Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 91 of 91

Thread: 1st Century Fragment of Mark

  1. #91
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,802
    Amen (Given)
    224
    Amen (Received)
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    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.
    Hrm, that's interesting. It does still leave it as a notable find, even if not as notable as was initially indicated. And Daniel Wallace's explanation for why he years ago made the incorrect claim about its date (as well as his follow up giving further clarification) seems for the most part to be reasonable. But what I'm confused about therefore is why Gary Habermas made the 80-110 claim just a few months ago. It's possible he was just going off of the erroneous information from earlier, but he indicated his information was more recent, and unlike Wallace, Habermas doesn't seem to have clarified his statement in the month since the fragment's release.
    Last edited by Terraceth; 06-23-2018 at 02:51 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •