Freethought Nation

What do you guys think? Can't wait to find out more.

http://earliestchristianity.wordpress.c ... anuscript/
http://earliestchristianity.wordpress.c ... t-of-mark/

Has a first-century fragment of the Gospel of Mark been found?


Interesting, except it sounds like more of the same wishful thinking that we have already seen regarding the work of Carsten Thiede, who contended that another papyrus fragment - this time found at the Dead Sea - was part of a first-century Mark. Few scholars have concurred with his assessment, and the theory has been largely forgotten, even though it garnered the same sort of fanfare and hyperbole that we are seeing here.


It should be kept in mind that paleography is an imprecise science - especially when it comes to this era, so if this thesis relies only on a fragment dated by one paleographer, I wouldn't get too excited. I would also be surprised if Brill is going to publish such an endeavor. There has to be more meat to it than that for Brill to be interested.

Let us not forget the brouhaha over the so-called Jesus Family Tomb, the James Ossuary, the Tomb of Peter and a thousand other relics and artifacts that have turned out not to be what they are purported.

Let us also keep in mind that our enthusiast Daniel Wallace - who has clarified that the text in question is merely a fragment, just as in the Thiede episode - is a devout evangelical Christian who therefore undoubtedly has absolute faith in the orthodox timeline of early Christian history.


In that regard, this situation resembles the Thiede episode all the more: "A devout Anglican who was ordained priest in 2000, [Thiede] was also Chaplain to Her Majesty's Forces."

Whether or not the paleographer is a Christian is immaterial if he too believes the mainstream timeline, since, similar to carbon-14 dating, paleography has a + or - factor of about 25 to 50 (or more) years. As New Testament scholar Dr. Larry Hurtado remarks:


So, if the paleographer dates the manuscript to the first century, it could be as late as, say, 99 AD/CE. With a factor of e.g. +50 years, that would put it into the precise era we've dated Ur-Markus to, around the middle of the second century.

And speaking of Larry Hurtado, he has already weighed in on this issue, with a caution:


The editor of The Biblical World Blog likewise cautions against jumping to conclusions:


Even our uncritically devout Christian critic James McGrath expresses skepticism:


Of course, McGrath has to get in his dig at mythicists - we really get under his skin, apparently:


Right, it's much more intelligent and scientific to believe blindly in tales of a supernatural Jewish man who purportedly was born of a virgin, walked on water, performed healing miracles, transfigured on a mount, raised himself from the dead and flew off into heaven, than it is to question such stories! Welcome to topsy-turvy world!

Like I say, I wouldn't get too excited just yet. One must take the enthusiasm of a zealous Christian with a grain of salt. Now, if these other fragments date to the second century, that WILL be interesting to see. I'd like to know if any of them use the word/abbreviation for "Chrestos," rather than "Christos," for example. Also, if this fragment contains any anachronistic words or grammatical differences that date to a later period, it matters not one whit what the paleographer thinks, since it clearly dates to the later era.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Well, even a fundamentalist Christian would have to admit that the Gospel of Mark can certainly be no earlier than the 30s CE, right? LOL.

But it's also unlikely it pre-dates Paul as he never quotes from it or in any way even so much as alludes to its existence, or the existence of any of the canonicals for that matter.

If Paul's career ended during the reign of Nero, then that would be the earliest that any of the canonicals could possibly be, no? So the 60s CE would actually be the starting point, the very earliest end of the range. And so if the full range is only as narrow as 50 to 100 years, then yeah, most definitely this fragment could at best have an overlap of centuries in it's date rage, i.e., late 1st to early 2nd.

So it indeed takes more than paleography to nail down a 1st century date/a narrower date range. A 2nd century origin hypothesis is still on the table.

For the time being.

That says it all. Obviously this is another fiasco akin to the Jesus family tomb and the others aimed at trying to shore up the faith. Time will tell...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

A Facebook friend of mine posted a pic. He knows his Koine pretty well and he says it's definitely from Mark 5:15-18.

It would be nice to know where that display is and what the provenance is for the papyrus fragment.

Let's look at Mark 5:15-18, first in English, followed by the original Greek (textus receptus):


Recall that ancient Greek was originally written "as the ox plows" or in boustrophedon, which means back and forth from line to line, with no spaces or punctuation between words. In the Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360), one of the earliest extant Bible manuscripts, the writing is left to right, but it still has no punctuation and no spaces between the words. The lines are divided not at the end of words but according to syllables.

Here is how these passages (Mk 5:15-18) look in the Codex Sinaiticus:

καιηρχοντοπροϲ
τονινκαιθεωρου
ϲιτονδαιμονιζο
μενονκαθημε
νονϊματιϲμενο
καιϲωφρονουν
τατονεϲχηκοτα
τονλεγιωνακαιε
φοβηθηϲαν
καιδιηγηϲαντο
αυτοιϲοιϊδοντεϲ
πωϲεγενετοτω
δαιμονιζομενω
καιπεριτωνχοι
ρωνκαιηρξαντο
παρακαλιναυτο
απελθιναποτω
οριωναυτων
καιεμβαινοντοϲ
αυτουειϲτοπλοιο
παρεκαλειαυτο

Also, the Mark inscription appears to be in uncial script, which is all caps and which was used mostly from the 3rd to 8th cents. AD/CE. IMHO, it's not possible to pinpoint this fragment to the first century based on the paleography, especially if it's uncial. (In this regard, it should be noted that the uncial lettering here is not all caps. The omega, for example, is lowercase, as is the alpha, after a fashion, and the lambda.)

Here are the Greek uncials:



Here's an image of the papyrus fragment with the text I can make out, with the capitalized Codex Sinaiticus text next to it. I have highlighted the word fragments in red.



I should note that the rho in the fragment "αρακα" is the wackiest looking rho I've ever seen.

The demoniac and the swine

Let us take a look at the motif recorded on this fragment:


This chapter (5) of Mark concerns a man with an "unclean spirit" who "lived among the tombs" who possessed supernatural strength and could not be bound. The possessed man wanders about forlornly until he sees Jesus, whom he worships and who rebukes the unclean spirit, which identifies itself as "Legion, for we are many."

Nearby is a "great herd of swine," and the legion beg Jesus to send them into the swine, which he does, driving the pigs into the sea, thus killing the demons as well. After the townsfolk freak out, Jesus goes to leave in a boat, and the demoniac begs to go along.

There are many reasons why this story cannot possibly be historical, not the least of which is the supernatural possession of a man by demons who identify themselves as "legion" and who are driving into swine and then somehow killed, even though they are already from the land of the dead.

I have turned my comments here into a blog post:

1st-century Gospel of Mark fragment discovered?

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Wow, that was quite a powerful response, Acharya. Quick too. Your knowledge of Greek as well as comparative mythology pays-off nicely once again. Well, it's a kick in the pants or wind out of the sails for the bible thumpers and even the evemerist atheists who still want to cling on to that historical baby Jesus.

It would be a blemish on the record of Brill if they published what these guys are claiming i.e. a 1st century Mark fragment, which looks more like 2nd/3rd century or later. But, as if that's not enough, there's a clear ancient Egyptian parallel to boot. This could turn out to support the mythicist argument once again; a mythical Jesus and a mid to late 2nd century gospel origin with plenty of "borrowing" from ancient Egypt and elsewhere. You've already been demonstrating that for many years now.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Here's some additional information, from someone named Matt Hamilton:


This list apparently refers to the original seven MSS, but Wallace later stated that there are some 19 MSS fragments. In any event, we see "our" Mark fragment on this original list.

It's useful to know that it's part of the Green Collection, headed by Dr. Scott Carroll, a devout Christian professor at the Christian institute Baylor University. Here's more information about the "Green Scholars Initiative":


If these fragments are part of codices, that fact alone casts doubt on the earliest dates, since such books, having been first described in the first century AD/CE, remained relatively uncommon until around the fourth century. Although codices were apparently preferred by Christian scribes, there remains little reason to push these texts into the first century, when they could as easily be from the second or third. Note this bit about codices:


The Mark fragment image provided by GA that I reproduced and that is now all over the blogosphere appears to be a palimpsest, which would likely make of it part of a codex. Again, if this fragment is from a codex, changes are high that it is not from the first century.

Mark fragment a Facebook hoax?

Speaking of devout Christian professors, here's a new blog post by James McGrath who sincerely and uncritically believes that God as a superhuman was born through the womb of a 13-year-old Jewish virgin 2,000 years ago, walked on water, raised the dead, multiplied fishes and loaves, transfigured on a mount, resurrected himself from the dead and flew off into heaven.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... ebook.html

McGrath calls me "infamous," and then he and his cronies imply that I or one of you here fabricated the purported papyrus fragment - all because we don't believe in a supernatural, virgin-born Jewish savior who is omnipresently floating around the cosmos. These are the kinds of scholars teaching young people in our universities.

That would be a good trick to fabricate a palimpsest. And why would this image be a forgery if these fragments have been around long enough for so many people to have discussed them already? It would be great, GA, to have more information about where your friend got the image, of course.

Heck, at least I'm infamous - means he's heard of me. (I'm told he's made disparaging remarks previously - again, because I don't mindlessly believe in supernatural fairytales without proof! Very scientific sources of knowledge for our college-bound youngsters!)

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

The Green Collection



McGrath rants on and on about his anti-mythicist views and attempts to smear us all with broad stroke generalizations at his blog by comparing us to ... I'm not sure what all now: young/flat earthers and creationism etc., but what he fails to comprehend is that it was Christians who came up with all that crap. Another 99 IQ'er tossing stones from a glass house. Our little buddy, McGrath, needs to read Religion and the Ph.D.: A Brief History. McGrath is simply not the goto guy for anything at all.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Being new here I thought I would examine this topic as I have an interest in History and the Bible.

What do I find?

I find it interesting that many reject it outright. That is an indication of either a closed mind or .. well never mind.

I have seen arguments about Uncial script, yet such existed in the 1st century as is known.

Others will take the potential date range to the extreme end to reject it, yet ignore that it could easily fit within the needed time frame.

Some descend to ad hominem attacks as though a man of faith cannot tell the truth, but those with no faith can????? Typical; when no real argument actually exists, so denigrate the supporters.

Even questionable comments by some who evidently have a decent knowledge of the language and seem to be willing to dismiss it, with marginal evidence against it.

Many just heap scorn it with their own unsubstantiated opinions.

Question it, challenge it, but what I have read from many seems to be motivated by an urgent desire to discredit it so that even if true it can't support anything that disagrees with their position.

So far the wisest course is simply to see what is found by the scholars who are investigation it and then address, dare I say it, the facts.

^ So, how's it going Mcgrath? Could you have made your first appearance here any more obvious...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

Welcome to the forum. Reading over your post, it seems more that you "examined" comments & opinions you've read about the topic, and not really examining the points of the topic itself, at least, not with any depth, which is what would be inferred from the word "examine", no?



Fair enough. I haven't taken a poll on it, so I'll take you at your word on this one for the moment.
But is it not also the case that some have accepted it outright, and that being an indication of a gullible a mind?



Indeed, which is why Acharya for one never even so much as insinuated that it didn't.
She did however point out that it was most commonly used from the 3rd century onward.

Plus she pointed out the usage of lowercase uncial in the fragment, and according to scholar Linda I. House in her book Introductory Phonetics and Phonology: A Workbook Approach, page 242-
"Lowercase Miniscule Letters

Lowercase or miniscule letters date to Uncial writing in the 3rd century. It was used from the 4th to the 8th centuries and the letters were derivatives of the capital version."



I suppose. Can you cite a comment of someone doing so? I'm curious to see what they wrote. But this in itself is weird. Why would someone both accept the "extreme end" (I assume you mean the latter extreme end as opposed to the extreme early end of the range, yes?) and yet "reject" it? If they are "rejecting" it, they wouldn't need any date range, whether early or late, because they are REJECTING it. So yeah, definitely re-post one of those comments here so I can see it because that's so weird to reject it yet accept its date range.

Moreover, what exactly is the "needed" time frame? Needed for what?

Does academia have an apriori "need" into which they try and stuff the evidence? Some round hole for which they only allow round pegs and ignore the squares? Or do they just let the facts speak for themselves and build & reform their model upon that? I should hope the latter.

I mean, if this particular fragment does date to the 2nd or even 3rd century CE, what "need" would be left desired?
The gospel itself could still have been authored in the 1st century, regardless of when this particular copy of it was written down, no?



Yeah, I feel you on this one.
I immediately saw ad hominem attacks myself as soon as I linked to this thread on Facebook. They were ad hom attacks against Acharya though. The typical comments along the lines of 'pffft, that fringe nut-job, I'll just wait until a REAL scholar comments on it, hahaha!', which we've all seen time and again. The people leaving these ad hom comments never addressed her actual points. They just tried to smear her in a sentence or two and then punched out for the day.



Marginal evidence against what? The 1st century dating of it, I assume?

Well, on that same note, there is so far only marginal evidence FOR such an early date, which is exactly the point Acharya has been making. She's never forbade a 1st century dating, she is simply correctly pointing out that such an early date can't be pinned down for certain until more evidence comes forward, so be cautious about jumping on the bandwagon right now. That's it. And that is a warning echoed by professionals in the field as well, and she even cited one or two as I recall.



Indeed, just as many have heaped praise & hope upon it with their own unsubstantiated opinions (even though further evidence and even an exact date is still pending).
Good thing Acharya never did either.



"even if true", I assume you mean if the 1st century dating is true? What position would that disagree with?



And how.

What position would that be? Certainly not the Mythicist Position brought forward by Murdock in CiE. In actuality this is what she wrote concerning speculation about the origins of the gospels starting on page 455:

There's nothing about the Mark fragment in question which would even stand to contradict the MP in the first place, obviously.

That's not the point. The point is that the Mark fragment is probably not even from the late first century to begin with and proper analysis must be made before people run around chanting praise for what appears to be nothing more than another edition to the usual knee jerk Christian reaction to ancient artifacts. Time and again these knee jerk reactions prove wrong. And there are plenty of sound reasons to suspect this Mark fragment of being more of the same old, same old...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

The issue of the codex form being unlikely to have come from the first century is verified by scholars Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt (6), discoverers of the "Sayings of Jesus" text found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, in 1896–7:


It seems that the same could be said about this fragment of Mark, if it is indeed in codex form, as suggested above.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

I need to check my Yahoo mail more often. I'm subscribed to their group textualcriticism, and there the group administrator had started a thread about this a few weeks ago, and Ehrman himself replied to Wallace's comments.

In reply to where Wallace was quoted as having stated:



Ehrman wrote the following:





Update:
Hmmm... apparently Wallace himself also posted in that thread, and he says that the picture my friend posted "looks rather like someone decided to copy out a portion of Sinaiticus onto a made-to-order fragment of rather recent vintage."

So it seems that isn't the correct fragment. And this is assuming Wallace himself has seen the actual fragment he referenced to Ehrman. I don't know.

Here's the link- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/messages/6991?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1