Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [textualcriticism] Very early fragment of Mark?

Expand Messages
  • Ehrman, Bart D
    I don t have a transcript of the debate, but I certainly don t remember saying anything about not having thousands of fragments of the first century. As I
    Message 1 of 21 , Feb 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't have a transcript of the debate, but I certainly don't remember saying anything about not having thousands of fragments of the first century. As I recall, I instead asked Dan a series of questions, which he was not able to answer (he intimated that he had signed some kind of nondisclosure agreement. I understand all about that, but I think it's unfortunate for all of us -- scholars in the field who are interested). My questions (at least in my head: I'm sure I asked some of these!): what is the extent of the papyrus? I.e. how much text is in it? Who has provided the palaeographical dating? Has the dating been corroborated by other experts? [Dan says it is a world-class palaeographer; I don't recall him saying that in the debate. He simply said that it was someone who was not theologically biased, a point I didn't entirely understand [what matters is the person's expertise]. I did point out that other "experts" had given first century dates for other biblical papyri, and that these other datings are not to be trusted. Palaeography, especially on scraps, is a highly tricky business. Dan responded -- about this I'm sure -- that those other scholars were "quacks.") I'm also interested -- as we all are -- about the provenance and history of the discovery, and so on. I am loathe to accept one scholar's dating of the text (I did mention this in the debate) when it has not been subject to public scholarly scrutiny. But of course I and everyone would be absolutely delighted to have some first century evidence! Even if it's just a tiny scrap.

      This was not a particularly key moment in our debate, but I think we should be hesitant to appeal to evidence from a first century text that no one has been able to see, evaluate, date, or even locate. But in particular I think it is highly unfortunate that the publication of this fragment will first appear in a monograph instead of in a peer-reviewed journal where experts can make other evaluations. I wonder whose decision it was to go this way. If I knew who it was, I would strongly urge him/her to reconsider and publish the findings in a more conventional medium first. Of course, all of us are deeply interested, and if the material is available, it should be made *widely* available sooner rather than later.

      - Bart Ehrman

      Bart D. Ehrman
      James A. Gray Professor
      Department of Religious Studies
      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

      www.bartdehrman.com




      -----Original Message-----
      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Spinti
      Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:31 AM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Very early fragment of Mark?

      And Larry Hurtado's comments seem very appropriate:
      http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/newly-identified-early-new-testament-fragments/

      James
      ________________________________
      James Spinti
      Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
      Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
      Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
      Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
      Fax: 574-269-6788

      On Feb 7, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Wieland Willker wrote:

      >
      >
      > Rumors are out on the internet about a very early new fragment of the Gospel of Mark.
      >
      > Dan Wallace mentioned it in his debate with B. Ehrman:
      > "Bart had explicitly said that our earliest copy of Mark was from c. 200 CE, but this is now incorrect. It's from the first century. I mentioned these new manuscript finds and told the audience that a book will be published by E. J. Brill in about a year that gives all the data. (In the Q & A, Bart questioned the validity of the first-century Mark fragment. I noted that a world-class paleographer, whose qualifications are unimpeachable, was my source. Bart said that even so, we don't have thousands of manuscripts from the first century! That kind of skepticism is incomprehensible to me.)"
      >
      >
      > Matthew Hamilton writes in the discussion section on the ETC blog:
      > "I suspect the first announcement of this frg. was not made by Daniel
      > Wallace the other night, but was made by Scott Carroll on 1 Decemeber
      > last year. Check his Facebook posting of that date where he states
      > "For over 100 years the earliest-known text of the NT has been the
      > so-called John Rylands papyrus. That is about to change with a
      > sensational discover I made yesterday. Stay tuned for the update". So
      > far no update."
      >
      >
      > Probably just hot air, but any further info is appreciated.
      >
      > Best wishes
      > Wieland
      > <><
      > --------------------------
      > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      > Textcritical commentary:
      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
      >
      > Please check out the TC forum:
      > http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >



      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Wieland Willker
      This has surfaced: http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24890#p2 4890 [http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/422620_10150576574
      Message 2 of 21 , Feb 19, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

        This has surfaced:  

        http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24890#p24890

         

        [http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/422620_10150576574146107_501856106_9225427_503185633_n.jpg]

         

        Looks strange. Facebook?

        Dan?

         

        Best wishes

            Wieland

            <><

        --------------------------

        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

        Textcritical commentary:

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

         

        Please check out the TC forum:

        http://tcg.iphpbb3.com

         

      • Daniel B. Wallace
        That doesn t even look like a papyrus to me. ... Sent: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:12:38 +0100 From: Wieland Willker To:
        Message 3 of 21 , Feb 19, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          That doesn't even look like a papyrus to me.

          ----- Start Original Message -----
          Sent: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:12:38 +0100
          From: "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
          To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Very early fragment of Mark?

          > This has surfaced:
          >
          > http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24890#p2
          > 4890
          >
          >
          >
          > [http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/422620_10150576574
          > 146107_501856106_9225427_503185633_n.jpg]
          >
          >
          >
          > Looks strange. Facebook?
          >
          > Dan?
          >
          >
          >
          > Best wishes
          >
          > Wieland
          >
          > <><
          >
          > --------------------------
          >
          > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          >
          > <http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie>
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          >
          > Textcritical commentary:
          >
          > <http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/>
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          >
          >
          >
          > Please check out the TC forum:
          >
          > <http://tcg.iphpbb3.com> http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
          >
          >

          ----- End Original Message -----
        • David Palmer
          How do we know that this image is in fact the fragment in question?  Who posted it?  How did they have access to it? David Robert Palmer
          Message 4 of 21 , Feb 20, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            How do we know that this image is in fact the fragment in question?  Who posted it?  How did they have access to it?
             


            I don't know. I just posted the anonymous link.
            The fragment looks in fact more like parchment. I am not aware of such a fragment. Could be fake.
            Certainly not 1st CE. --Wieland

          • Jeff Cate
            Initially I wondered if this was some obscure fragment of a lesser known manuscript... but from my checking the closest thing to it that I could find was 074
            Message 5 of 21 , Feb 20, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Initially I wondered if this was some obscure fragment of a lesser known manuscript... but from my checking the closest thing to it that I could find was 074 (of which I've never seen images), but according to J. R. Harris' study (1890), the text doesn't match.

              And until we know the provenance of this and some more information, for all we know, this could be a hoax... something fabricated in light of the all the blogosphere stir about an early fragment of Mark. Time will tell.

              --Jeff Cate,
              Riverside, CA
            • Daniel B. Wallace
              I don t know that it s a hoax; it looks rather like someone decided to copy out a portion of Sinaiticus onto a made-to-order fragment of rather recent vintage.
              Message 6 of 21 , Feb 20, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I don't know that it's a hoax; it looks rather like someone decided to copy out a portion of Sinaiticus onto a made-to-order fragment of rather recent vintage. I've got a replica leaf from P66 on papyrus myself. This sort of thing is fairly common, but the curiosity of the fragment that surfaced is that it looks like it was written on paper.

                Dan Wallace

                ----- Start Original Message -----
                Sent: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:43:15 -0800
                From: Jeff Cate <jjcate@...>
                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Very early fragment of Mark?

                > Initially I wondered if this was some obscure fragment of a lesser known
                > manuscript... but from my checking the closest thing to it that I could
                > find was 074 (of which I've never seen images), but according to J. R.
                > Harris' study (1890), the text doesn't match.
                >
                > And until we know the provenance of this and some more information, for all
                > we know, this could be a hoax... something fabricated in light of the all
                > the blogosphere stir about an early fragment of Mark. Time will tell.
                >
                > --Jeff Cate,
                > Riverside, CA

                ----- End Original Message -----
              • Jgibson
                ... Consider the source of the URL. Jeffrey -- ... Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon. 1500 W. Pratt Blvd Chicago, Il. jgibson000@comcast.net
                Message 7 of 21 , Feb 20, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 2/20/2012 12:26 PM, Daniel B. Wallace wrote:
                  > I don't know that it's a hoax; it looks rather like someone decided to copy out a portion of Sinaiticus onto a made-to-order fragment of rather recent vintage. I've got a replica leaf from P66 on papyrus myself. This sort of thing is fairly common, but the curiosity of the fragment that surfaced is that it looks like it was written on paper.
                  >
                  > Dan Wallace

                  Consider the source of the URL.

                  Jeffrey

                  --
                  ---
                  Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd
                  Chicago, Il.
                  jgibson000@...
                • Daniel Buck
                  First of all, the photo should show the other side of the fragment too. Secondly, Dr. Wallace is right--it looks too much like a hand-copy of Sinaiticus. There
                  Message 8 of 21 , Feb 20, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    First of all, the photo should show the other side of the fragment too. Secondly, Dr. Wallace is right--it looks too much like a hand-copy of Sinaiticus. There are several reasons not to accept it as genuine.

                    1. Material:
                    It doesn't look anything like an ancient papyrus fragment. The ink is too dark, the letters too clear. It looks like the edges were cut rather than worn.

                    2. Text:
                    Any Alexandrian papyrus fragment, even one this short, should show some textual idiosyncrasies. This fragment is verbatim a copy of the original hand of Sinaiticus, and suspiciously contains enough variant units to clinch the identification. They are as follows:
                    eGIWN matches LEGIWNA of 01* and WH, versus LEGAIWNA of 01c and LEGEWNA of Byz.
                    aI DIHG matches KAI of 01 and WH/TR, versus omit. . . DE of Byz. 
                    pASAKA[sic] 'matches' PARAKALIN of 01, versus PAREKALEI of Byz/WH/TR and PAREKALEIN of D. 

                    3. Hand:
                    This is just a wild guess, but I'm thinking that the singular 's'-looking rho in v. 17 is either certain evidence for an early 1-st century date, or just thrown in there to make fools of anyone who thought it genuine. It doesn't even appear to be in the original hand.
                     
                    Daniel Buck

                    From: Daniel B. Wallace <csntm@...>

                     
                    I don't know that it's a hoax; it looks rather like someone decided to copy out a portion of Sinaiticus onto a made-to-order fragment of rather recent vintage. I've got a replica leaf from P66 on papyrus myself. This sort of thing is fairly common, but the curiosity of the fragment that surfaced is that it looks like it was written on paper.

                    Dan Wallace
                  • Jeff Cate
                    True, Dan... but I imagine your replica leaf of p66 is not encased in glass... :-) The item in the photo does smack of being inauthentic... and somewhere along
                    Message 9 of 21 , Feb 20, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      True, Dan... but I imagine your replica leaf of p66 is not encased in glass... :-)

                      The item in the photo does smack of being inauthentic... and somewhere along the way, someone (intentionally or otherwise) connected it to the discussion about a yet-to-be-published fragment of Mark.

                      --Jeff Cate,
                      Riverside, CA
                    • David Palmer
                      Daniel, thanks for those comparisons of variants in Sinaiticus; that was a good idea, I ll check that out myself.  The itacism in Sinaiticus in PARAKALIN
                      Message 10 of 21 , Feb 20, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Daniel, thanks for those comparisons of variants in Sinaiticus; that was a good idea, I'll check that out myself.  The itacism in Sinaiticus in PARAKALIN could have been in an earlier manuscript as well; why not?  The textual variant there is PAREKALOUN.  Infinitive versus imperfect.

                        That funny looking RHO is not actually a misspelling, it's not Sigma where a Rho should have been.  That is in fact a perfectly fine RHO from the 1st century and earlier, according to the plates in "An Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography" by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson.  See plates on pp. 145, 146, 191, 192.  If you look closely, you see that it actually looks like a sperm.  There is a closed circle at the top, like a small omicron, and then with a stem.  The top is called the "bow" of the RHO.  From everything I can see as an amateur reading Thompson, the type of Rho with a closed circle or oval bow, and also a stem that curves leftward at the bottom, is found in the 1st century and earlier.  After that, the stems were straight or curved rightward.

                        Does anyone say that a 1st century Greek manuscript has to be on papyrus?  Also reading Thompson, he says that animal skin documents were not unheard of, as early as a couple hundred years before Christ.  The Ptolemaics embargoed papyrus exports now and then, and an alternate supply of writing materials made from animals skins was manufactured in Pergamum.

                        Paper was introduced to Europeans by Arabs in the 8th century.  (They learned it from Chinese at Samarkand.)  The Arab paper came to the west via Damascus, Syria, which was the paper capital of the Arab world.
                         
                        David Robert Palmer
                        http://bibletranslation.ws/
                      • jjcate
                        Or a simpler explanation would be NA27/UBS4 as the source for the text in the photo. Sinaiticus has an itacism (omitting the epsilon) in APELQEIN (see line 9
                        Message 11 of 21 , Feb 20, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Or a simpler explanation would be NA27/UBS4 as the source for the text in the photo. Sinaiticus has an itacism (omitting the epsilon) in APELQEIN (see line 9 of photo). Vaticanus has an itacism (epsilon for iota) in LEGIWNA (see line 3 in the photo). But I don't notice any differences to the NA27/UBS4 text.

                          Jeff Cate,
                          Riverside, CA
                        • bucksburg
                          ...
                          Message 12 of 21 , Feb 21, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer wrote:
                            <Daniel, thanks for those comparisons of variants in Sinaiticus; that was a good idea, I'll check that out myself. The itacism in Sinaiticus in PARAKALIN could have been in an earlier manuscript as well; why not? The textual variant there is PAREKALOUN. Infinitive versus imperfect.>

                            "Jeff Cate" <jjcate@...> wrote:
                            >> Or a simpler explanation would be NA27/UBS4 as the source for the text in the photo. Sinaiticus has an itacism (omitting the epsilon) in APELQEIN (see line 9 of photo). Vaticanus has an itacism (epsilon for iota) in LEGIWNA (see line 3 in the photo). But I don't notice any differences to the NA27/UBS4 text.<<

                            No, P}ARAK{ALIN is not the NA27 reading. It is unique to Sinaiticus (AFAIK). Ancient papyri, despite the popular misconception, do not read the same as NA27 for any reasonable length of text. Even in a fragment as small as p52 or this one, there are numerous differences.

                            I hope we learned this lesson with 'Ancient Mark'. Finding an ancient manuscript that reads virtually the same as a printed text is a huge red flag for fraud. I would venture that even finding one that reads exactly the same as any other given mss of the first four centuries should raise the same level of alarm.

                            The sigmoid rho still appears to be a gratuitous edit to age the fragment to the first century.

                            Daniel Buck
                          • David Palmer
                            Someone may be playing a game with us eh?  It is still fun.  I would like more discussion about the material it is written on, so we can learn from those
                            Message 13 of 21 , Feb 21, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Someone may be playing a game with us eh?  It is still fun.  I would like more discussion about the material it is written on, so we can learn from those knowledgeable about it.  Why does it not look like papyrus?  How does it look like paper?

                              If anyone wants pdfs of four of the plates from the Thompson book showing different stages of the Greek alphabet forms, I have uploaded them to the following blog post about this purported Mark 1st century fragment.
                               
                              David Robert Palmer
                              http://bibletranslation.ws/
                            • Bob Relyea
                              ... OK, I m confused. My NA27 reads παρακαλειν which still agrees with the papyrus. (the αλιν is reconstructed because the author was using the
                              Message 14 of 21 , Feb 21, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 02/21/2012 12:14 PM, bucksburg wrote:
                                > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer wrote:
                                > <Daniel, thanks for those comparisons of variants in Sinaiticus; that was a good idea, I'll check that out myself. The itacism in Sinaiticus in PARAKALIN could have been in an earlier manuscript as well; why not? The textual variant there is PAREKALOUN. Infinitive versus imperfect.>
                                >
                                > "Jeff Cate"<jjcate@...> wrote:
                                >>> Or a simpler explanation would be NA27/UBS4 as the source for the text in the photo. Sinaiticus has an itacism (omitting the epsilon) in APELQEIN (see line 9 of photo). Vaticanus has an itacism (epsilon for iota) in LEGIWNA (see line 3 in the photo). But I don't notice any differences to the NA27/UBS4 text.<<
                                > No, P}ARAK{ALIN is not the NA27 reading. It is unique to Sinaiticus (AFAIK). Ancient papyri, despite the popular misconception, do not read the same as NA27 for any reasonable length of text. Even in a fragment as small as p52 or this one, there are numerous differences.
                                OK, I'm confused. My NA27 reads παρακαλειν which still agrees with the
                                papyrus. (the αλιν is reconstructed because the author was using the
                                Sinaiticus as a base, so of cource it matches with the Sinaiticus).

                                RE p52, Could you list the difference between p52 and NA27, I only found
                                one (ημε[ιν] for ημιν). This fragment has about 20% less text than one
                                side of p52 (45 letters versus 55 letters).

                                I still think the exact match with no itacism is suspicious, but the
                                amount of visible text is still quite small.

                                bob


                                >
                                >
                                > I hope we learned this lesson with 'Ancient Mark'. Finding an ancient manuscript that reads virtually the same as a printed text is a huge red flag for fraud. I would venture that even finding one that reads exactly the same as any other given mss of the first four centuries should raise the same level of alarm.
                                >
                                > The sigmoid rho still appears to be a gratuitous edit to age the fragment to the first century.
                                >
                              • Daniel Buck
                                Bob, Please go over παρεκαλειν PAREKALEIN letter-by-letter and you will see that it does not allow for a reading of ARAK. I am sending separately a
                                Message 15 of 21 , Feb 22, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Bob,

                                  Please go over παρεκαλειν PAREKALEIN letter-by-letter and you will see that it does not allow for a reading of ARAK.

                                  I am sending separately a study I did of the textual affinities in the p52 passage. In a previous post there, I had noted that p52 has a sizeable omission that is only revealed by letter-count of a lacuna, which doesn't give us its exact reading, but does assure that it's not the same as NA27 or any known MS.
                                   
                                  Daniel Buck

                                  From: Bob Relyea <bob@...>  Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:32 PM


                                   
                                  On 02/21/2012 12:14 PM, Daniel Buck "bucksburg" wrote:

                                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer wrote:
                                  >Daniel, thanks for those comparisons of variants in Sinaiticus; that was a good idea, I'll check that out myself. The itacism in Sinaiticus in PARAKALIN could have been in an earlier manuscript as well; why not? The textual variant there is PAREKALOUN. Infinitive versus imperfect.<

                                    "Jeff Cate"<jjcate@...> wrote:
                                  >> Or a simpler explanation would be NA27/UBS4 as the source for the text in the photo. Sinaiticus has an itacism (omitting the epsilon) in APELQEIN (see line 9 of photo). Vaticanus has an itacism (epsilon for iota) in LEGIWNA (see line 3 in the photo). But I don't notice any differences to the NA27/UBS4 text.<<

                                  Daniel replied:
                                  > No, P]ARAK[ALIN is not the NA27 reading. It is unique to Sinaiticus (AFAIK). Ancient papyri, despite the popular misconception, do not read the same as NA27 for any reasonable length of text. Even in a fragment as small as p52 or this one, there are numerous differences.<

                                  OK, I'm confused. My NA27 reads παρακαλειν which still agrees with the papyrus. (the αλιν is reconstructed because the author was using the Sinaiticus as a base, so of cource it matches with the Sinaiticus).

                                  RE p52, Could you list the difference between p52 and NA27, I only found one (ημε[ιν] for ημιν). This fragment has about 20% less text than one side of p52 (45 letters versus 55 letters).

                                  I still think the exact match with no itacism is suspicious, but the amount of visible text is still quite small.

                                  bob

                                • Bob Relyea
                                  ... So my copy of NA27 (as well as SBL GNT) definately says και ηρξαντο παρακαλειν αυτον απελθειν in Mark 5:17, which is
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Feb 22, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 02/22/2012 07:39 AM, Daniel Buck wrote: |**|begin egp html banner|**|

                                    Bob,

                                    Please go over παρεκαλειν PAREKALEIN letter-by-letter and you will see that it does not allow for a reading of ARAK.
                                    So my copy of NA27 (as well as SBL GNT) definately says και ηρξαντο παρακαλειν αυτον απελθειν in Mark 5:17, which is clearly the context here. Mark 5:18 has παρεκαλει αυτον ο δαιμονισθεις, but that's lower in the fragment and only ]αυ[τον is present.

                                    I was only checking because I noticed Tischendorf had παρακαλειν and figured he followed a Sinaticus singular reading, but he didn't have any variants in his apparatus here, so I went back to NA27 to see what the actual variant was supposed to be (unfortunately my Olive tree version of NA27 doesn't have an apparatus. I quick search of printed editions all agree with παρακαλειν, though Codex Bezae certainly has the variant you pointed out in your previous email.

                                    I am sending separately a study I did of the textual affinities in the p52 passage. In a previous post there, I had noted that p52 has a sizeable omission that is only revealed by letter-count of a lacuna, which doesn't give us its exact reading, but does assure that it's not the same as NA27 or any known MS.
                                    Cool! I have not seen any analysis of this "mark" fragment based on gaps.

                                    bob
                                     
                                    Daniel Buck

                                    From: Bob Relyea <bob@...>  Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:32 PM


                                     
                                    On 02/21/2012 12:14 PM, Daniel Buck "bucksburg" wrote:

                                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer wrote:
                                    >Daniel, thanks for those comparisons of variants in Sinaiticus; that was a good idea, I'll check that out myself. The itacism in Sinaiticus in PARAKALIN could have been in an earlier manuscript as well; why not? The textual variant there is PAREKALOUN. Infinitive versus imperfect.<

                                      "Jeff Cate"<jjcate@...> wrote:
                                    >> Or a simpler explanation would be NA27/UBS4 as the source for the text in the photo. Sinaiticus has an itacism (omitting the epsilon) in APELQEIN (see line 9 of photo). Vaticanus has an itacism (epsilon for iota) in LEGIWNA (see line 3 in the photo). But I don't notice any differences to the NA27/UBS4 text.<<

                                    Daniel replied:
                                    > No, P]ARAK[ALIN is not the NA27 reading. It is unique to Sinaiticus (AFAIK). Ancient papyri, despite the popular misconception, do not read the same as NA27 for any reasonable length of text. Even in a fragment as small as p52 or this one, there are numerous differences.<

                                    OK, I'm confused. My NA27 reads παρακαλειν which still agrees with the papyrus. (the αλιν is reconstructed because the author was using the Sinaiticus as a base, so of cource it matches with the Sinaiticus).

                                    RE p52, Could you list the difference between p52 and NA27, I only found one (ημε[ιν] for ημιν). This fragment has about 20% less text than one side of p52 (45 letters versus 55 letters).

                                    I still think the exact match with no itacism is suspicious, but the amount of visible text is still quite small.

                                    bob



                                  • bucksburg
                                    Three days to go, and we re still waiting for further word on this/these early/very early fragments of Mark. Daniel Buck
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Three days to go, and we're still waiting for further word on this/these early/very early fragments of Mark.

                                      Daniel Buck

                                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "james_snapp_jr" wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Dear Wieland:
                                      >
                                      > According to Dr. Wallace, we will be able to read about this within a year. 363 days to go!
                                      >
                                      > If he wasn't referring to something that the Green Collection researchers have found, like that little scrap that was on CNN, then maybe this fragment is identical to what Dr. Wallace mentioned in 2009 -- see http://kashow.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/ten-questions-with-daniel-b-wallace :
                                      >
                                      > Dr. Wallace mentioned that among the MSS discovered via CSNTM is a two-leaf palimpsest, apparently kept by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople (Istanbul) -- "One leaf is from Mark 3 and the other leaf is from Mark 6" -- and he stated, "It could be as early as the third century (and that would make the Mark 3 leaf the oldest MS of Mark 3 in existence), or it may be as late as the seventh century."
                                      >
                                      > In an interview with P. J. Williams dated March 2006 at
                                      > http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
                                      > he seems to describe the same thing, a little differently:
                                      >
                                      > "To date, we have discovered over a dozen manuscripts, half of which are New Testament. Among these is an uncial text from Mark 3 and Mark 6 (it's only two leaves, a palimpsest at the end of a book), discovered by Ivan Yong, my special assistant. We cannot yet positively identify the date because most of the letters have been scraped clean, but tentatively it looks to be between the third and fifth century."
                                      >
                                      > Maybe perhaps remotely conceivably, although at one point this Mk 3/6 fragment seemed like it "might be as late as the seventh century," someone freshly introduced to it has pronounced it first-century?? (In any event, that was 2006 and 2009. It is now 2012. What has become of that Mk 3/Mk 6 palimpsest fragment?)
                                      >
                                      > I wonder if, if that's *not* this new fragment, and if the new fragment isn't something from the Green Collection researchers, perhaps Christopher de Hamel might know something about it. But one year should not be long to wait to find out; after all, we've all managed to wait, what, *six years* to find out more about that tentatively "between the third and fifth century" two-leaf palimpsest, right? (Or has it been published, and I just missed it?)
                                      >
                                      > Meanwhile, surely Ehrman's point in the debate remains valid: a fragmentary MS here and there does not fill the chronological canyon between the composition-dates of the NT books and the production-dates of the earliest MSS. Picture someone saying, "I can show, with photographic evidence, that Postman Smith walked through the snow, from his house to the post office, and never dropped anything." But his photographic evidence is just photographs of Mr. Smith from the ankles down -- they are definitely photographs of Mr. Smith's shoes; the first one is 150 yards from his house; the other one is 250 yards from his house. But where's the proof about the security of everything that Mr. Smith was carrying? Would a picture of Mr. Smith's shoes 30 yards away from his house really change the equation? I suspect that this is something that is going to have to be taken on faith until the Lord's return.
                                      >
                                      > Yours in Christ,
                                      >
                                      > James Snapp, Jr.
                                      >
                                    • Dr Ley
                                      My esteemed family in Christ and colleagues, sometimes in the quest to discover: to reveal new insights, some very basic knowledge is overlooked. For example:
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Feb 5, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        My esteemed family in Christ and colleagues,
                                        sometimes in the quest to discover: to reveal new insights, some very basic knowledge is overlooked. For example: It is almost impossible to determine who wrote or translated the manuscript evidence discovered. Then there is the knowledge that not all manuscripts were written or translated by Hebrew/Christians/Greeks who believed or even understood what they were doing. The quality, authenticity, and so many other ingredients must be measured carefully even before any type of conclusions or consensus can be considered. To some, the posts and discussions appear to accept superficial and preliminary assessments based on assumption. This is one of several errors made by "scholars" during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Indeed assumptions were made that every scrap or fragment discovered was authoritative, genuine, and accomplished by an accomplished scribe or competent transcriber. We do not accept any document today without considering all of these things plus many more. Have we not ascertained that many times, in the past, the wrong conclusion was reached because of committing one or more of these errors.
                                        There were so many heresies, such as the multifaceted Gnostics who spawned innumerable sects and factions, that crossed "doctrinal" lines, copied anything available, and frequently made editing changes - again unknown writers / translators. Let us emphasize true scholarship and avoid as much speculation as possible...

                                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Three days to go, and we're still waiting for further word on this/these early/very early fragments of Mark.
                                        >
                                        > Daniel Buck
                                        >
                                        > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "james_snapp_jr" wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > Dear Wieland:
                                        > >
                                        > > According to Dr. Wallace, we will be able to read about this within a year. 363 days to go!
                                        > >
                                        > > If he wasn't referring to something that the Green Collection researchers have found, like that little scrap that was on CNN, then maybe this fragment is identical to what Dr. Wallace mentioned in 2009 -- see http://kashow.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/ten-questions-with-daniel-b-wallace :
                                        > >
                                        > > Dr. Wallace mentioned that among the MSS discovered via CSNTM is a two-leaf palimpsest, apparently kept by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople (Istanbul) -- "One leaf is from Mark 3 and the other leaf is from Mark 6" -- and he stated, "It could be as early as the third century (and that would make the Mark 3 leaf the oldest MS of Mark 3 in existence), or it may be as late as the seventh century."
                                        > >
                                        > > In an interview with P. J. Williams dated March 2006 at
                                        > > http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
                                        > > he seems to describe the same thing, a little differently:
                                        > >
                                        > > "To date, we have discovered over a dozen manuscripts, half of which are New Testament. Among these is an uncial text from Mark 3 and Mark 6 (it's only two leaves, a palimpsest at the end of a book), discovered by Ivan Yong, my special assistant. We cannot yet positively identify the date because most of the letters have been scraped clean, but tentatively it looks to be between the third and fifth century."
                                        > >
                                        > > Maybe perhaps remotely conceivably, although at one point this Mk 3/6 fragment seemed like it "might be as late as the seventh century," someone freshly introduced to it has pronounced it first-century?? (In any event, that was 2006 and 2009. It is now 2012. What has become of that Mk 3/Mk 6 palimpsest fragment?)
                                        > >
                                        > > I wonder if, if that's *not* this new fragment, and if the new fragment isn't something from the Green Collection researchers, perhaps Christopher de Hamel might know something about it. But one year should not be long to wait to find out; after all, we've all managed to wait, what, *six years* to find out more about that tentatively "between the third and fifth century" two-leaf palimpsest, right? (Or has it been published, and I just missed it?)
                                        > >
                                        > > Meanwhile, surely Ehrman's point in the debate remains valid: a fragmentary MS here and there does not fill the chronological canyon between the composition-dates of the NT books and the production-dates of the earliest MSS. Picture someone saying, "I can show, with photographic evidence, that Postman Smith walked through the snow, from his house to the post office, and never dropped anything." But his photographic evidence is just photographs of Mr. Smith from the ankles down -- they are definitely photographs of Mr. Smith's shoes; the first one is 150 yards from his house; the other one is 250 yards from his house. But where's the proof about the security of everything that Mr. Smith was carrying? Would a picture of Mr. Smith's shoes 30 yards away from his house really change the equation? I suspect that this is something that is going to have to be taken on faith until the Lord's return.
                                        > >
                                        > > Yours in Christ,
                                        > >
                                        > > James Snapp, Jr.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.