Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostSource?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/li...el-mummy-mask/
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
-
Thank you, Raphael; that was a very useful post.
Originally posted by psstein View PostI 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.
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
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostI 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Raphael View PostIn 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......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
-
Originally posted by Raphael View PostLast edited by robrecht; 05-16-2016, 11:39 AM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThis 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.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
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThis 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.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostI'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.
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostI'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.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
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostReplace "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.
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
-
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
-
Update:
So, late 2nd/early 3rd century, not 1st. At that date, it still doubles the number of extant papyri from Mark before 300.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
Comment