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

  • 1st Century Fragment of Mark

    Does anybody know when that 1st century fragment of the Gospel of Mark is going to be written about at length? If you don't know what I'm referring to, it was announced in 2012 by Daniel Wallace.

    He previously had said he would write about it in a book to come out last year but it never did.

    It still is hush-hush and I don't know why.
    3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures --1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (borrowed with gratitude from 37818's sig)

  • #2
    Good question. I haven't heard any news lately, but I'd forgotten to listen for it.
    "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

    "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

    "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by LostSheep View Post
      He previously had said he would write about it in a book to come out last year but it never did.
      He says it'll be a multi-author work about six fragments. So the delay could be on his end, or on any of the others'.

      Comment


      • #4
        The fragment is not necessarily Mark if we are talking about the Qumran 7Q5? fragment, and not necessarily dated to the 1st century. The cave with the Greek documents maybe later ~136AD. The other problem is the text is disjoint and hypothetical, and not a complete text in any sort of complete phrases.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-17-2014, 02:43 PM.
        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


        • #5
          Friends

          Started a thread in archaeology http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&p=615#post615

          Have at it!!
          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


          • #6
            The topic is another fragment and not 7Q5.

            Comment


            • #7
              Which fragment? Reference?
              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


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Which fragment? Reference?
                http://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/22...-gospel-found/
                Here shunyadragon
                Last edited by Quantum Weirdness; 01-17-2014, 11:54 PM.
                -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                Sir James Jeans

                -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                Sir Isaac Newton

                Comment


                • #9
                  Which fragment? Not known yet. Wallace has said he's not at liberty to speak about it presently. I'm sure he is sincere, but personally I'm skeptical that a fragment can be reliably dated to such a precise period of time by paleography. At best, some claim a 50 year window but that is frequently disputed. If, as most scholars believe, Mark was written around 70 CE, this fragment would be thought to have been written around 75 CE. I hope I'm wrong; it would be a great find, but overly optimistic early dating claims have been cast aside before. I suspect this one will be also.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Did some checking around. For now I will call it the unknown 'Daniel B. Wallace' fragment. Apparently discovered over two years ago. Announced two years ago but silence since that time.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-17-2014, 10:13 PM.
                    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


                    • #11
                      He signed a confidentiality agreement covering that and the several other early fragments found, so he can't talk about it until the publisher gives the okay (presumably when the book is published).
                      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


                      • #12
                        When the publication finally comes out I will predict that it is likely a fragment of Q or possibly Mark if it is legite. The dating will likely be the problematic issue, and the possibilities would be between 50 AD and 150 AD. My biggest question would what is the provenance of this fragment or fragments. Usually if it is from a legitimate archeological source the discovery of the fragments are publicized as they were found, and then researched, and published. Other sources like under the table black market is highly questionable and suspect. The track record of such discovers have a bad track record.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          When the publication finally comes out I will predict that it is likely a fragment of Q or possibly Mark if it is legite. The dating will likely be the problematic issue, and the possibilities would be between 50 AD and 150 AD. My biggest question would what is the provenance of this fragment or fragments. Usually if it is from a legitimate archeological source the discovery of the fragments are publicized as they were found, and then researched, and published. Other sources like under the table black market is highly questionable and suspect. The track record of such discovers have a bad track record.
                          The dating is already problematic, no need for a prediction about that. But, I'm curious why you think it might be a fragment from Q? That seems most unlikely.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            When the publication finally comes out I will predict that it is likely a fragment of Q or possibly Mark if it is legite. The dating will likely be the problematic issue, and the possibilities would be between 50 AD and 150 AD. My biggest question would what is the provenance of this fragment or fragments. Usually if it is from a legitimate archeological source the discovery of the fragments are publicized as they were found, and then researched, and published. Other sources like under the table black market is highly questionable and suspect. The track record of such discovers have a bad track record.
                            I attended a talk by Dan Wallace two days ago in Palo Alto. I asked him about this before the talk; he said that because of the confidentiality agreement he could say nothing about it. He did not mention it during the talk. Then during the Q&A, the first question was on this fragment. Dan Wallace briefly summarized what he had said in the debate with Bart Ehrman, and said that he could say no more because of signing the confidentiality agreement. But he suggested that folks don't usually sign confidentiality agreements unless something is pretty important (so far as I know, folks in this field usually don't sign confidentiality agreements at all).

                            I had a brief talk with him about dating such things. Paleography is probably the best method at the moment. Radiocarbon on a small fragment of the document would get us error-bars of 50-100 years, but could be misleading since the ancients often reused their writing substrates. Dan Wallace mentioned the newer "non-destructive" radiocarbon method being worked on at Texas A&M. This would potentially be a nice way to date the ink itself, but the method is not yet very well developed, and does not seem to be much further along than when I first heard of it about 20 years ago. (it uses a plasma to pull off carbon particles from the surface. It was originally being looked at for cave paintings, but perhaps could be applied to writing. All sorts of issues would have to be addressed, such as how to discriminate against surface contamination, how to discriminate between ink and paper/papyrus, fractionation issues, etc.)
                            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              The dating is already problematic, no need for a prediction about that. But, I'm curious why you think it might be a fragment from Q? That seems most unlikely.
                              Not unlikely, the early gospels were unauthored, and the hypothetical Q was earlier then the other gospels.
                              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

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X