary who try and push for as late a date as possible.


          ETA: I may stand corrected on this, but I think it is also the smallest gap we have of any ancient work and it's earliest surviving copy......
          Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
          1 Corinthians 16:13

          "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
          -Ben Witherington III

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Raphael View Post
            In addition to what the others have said, I see it as a further nail against the arguments of those like Gary who try and push for as late a date as possible.


            ETA: I may stand corrected on this, but I think it is also the smallest gap we have of any ancient work and it's earliest surviving copy......
            Depending on when Mark was actually written, yes.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Raphael View Post
              Source: LiveScience

              ... Evans says that the text was dated through a combination of carbon-14 dating, studying the handwriting on the fragment and studying the other documents found along with the gospel. These considerations led the researchers to conclude that the fragment was written before the year 90. ...

              © Copyright Original Source

              This goes beyond the paleographic dating that was initially mentioned by Wallace. Is this additional information reliable? We don't know. Note that Larry Hurtado was subsequently told by Evans that 'his own statements were much more cautious than what was reported' by Live Science.
              Last edited by robrecht; 05-16-2016, 11:39 AM.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                This goes beyond the paleographic dating that was initially mentioned by Wallace. Is this additional information reliable? We don't know. Note that Larry Hurtado was subsequently told by Evans that 'his own statements were much more cautious than what was reported' by Live Science.
                I would expect that they have more testing done since 2012, but also Evans makes it clear that he can only say what Wallace had already accidently revealed
                Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                1 Corinthians 16:13

                "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                -Ben Witherington III

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  This goes beyond the paleographic dating that was initially mentioned by Wallace. Is this additional information reliable? We don't know. Note that Larry Hurtado was subsequently told by Evans that 'his own statements were much more cautious than what was reported' by Live Science.
                  I'm skeptical that C-14 can tell us much about the actual date of writing. It can tell us the age of the writing material, but in this time period writing material was often re-used.
                  "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Is the C 14 dating more advanced these days? I read where there is a plus/minus of 50 years?
                    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                      I'm skeptical that C-14 can tell us much about the actual date of writing. It can tell us the age of the writing material, but in this time period writing material was often re-used.
                      I think it's the combination.

                      The C14 dating can help confirm that it wasn't made last week in someone's garage.

                      That tied in with the paleographic dating, tied in with the other documents they found with the mask as well as the date of the mask itself is what gives us the "this document cannot be later than 90A.D." (I heard Gary Habermas suggest 80A.D. in an interview on his minimal fact apologetics approach....I don't know if he has received additional information that he shouldn't have been mentioning).
                      I do remember Wallace saying that even allowing for a 50 year error margin on the paleographic dating, it looked to be from before 90A.D. It could well be older.

                      I think they are wanting to make very sure that it's nothing like the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" forgery that was swallowed up hook, line and sinker (and breathlessly reported on by the media who were strangely silent when the fraud was discovered)
                      Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                      1 Corinthians 16:13

                      "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                      -Ben Witherington III

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I had to look up this Gospel of Jesus' s Wife before I could remember anything about it. I recall the reports about the translations but not all the media storm that apparently went on.
                        Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                          I'm skeptical that C-14 can tell us much about the actual date of writing. It can tell us the age of the writing material, but in this time period writing material was often re-used.
                          However, we can tell when writing material was re-used, because we can see traces of what was "erased" (often well enough to recover it).
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Replace "known" with "commonly believed" and I'd agree with you. It would make things harder for the fringe who date the gospels quite late. IIRC, there were other NT fragments found as well, but they're probably not early enough to materially alter stances. If, e.g., fragments of the pastorals or Petrine epistles were found from c. 70, that would be big.
                            Yes, I suppose you're correct. I've argued with somebody who believes that the gospels are from the time of the Bar Kochba Revolt... as per an argument by Hermann Detering.

                            I'm not sure about 1 Peter, as I think it could be authentic. 2 Peter doesn't seem authentic, and the Pastorals seem to be pseudopigraphic. However, I think that the strongest argument we have for a later dating is the church hierarchy discussion.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              So there's an update of sorts here. Okay, this is from a few months ago but I stumbled across it fairly randomly and no one else had posted it, so here we go. Habermas talks about how we've been waiting for a while but progress is being made and says that he was told that the current estimated date for the Mark fragment is 80-110. Still no word on exactly when everything will be officially published, though, but it is at least confirmation that it's being worked on and a little more information regarding the dating.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Update:
                                Source: Larry Hurtado

                                The publication of the fragment of the Gospel of Mark that has been generating excitement and controversy for several years now and the preceding and ensuing accounts about it raise the issue of integrity.

                                The papyrus fragment (which I posted about most recently here) is now palaeographically dated by its editors as late second/early third century CE. The earlier claim that it was a first-century fragment that was sounded by Daniel Wallace in a debate with Bart Ehrman a few years ago, was clearly based on incorrect information. Wallace (in a commendable example of scholarly honesty and integrity) has now given his own account of how he was misled (here).

                                On another site, Brice Jones has expressed puzzlement (here) about claims that the fragment was offered for sale, given that it is now clear that it was part of the Oxyrhynchus hoard of ancient papyri held now in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford). The claims implicate the esteemed papyrologist, Dirk Obbink, and Jones poses questions about how he could have supposedly offered the fragment for sale.

                                The recent news release on the fragment from the Egypt Exploration Society (which own the Oxyrhynchus Papyri) denies that any of the papyri in its collection was ever put up for sale (here). As a further note, I personally have great confidence in Dirk Obbink as a scholar and a person of honor and integrity. I will say nothing more about the claim that troubled Jones or the person to whom it is ascribed. But I trust Obbink, and that means that the claim that he offered the item for sale like some huckster I regard as false and mischievous.

                                This whole drama has been a sad instance of ballyhoo and perhaps worse distorting what should have been a sober editing and analysis of a small but very important bit of papyrus. I hope that we shall not see such a case anytime soon.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                So, late 2nd/early 3rd century, not 1st. At that date, it still doubles the number of extant papyri from Mark before 300.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
                                0 responses
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 09-07-2023, 02:41 PM
                                30 responses
                                134 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X