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

Re: Very early fragment of Mark?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Feb 5, 2013
    View Source
    • 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.