Christianity Today has just published an article from Jerry Pattengale: “The ‘First-Century Mark’ Saga from Inside the Room.”
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
The thickening of an anarthrous plot. Judging by the names dropped in the article, it looks as if the leading members of this blog have had to bite their lips for most of the past eight years.
ReplyDeleteYou have to wonder why?
DeleteWallace, iirc, said he was lied to when he was first prompted to talk about it. Did all these ppl sign NDAs? Why was the NDA binding once it was shown to be based on fabrication?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePattengale wrote: "The piece [5345] had been awaiting research for a century, and cryptically identified in the 1980s as early New Testament (though not as Mark)." This does not square with what the EEF has stated. Plus, a generic description--cryptically? by whom? not R.A. Coles, reportedly--as NT does not seem likely in this case.
ReplyDeleteMinor addition: A 1980s photograph of 5345, even if a print was attached to the card (which maybe has not been stated by EEF explicitly), presumably before widespread use of digital photography, would make a negative and would probably have been preserved also separately.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere’s nothing to suggest that anyone beyond 3 people had seen the fragment. The rest was gossip.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pattengale's account, there were more than three who at least saw photos of the fragment. There is Obbink, Carroll, Pattengale, Wallace, and the other scholars consulted by Pattengale.
DeletePattengale writes, "the funder from Hobby Lobby agreed to maintain our due diligence, so I consulted further expert opinion. As is well known, I recruited Wallace, who also serves as professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. Neither he nor anyone else was willing to vouch with any confidence for a pre-second century date on any of the pieces. . . . The other scholars sat with me at different times and places and studied the four images from my laptop."
Yes. I wonder who they were though.
DeleteAs you are aware, I seldom post to blogs, so forgive my intrusion.
ReplyDelete1. Despite what one might think of DO and what he has done (and that is yet to be untangled), it doesn't feel right to me for someone to use his fall as an opportunity for self-promotion.
2. The CT editor knew that I hadn't spoken with the author, JP, for over 7 years (and not because of a binding non-disclosure). You would hope to think that the editor would have vetted many of the things said as only one person's recollection was critically tied to the piece even though there was another person in the room. It was regrettably filled with misrepresentations, misrecollections, and exaggerations. The mixed narrative doubtless left the uninformed reader confused. I personally hold CT responsible for this.
3. The basic elements of my recollection of those initial interactions have not changed since 2011. DO showed me the MK 1 papyrus on the pool table in his office. He said it had been dated to the late 1st or early 2nd c and he then went into some paleographic detail why he believed it must date to the late 1st c. It was in this conversation that he offered it for consideration for HL to buy (w/o mentioning a price). I said I would mention it to them which I did. I seem to remember mentioning it to them on occasion, but they never asked me about it or mentioned it to me. With my departure in June of 2012, I never signed a non-disclosure agreement.
4. These are my recollections based on my brief conversation about the Mk 1 papyrus with DW. I mentioned it to DW briefly in passing. I told him that the dating was based on the opinion of a renowned Oxford scholar. He mentioned a debate, which I knew nothing of, and asked if he could mention it. I said it wasn't owned by HL so I couldn't speak for them. I told him he would have to use his own discretion. It wasn't my debate and how could I possible tell DW (who I did not know) to do something like that? And for what benefit to HL or DO? I did not have pictures of the papyrus. I do not think there could have been any way possible for DW to have seen Mk 1 before debate.
5. I wondered over the past 7 years why none of these people who knew the truth (non-disclosures aside) could step-up and verify what they knew. Why was the author of the CT article walking around with a scrap of paper in his wallet for 7 years like a memento verifying what happened without mentioning it to me or anyone else? The EES asked over a year ago (loosely paraphrased) 'Who are we to believe the eminent DO or this nobody SC?' No one could speak to the truth; afraid of DO and afraid of HL. Truth is never bound by non-disclosures. A year after the publication of Mk 1 and 7 years after the initial offering the CT articles feels more like a cover-up than an exposé. When people see that something is wrong and they don’t speak out against it, they become part of the problem and perpetuate it.
6. I am sure much more will come out on this and related topics. I would hope to think that everyone will be the better for it. My best.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSC: I agree very much with two parts of your post.
Delete1) There were parts of the CT article (some of the most critical ones, actually) that I just didn't get, and wasn't sure if I was confused or the author was confusing. I *did* get the self references though...
2) As you say in Part 5, everyone just needs to come clean and speak the truth. This whole affair makes no one look good.
To that precise end, I have three questions, one I'm curious about, one I'm confused about, and one I'm intensely concerned about, in that order:
1) You mention the article author's misrepresentations, misrecollections, and exaggerations, and I assume these refer at least in part (large part) to your involvement. Could you gives us some examples (e.g., is the cadillac one of them?);
2) Among those who may not really know, it has often been said that you were the one who purchased the papyrus for the HL; can you confirm that's not the case? And if so, can you tell us who did? (OK, that's two questions in one);
3) In your own presentations on the papyrus to public audiences in the years prior to publication you indicated that as a "liberal" scholar, I - you named me by name and indicated where I teach -- would now have to rework my entire chronology of the New Testament since I taught that Mark was the last Gospel to be written and that it was produced in 200 CE. There is not an element of truth in that: I've never taught, said, or thought any such thing in my entire life. I have always maintained Mark was the first Gospel written around 70 CE, as anyone who has ever read me knows, going back to my NT textbook in 1997. Given your insistence on speaking the truth in this whole affair, can you explain yourself? I don't know any way to read you comment (and if anyone wants to read it, there is a transcript on Brent Nongbri's blog) other than as an attempt to sully my reputation and spurn my scholarship. But it's just not true.
I know you and most readers of this blog will disagree with me when it comes to matters of faith. But at least we can be honest and truthful when having our disagreements. Maybe this 1C Mark debacle will help? Let me say for the record, in case there is any doubt (as there seems to be in some circles), if we ever *do* find 1c mss, indeed, if were were to find 27 originals, there is no one on the planet who would be more giddy and excited than I.
Bart, I owe you my most sincere apology for inadvertently misrepresenting your position on Mark.
ReplyDeleteThe 'misrepresentations, misrecollections, and exaggerations' are for CT to address. But as for the Cadillac, it was a late model Brougham that was 'given' to us by someone 15 years before HL. The electric windows and door locks didn't work and you had to exit by the sunroof.
I never bought any items for HL.
Surely seems like CT needs to revisit this article with appropriate corrections based on double-checking resources.
DeleteThanks Scott. I appreciate the apology. On the other questions, going in reverse order, (1) (for question 3) I think I didn't ask the question correctly. I understand that you didn't make any actual purchases for the HL. (I assume someone connected with them did so, signing the purchase agreement and then writing the check; but I'd be happy to be corrected on it.) What I meant to be asking whether you procured the purchase for them (I assume they relied on your expertise to know what to purchase). That would be very helpful for all of us to know. (2) I understand that CT should correct the 'misrepresentations, misrecollections, and exaggerations' but many of us would still love to know what they were, since you mentioned them. Can you give us some examples? Thanks,
DeleteHello? I believe you were asked some questions.
DeleteI asked Jerry Pattengale how many people saw the ms. He gave me permission to post his reply:
ReplyDelete“To my knowledge, very few scholars ever saw the “FCM” and other three mss firsthand —at least any scholars from the museum network. The two of us noted in the article, two reps on the OKC business side, and I believe a curator and a research leader. Also, the two other scholars that assessed it only saw images. One of Dirk’s conditions was he would handle the research in Oxford, with his normal partners, so to my knowledge no Museum associates were ever involved. Michael Holmes would know for certain. As for the executed contract, that was a business matter. I saw it for the first time last week.”
I think Pattengale should come on here and speak for himself. What is your involvement with this by the way?
DeleteBart is the only one who can accept the apology, Scott. But I believe we all deserve an account of what leads a learned person to attribute such a ridiculous claim to a colleague. Without that accounting, I'm left to assume it has something to do with evangelical apologetics, as does Wallace's debate stunt.
ReplyDeleteFor those without access to the article Jerry Pattengale recently mentioned-- "After I published 'How the Jesus Wife Hoax Fell Apart' (Wall Street Journal, 5.14.2014), Obbink and others thought I was drawing too much attention to their work, indirectly." [published actually May 1 not 14]--here is its ending:
ReplyDelete"But this episode is not totally without merit. It will provide a valuable case study for research classes long after we're gone and the biblical texts remain."
As Gordon Gecko famously said, "Information is the most valuable commodity I know of." Regarding FCM the key is who knew that EES was the owner and when. Especially important since even EES did not know until relatively recently. As a non-profit EES can be given some slack for not recognizing that Obbink's credibility as a professional had been impaired early on. Even though EES's Board is impressive they may all have honestly been able to say "It wasn't my job." Where they deserve criticism is having Obbink date FCM after knowing about his lost credibility. It needs to be immediately redated by [jk]Ehrman/Carrier[/jk].
ReplyDeleteRegarding Obbink's "alleged" sale and shortly subsequent purchase of a Castle in Waco I can't help being reminded of the classic situation in Goodfellas where after The Heist De Niro is going De Niro on everyone for their failure to lay low:
DeNiro: Johnny DOh! What did I tell you? Lay low. You didn't just buy a mink coat or a Cadillac, you bought a !@#$%^&*()_+! Castle! In Waco where your new appointment is.
On the other hand, in Obbink's defense, the world does not run only on written contracts. There is something else often used called "understandings". There may very well have been understandings between Obbink and EES and/or Obbink and Green, or at least part of EES and Green.
I am mentioned in this article, but my recollections are a bit different.
ReplyDeletePeter Head
“Peter Head, then at Tyndale House, Cambridge, candidly noted keeping “among the earliest” New Testament pieces confidential would be difficult—candor I appreciated.”
DeleteWhy is JP bringing your name into this? When was this conversation?
I think what Jerry was trying to say (in connection with me) is that he consulted with "expert" opinion, meaning Dan Wallace and other unnamed "experts" (indicated in phrases like "Neither he nor anyone else ..." and "The other scholars sat with me at different times and places ..."). He had a conversation with me which other than some vanilla "candor" came to nothing because I wasn't happy with a nondisclosure agreement ("Head and I mutually agreed not to have him involved.").
DeleteThat is how I would parse that section of the article.
There may be other ways to interpret what was said.
Delete“Peter Head, then at Tyndale House, Cambridge, candidly noted keeping “among the earliest” New Testament pieces confidential would be difficult—candor I appreciated. Since nondisclosure was a non-negotiable from Obbink (allegedly on the part of the owners), Head and I mutually agreed not to have him involved.”
DeleteThis is one among many things I find confusing in the article. You and Pattengale mutually agreed to not have *who* involved? You? He’s not explaining that an NDA is a problem for you, so you both decided it would be best to keep you out of it. It could also be taken as not having Obbink involved—as in not bringing Obbink’s name into the public eye since he requires an NDA. He’s also suggesting that you knew ahead of time that Obbink had possession of 1Mark and required an NDA. If that’s the case, is he also suggesting that you could have spoken up long before now and been more forthcoming? It’s difficult to figure out what Pattengale is trying to get across. Is he being vague on purpose and trying to make us all read in between the lines? If so, then he’s not really breaking his silence. He’s just causing even more confusion. Half of the content in the article detracted from its main point and, even worse, he spends a lot of time bragging about himself.
I agree that some of this is confusing. I was presumably there at the time and I was confused by this account of our many fruitful and friendly discussions.
DeleteBut I can say with some confidence that the "him" in "not to have him involved" refers to Head (on historical grounds at least if not syntactical ones). I clearly remember not being involved! (Of course I may have carefully studied the FCM fragment and then forgotten all about it. I have done that with other manuscripts, it is just so hard to keep track.)
But Pattengale told you that FCM was owned by Obbink, right?
Deleteno
DeletePattengale should write a follow-up article clearing up all this confusion.
DeleteWhy? Who cares?
DeleteBecause the article didn’t make much sense. If people didn’t care, they wouldn’t blog and write news pieces about it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on the state of American Evangelism and the 'cultural war' that created the monster that is 'First Century Mark' - 'Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, daß er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird.'
ReplyDelete