Message 1 of 4 (833892)
05-27-2018 7:48 PM
Before THE LATEST revelation from just days ago.
Discussion must be started with coverage of the roughly 6 year old claim that a fragment of Mark was found that dates to 80-130 C.E.
A debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace brought us this claim (by Wallace).
Put this into google:
1st century gospel mark patheos
1st century gospel mark
From the latter www.google.com search term.
The 'First Century' Gospel of Mark, Josh McDowell, and Mummy Masks ...
We were unlayering manuscripts that had not been seen for 2,000…a portion of the Gospel of Mark, first century A.D., where the liberal theologians all their ...
The Text of the Gospels: First-century Mark: More Information!
Jul 14, 2017 - Remember the announcement in 2012 about the existence of a first-century manuscript-fragment from the Gospel of Mark? Here we are five ...
Evangelical Textual Criticism: Gary Habermas on First-Century Mark
Feb 24, 2018 - Yes, it seems that about every three months or so First-Century Mark .... The previous earliest copy of a gospel book we have is the Rylands ...
New Details Emerge about 'First Century Mark' from Scott Carroll
Jul 14, 2017 - New Details Emerge about 'First Century Mark' from Scott Carroll. by Peter ...... .com/2012/03/22/first-century-fragment-of-marks-gospel-found/
Bart D. Ehrman - As many of you know, in 2012 I had a... | Facebook
He mysteriously claimed that now we have a first-century copy of the Gospel of Mark. This would be a copy well over a century older than any other that exists, ...
Another “First-Century Gospel of Mark”–Not! | Larry Hurtado's Blog
Jul 28, 2017 - For a fascinating account about tracking down a bizarre reference to a first-century papyrus of the "notes" of the Gospel of Mark, check Brent ...
A First-Century Copy of the Gospel of Mark? | Larry Hurtado's Blog
Jan 26, 2015 - In the last week or so I've had a number of inquiries about news stories of the discovery of a fragment of the Gospel of Mark dating to the first ...
How Should We Respond to Reports that a Fragment of Mark Dates to ...
Jan 20, 2015 - Evans explains, “We're recovering ancient documents from the first, ... the New Testament gospels composed in the first century: Mark (mid- to ...
Would a First-Century Fragment of Mark Matter? – The Bart Ehrman Blog
Jan 24, 2015 - Moreover, every scholar on the face of the earth thinks that Mark's Gospel was copied soon after it was first put in circulation. Moreover, almost ...
Mummy Mask May Reveal Oldest Known Gospel - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › History
Jan 18, 2015 - A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published. ... This first-century gospel fragment was written on a sheet of papyrus that was later reused to create a mask that was worn by a mummy.
Some Answers on Fackelmann's “First-Century Mark” Papyrus ...
Aug 3, 2017 - When I wrote my earlier post on a papyrus allegedly containing a draft of Mark's gospel, I also did a bit of searching to see if anything new had ...
Patheos has had about a dozen articles on the subject since 2012.
Again,it would be helpful to put "1st century gospel mark patheos" into google's search engine.
There seems to be upwards of 100 links on this issue from the three keywords as of May 27, 2018.
Best to check them out (and save on your computer or zip drive) NOW because soon the older stories will be swamped with newer updates downplaying the demonstration of older enthusiastic evangelical claims about the importance of the discovery.
"gospel mark 1st century mummy mask Wallace" brings up more links.
"gospel of mark 1st century" brought up many more links including this highly relevant interview
2018 BREAKING NEWS STARTS HERE.
Fast forward to May 2018 breaking news.
A May 22 article warned us to be cautious.
Now the news breaks.
A short article from May 24 that has links to the breaking revelation.
From May 25 is a very well researched Daily Beast article on the issue.
It turns out that Candidia Moss wrote an article criticizing that destruction of the Egyptian mummy mask for nothing (from around November 2017). It was made up?
(see Daily Beast article and let me know what you think about that claim.)
But this January 1 2018 article, below, shows us that up to 150 papyri texts were used to make masks, so hopefully much can still be discovered.
I just NOW found Wallace apologize as I put "gospel mark i trust Wallace" into search engine. I missed it until just now. (I was trying to find an older evangelical discussion where somebody said why they trust Wallace and why it is important to show the integrity of the Gospel from it's 1st century writing till today in the 21st century)
Here is what I just found.
Straight from the horses mouth.
First-Century Mark Fragment Update – Daniel B. Wallace
4 days ago - It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was ... posted a blog entitled, First-Century Fragment of Mark's Gospel Found!?, ...
Why Shouldn't We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospel Attributed to Mark ...
Oct 11, 2017 - Another slightly less ancient text called the Secret Gospel of Mark claims to ... do accept the legitimacy of the letter believe The Secret Gospel of Mark to be ... J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, ...
Is There a First-Century Fragment of Mark's Gospel? Apparently Not ...
4 days ago - Most notably, the fragment was alluded to by Dan Wallace in his 2012 ... first-century Mark, the earliest copy of that gospel comes from P45, ... from a first-century manuscript, already gives us good reasons to trust our text.
Why Shouldn't We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospel Attributed to Mark ...
Oct 11, 2017 - Read Why Shouldn't We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospel Attributed to Mark? by J. Warner Wallace and more articles about J. Warner Wallace ...
I didn't even read his excuses yet (He is a great scholar but biased in the extreme. See his contortions to justify that Paul wrote I Timothy, II timothy, and Titus) but I will.
I suppose that the whole lesson in all of this is that the evidence isn't great that there weren't significant changes to the Gospel of Mark from 65/70 AD till 200 AD.
And this (once) supposed 1st century fragment actually dates to the last 2nd/early 3rd century.
Deja Vu all over again and still no solid proof that significant changes weren't made.
(Eusebius told us that the vast majority of Mark texts in existence in the early 4th century lacked what we now call "Mark 16:9-20" , so really the evidence for major changes are great)
This thread was a little messy.
Here are some good links to start with.
Here was a 2015 article by Ehrman.
Don't miss the Daily Beast article from days ago.
ONE MAN’S TRASH...
Was One of World’s Oldest Bible Passages Found in a Garbage Dump?
On Thursday, the Oxford-based Oxyrhynchus Society announced the discovery of a second-century piece of the Gospel of Mark from a dig in an Egyptian garbage dump.
05.25.18 12:11 PM ET
I actually trusted Wallace and posted the discovery (in a past thread here) here as if it was a fact.
Again, it still shows us how lacking the early manuscript evidence is.
And that is just for the Greek Gospels we NOW have.
Look at all that is not extant.
Papias talked about a Hebrew Gospel (according to Eusebius) that had a story of a sinful woman (which might have something to do with what was later added to the (always Greek!) Gospel of John and what we now call "John 7:53-8:11") and he previously was quoted as saying that Matthew had a collection of sayings of Jesus in Hebrew). No Gospel was been found ever that has this.
There are many different versions of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew from testimony coming from Jerome (!) of all people. And he even said that MOST SAY THE HEBREW GOSPEL OF MATTHEW IS THE ORIGINAL. This is the same Jerome that wrote the Bible that Catholics use to this day. (But he ironically has views that match Protestants better because he rejected the Apocrypha and even invented the derogatory term "Apocrypha" to label the Greek-only Old Testament books)
But back to the Greek Gospels that we have (and Greek is all we have for the 4 Biblical Gospels, though Matthew alone could have been in Hebrew first), like Mark.
The early manuscript evidence is lacking and this will surely be ignored by evangelicals and fundamentalists. But we would never stop hearing about it if this 80-130 chapter 1 fragment of Mark (which matched the 200 CE texts) was actually what it was claimed to be for most of this decade.
BOTH Jerome and Eusebius were there in the majority of the 4th century.
Here is what they said about Mark 16:9-20 (the "Long Ending")
2. The early church fathers questioned the LE
Clemen & Origen: Clement of Alexandria (AD 250) and Origen (AD 25) are silent on the LE—even though they had reason to mention it.
Eusebius: Regarding Mark 16:9-20, Eusebius wrote, “The person not wishing to accept [these verses] will say that it is not contained in all copies of the Gospel according to Mark. Indeed the accurate copies conclude the story according to Mark in the words … they were afraid. For the end is here in nearly all the copies of Mark.” (Eusebius, Ad Marinus, NPB 4.255ff)
Jerome: In the fifth century, Jerome stated that the longer ending of Mark is found in “scarcely any copies of the Gospel—almost all the Greek codices being without this passage.” (In Jerome’s letter to Hedibia, in Epistola 120, PL 22.980–1006).
It seems that the higher quality manuscripts (only containing 16:1-8 as opposed to 16:1-20) aren't found in large numbers in the archaeological record, but the witnesses confirm their numerical superiority.
But back to the supposed 1st century Mark fragment.
Wallace apologized on May 23 for his monumental contribution to this disinformation.
He started by crediting this Elijah Hixon blog (below) for breaking the news (which he is now at liberty, per an agreement earlier in the decade, to confess his past).
The above blog by Elijah Hixon involves lots of reflection and (perhaps a call for) detective work to find out who was responsible for this disinformation. There are links to the Daily Beast May 25 article and many others.
This convoluted scandal involves the Hobby Lobby of all groups. Man!
But back to the fall out of this great let down to apologists.
Michael Kruger admits this is a disappointment (but then goes on to claim that there is somehow already solid evidence for the not-extant 1st century Mark being substantially identical to the post 200 AD texts we have had for quite a while)
I expect this specific scandalous Mummy Mask Mark issue to be dropped soon. Kruger always claims (per his past books and articles), and like all other apologists, that Irenaeus is a credible source, so anything the late 2nd century Greek Irenaeus says is somehow evidence that the 1st century Hebrew Christians (like Matthew, Mark, and John) supposedly wrote the Greek Gospels we now have in the 21st century.
That is the evidence (along with all the LATE manuscript evidence, though the pesky issue of the LONG ENDING is ignored and passed off as a minor variant and one which the early fathers correctly noticed at any rate anyway)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 2 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-27-2018 10:22 PM|| ||LamarkNewAge has not yet responded|