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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Raphael View Post
    meant to still be waiting publishing.....I'm not sure the source of the delays.
    The sound of silence!
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #62
      My bet is it too much like the citation from Jeremiah for there to be a strong argument for a real fragment of an early Mark.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #63
        Publish date is 2017.
        Dan Wallace wasn't meant to announce it when he did.
        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


        • #64
          Originally posted by Raphael View Post
          Publish date is 2017.
          Dan Wallace wasn't meant to announce it when he did.
          Source?
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Raphael View Post
            Publish date is 2017.
            Dan Wallace wasn't meant to announce it when he did.
            Is such a big gap between discovery and publishing the 'norm' for these kinds of things? It seems so long.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
              Is such a big gap between discovery and publishing the 'norm' for these kinds of things? It seems so long.
              After the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" debacle, I'm assuming they wanted to cross every t and dot every i before releasing it to the public.

              Comment


              • #67
                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.

                Comment


                • #68
                  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.
                  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.
                  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


                  • #69
                    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.
                    Yep. They have found some very early fragments of other books dating to the 2nd century (none that I know that date earlier than previous finds). Along with that, they've also discovered a number of pagan works, including one of the earliest examples of Homer's Iliad.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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.
                      The most important aspect of the discovery in my opinion will be whether or not there are any new or unusual textual variants. If so, or if not, either way, it could have some significance. If there is a consensus for a first century dating, that would be very nice if only because it is significantly earlier than any other texts, but most critical scholars are very skeptical about the first century dating. If there were some dated texts in the same mask, that might be a fairly strong argument. If the argument is based on paleographic analysis alone, the first century claim will not be accepted except by more conservative scholars who want to make more apologetic arguments.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        but most critical scholars are very skeptical about the first century dating.
                        Sight unseen of course.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          Sight unseen of course.
                          For good reason, because of the difficulties of paleographic estimates.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            For good reason, because of the difficulties of paleographic estimates.
                            That's not a very good reason if critical scholars haven't even seen the fragments yet.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              That's not a very good reason if critical scholars haven't even seen the fragments yet.
                              Sure it is, because it is really an argument about the methodology itself.
                              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


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                Sure it is, because it is really an argument about the methodology itself.
                                Oh, I didn't realize that was the only method they were employing.

                                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