tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1082615631676976862..comments2024-03-17T17:46:24.354+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: “First-Century Mark,” Published at Last? [Updated]P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger167125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2980514670180109252018-12-29T01:59:05.423+00:002018-12-29T01:59:05.423+00:00Or someone is lyingOr someone is lyingsp1ke0kill3rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02061770610850492018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24322938465350090002018-12-29T01:57:51.245+00:002018-12-29T01:57:51.245+00:00Some mught wonder if Dr. Carol got it backwards. P...Some mught wonder if Dr. Carol got it backwards. Perhaps Dr Caroll, in conversations with Obink heard what he wanted to hear concerning his being able to acquire it for the Greens.sp1ke0kill3rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02061770610850492018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20527455803249830042018-06-12T18:59:30.757+01:002018-06-12T18:59:30.757+01:00Nope. Just got caught in moderation and I didn’t s...Nope. Just got caught in moderation and I didn’t see it.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77292386026042914612018-06-12T16:17:21.095+01:002018-06-12T16:17:21.095+01:00Why aren't you publishing my comments? Did I ...Why aren't you publishing my comments? Did I say something offensive?Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54796203307033396182018-06-12T05:25:21.963+01:002018-06-12T05:25:21.963+01:00Dan Wallace says this on his blog:
"-It is t...Dan Wallace says this on his blog:<br /><br />"-It is true that I never signed an NDA with the EES. The NDA I signed was with Jerry Pattengale, who represented a major collection that was interested in purchasing the papyrus.<br /><br />-Pattengale was not the representative of this collection whom I had met just prior to my debate with Bart Ehrman. That representative was the one who assured me that the fragment was definitely dated to the first century. Had I known that the first-century date was not certain, I never would have said that it was in the debate."<br /><br />Why doesn't he disclose who this second "representative" was? Was he/she someone claiming to represent Pattengale?Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77239667066990679142018-06-11T17:09:57.313+01:002018-06-11T17:09:57.313+01:00Dan Wallace has now confirmed that his NDA was sig...Dan Wallace has now confirmed that his NDA was signed with the Hobby Lobby Clan, ie, more specifically, with Jerry Pattengale, who was at that time the Executive Director of the Green Scholar Initiative.<br /><br />https://danielbwallace.com/2018/06/11/first-century-mark-fragment-second-update/<br /><br />This supports the earlier suspicion, based also on a Wallace radio interview, that the NDA likely also included publishing access to other papyri that remained subject to the NDA. I imagine Dan sought permission to reveal the other party of the NDA. <br /><br />Dan focuses attention on the other obvious question raised above. Who gave the Hobby Lobby Clan the idea that they might be able to purchase ��137, even providing them with photographs of the fragment or at least allowing their representative to photograph it? It is now doubtful that this could have happened without the knowledge of Dirk Obbink, who has also worked as a consultant to the Hobby Lobby Clan.Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86480625566989628722018-06-10T19:29:02.036+01:002018-06-10T19:29:02.036+01:00upvoted Aractus for hitting the nail on the head r...upvoted Aractus for hitting the nail on the head regarding the integrity of much of the academia.Interested Partyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12428033884078602222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57518600155748339072018-06-08T18:11:44.575+01:002018-06-08T18:11:44.575+01:00I am waiting for the day when we uncover a papyrus...I am waiting for the day when we uncover a papyrus with a drawing of the Goat Stag.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50808104452699985122018-06-07T16:16:37.327+01:002018-06-07T16:16:37.327+01:00Okay, let's think about this. Scott Carroll, w...Okay, let's think about this. Scott Carroll, who was shown the manuscript by Obbink at Oxford (this is confirmed by both parties), has never claimed to have been under an NDA with EES or Obbink. In fact, at the National Apologetics Conference in 2015, Carroll not only discussed the "FCM" manuscript, he also specifically named Dirk Obbink as the "most important person" involved in the study of the fragment! This type of behavior and level of disclosure is entirely consistent with EES' claim that they were not aware of any nondisclosure agreements. Contrast this with the claims of Daniel Wallace, who now says he was under an NDA so restrictive that he was not even permitted to acknowledge the existence of the manuscript! In other words, it would make no sense for EES to allow Scott Carroll, after being shown the manuscript, to publicly discuss the particulars of the MS and the ongoing study of the fragment, but not allow Wallace to even acknowledge its existence. If Wallace was in fact under an NDA, it almost certainly was not with EES or Obbink. That much seems obvious.<br /><br />You write: “May be Obbink opined that he agrees with the provisional dating pending further studies.”<br /><br />First of all, Obbink would never have done that. Secondly, that’s not what Wallace actually claimed in the Ehrman debate in 2012. What Wallace actually claimed was that the greatest paleographer on Earth was <b><i>certain</i></b> about the first century dating, not that he was merely okay with a provisional first century dating “pending further studies.” Wallace’s initial claim in the 2012 debate implied that the necessary studies had already been concluded and that the manuscript was to be published the following year (which would have been 2013) by Brill Publishing, which was not even the right publisher, as it turns out.<br /> <br />Also, you write: "From the original EES statement we can conclude that others who publicly talked about this fragment were also part of the team which visited Oxford. We do not know if they were required to sign an NDA, but Evans once claimed that there were around two dozen consultants involved in the study of this fragment apart from the main experts. They were most probably connected with MOTB. So most likely they all signed NDA."<br /><br />Hopefully you realize that Evans didn't actually know what he was talking about. You do realize that, right? Evans was convinced the entire time that "FCM" was extracted from a mummy mask--the infamous "mummy Gospel" as it were! Yet, in 2015 Evans admitted he had never actually seen the alleged FCM fragment. Evans had no idea what he was talking about, was never involved with the "real" FCM (now known as P137 dated to the 2nd-3rd century). As it turns out, Evans never knew anything, and frankly we should probably dismiss everything he has ever said about the matter. <br /><br />Here is the original story from the <i>Live Science</i> article: “The first-century gospel is one of hundreds of new texts that a team of about three-dozen scientists and scholars is working to uncover, and analyze, <b><i>by using this technique of ungluing the masks</i></b>, said Craig Evans, a professor of New Testament studies at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.” <br /><br />Clearly, the “three-dozen scientists and scholars” cited by Evans (and also by you) were not even working on the right project! The real FCM project, the publishing of P137 from the Oxyrhynchus stash, never had anything at all to do with “ungluing mummy masks” and extracting a first century fragment of Mark! As it turns out, there never was any first century “mummy Gospel” at all! The whole thing was a sham! In other words, we can safely conclude that neither Craig Evans, nor this group of three-dozen scientists who were dismantling mummy cartonnage, were ever shown the real manuscript by Obbink at Oxford. Therefore, there is no reason whatever to believe any of these people were parties to nondisclosure agreements with EES or Obbink.<br />JoshuaJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-41277164337554135782018-06-07T05:28:14.975+01:002018-06-07T05:28:14.975+01:00You are assuming that Dr. Obbink played no active ...You are assuming that Dr. Obbink played no active role in all of this. We should critically evaluate the the claims of EES / Obbink also not just the claims of Wallce / Carroll / Evans Habermas. May be Obbink opined that he agrees with the provisional dating pending further studies. From the original EES statement we can conclude that others who publicly talked about this fragment were also part of the team which visited Oxford. We do not know if they were required to sign an NDA, but Evans once claimed that there were around two dozen consultants involved in the study of this fragment apart from the main experts. They were most probably connected with MOTB. So most likely they all signed NDA.Denish Sebastianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01103437580104065849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74021147237508763902018-06-06T23:06:53.231+01:002018-06-06T23:06:53.231+01:00Another reason for thinking Wallace was not counte...Another reason for thinking Wallace was not counted among those visitors to Oxford to be shown the manuscript by Obbink is the fact that none of the other visitors who were shown the fragment were required to sign an NDA, apparently. And yet, Wallace claims he was shown the fragment only under the condition that he would agree to an NDA, which apparently included a clause that Wallace could not even acknowledge the existence of the manuscript. JoshuaJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91938765004131411292018-06-06T22:16:57.006+01:002018-06-06T22:16:57.006+01:00Great question! I assume they're referring to ...Great question! I assume they're referring to Carroll in their earlier statement, but it would be interesting to know who else might be included in that group of "visitors" other than Carroll.<br /><br />The reason I would not think Wallace was included in that group of "visitors" is the following portion of the earlier EES statement: "...which some of them reported in talks and on social media as possibly dating to the late first century AD <b>on the basis of a provisional dating when the text was catalogued many years ago.</b>"<br /><br />Recall Wallace initially based his claims in the Ehrman debate, and later on his blog, on the alleged <b>recent</b> findings of a "world-class paleographer" who had become "certain" about the first century dating. Wallace's claims were never made on the basis of "a provisional dating when the text was catalogued many years ago." <br /><br />But yes, I would absolutely love to know all the individuals who were shown the manuscript by Obbink. That would be an important piece to the puzzle. JoshuaJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1304852607435669202018-06-06T20:53:40.457+01:002018-06-06T20:53:40.457+01:00I'm confused about an apparent contradiction i...I'm confused about an apparent contradiction in the earlier and more recent statements by EES:<br /><br /><br />"This is the same text that Professor Obbink showed <i>to some visitors to Oxford in 2011/12, which some of them reported</i> in talks and on social media as possibly dating to the late first century AD on the basis of a provisional dating when the text was catalogued many years ago."<br /><br />"Professor Obbink says that he did show the papyrus in his rooms (where it was temporarily for teaching purposes) to Scott Carroll, <i>but to no-one else except some Oxford students.</i> <br /><br />Other than Oxford students, was Scott Carroll the only visitor who was shown the papyrus or were there multiple non-Oxford student visitors who were shown the papyrus by Dirk Obbink?Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17357168176521213442018-06-06T19:40:08.716+01:002018-06-06T19:40:08.716+01:00You write: "I find Dan Wallace's claims t...You write: "I find Dan Wallace's claims that he was encouraged to announce the (hearsay/good authority) ms at the debate, that he later signed a NDA, and that he still later (but pre-publication)saw the ms (whether the ms itself or a photograph?) as entirely possible."<br /><br />Well of course it's possible. I never said it wasn't. What I am pointing out specifically is the bizarre clause in the alleged NDA that precluded Wallace from acknowledging the existence of something that he had already proclaimed to the world existed! In other words, the cat was already out of the bag! So that particular feature of the alleged NDA makes no sense! Wallace writes in his blog: "I was told in the non-disclosure agreement not to speak about when it would be published or <b>whether it even exists</b>." Do you not find that strange, especially in light of Wallace's claim that he was initially encouraged to publicize the manuscript? <br /><br />As to whether or not Wallace claims to have seen the actual manuscript itself or a photograph (which you seem to question in your comment above), read what Wallace writes in his blog: "Later in 2012 I did get the opportunity to see the manuscript. I was allowed to see it only after I signed a non-disclosure agreement... With only a few minutes <b>looking at the papyrus</b>, and no permission to take pictures, I too had to wait, like everyone else, to see the publication."<br /><br />Clearly, Wallace is claiming to have seen the actual manuscript itself, not a mere photograph. Again, this does not square with the EES statements. Frankly, there is no reason to think there is any congruence between Wallace's story and the statements made by EES. JoshuaJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46852982686409131862018-06-06T13:50:59.338+01:002018-06-06T13:50:59.338+01:00Correction: "properly obtain."Correction: "properly obtain."Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24802000167926216922018-06-06T13:45:57.623+01:002018-06-06T13:45:57.623+01:00I find Dan Wallace's claims that he was encour...I find Dan Wallace's claims that he was encouraged to announce the (hearsay/good authority) ms at the debate, that he later signed a NDA, and that he still later (but pre-publication)saw the ms (whether the ms itself or a photograph?) as entirely possible. The less understandable parts, so far, include why some non-EES-authorized entity *may* have presumed proprietary rights that did not property obtain.Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13256748891033645012018-06-06T06:11:45.448+01:002018-06-06T06:11:45.448+01:00Considering the level of deception involved in thi...Considering the level of deception involved in this subject, when we analyze this whole drama, we need to take into consideration the potential of the main participants in the controversy to bring the deception to its climax. These people are not some street preachers or independent "amateur researchers". They are scholars in their own right and are holding responsible positions in the academia with a reputation to protect. It doesn't mean that they will not involve in any unethical activities. But it is completely illogical to believe that such people will initiate an unethical activity that they have no potential to bring into its climax. Thus even when the details are missing we can easily recognize the most likely original source of this deception. The remaining task is just to ask once more loudly "Did the Oxford Papyrologist fooled the Christian Apologists?" Here is what I think - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQbfWk0IavMDenish Sebastianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01103437580104065849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51940573719677006762018-06-06T06:07:37.913+01:002018-06-06T06:07:37.913+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Denish Sebastianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01103437580104065849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-42343696683685709852018-06-05T21:37:59.249+01:002018-06-05T21:37:59.249+01:00I’m starting to think there never was any NDA at a...I’m starting to think there never was any NDA at all and that Wallace never actually saw the manuscript prior to its publication. There are so many things in Wallace’s story that do not square with the most recent response from EES.<br /><br />What is striking about Wallace’s own statement on his blog is his claim that he was initially authorized and even encouraged to disclose the existence of FCM in his debate with Ehrman in order to make it “go viral”, but that he later signed an NDA (in order to see the fragment) that precluded him from saying anything “about when it would be published or <b>whether it even exists</b>.” So he was initially authorized and encouraged to disclose the fragment’s existence in hopes of creating widespread publicity, but later not allowed to speak about the fragment’s existence per the NDA? This makes little sense, unless Wallace means to suggest that the counterparty to his NDA was not the same person/group who initially told him about the fragment and encouraged its disclosure.<br /><br />Whatever the case, the version of the story offered by Wallace does not at all square with the responses from EES. Someone is lying.JoshuaJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47618503230714716632018-06-05T09:14:00.388+01:002018-06-05T09:14:00.388+01:00https://twitter.com/johnpauldickson/status/1001915...https://twitter.com/johnpauldickson/status/1001915331420581889<br /><br />John Dickson seems to have had his hands on it quite recently.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06829809460140833888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53354711412118661522018-06-04T19:08:21.241+01:002018-06-04T19:08:21.241+01:00You indicate in your statement that "The iden...You indicate in your statement that "The identification of the fragment as Mark was made in 2011 by a researcher working for Professor Obbink, then one of the General Editors of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series."<br /><br />Is it possible that this "researcher" is the counterparty to Wallace's NDA? Wallace claims to have signed an NDA in order to see the fragment, but your statement indicates Obbink only showed it to Carroll and some Oxford students. So if Obbink didn't show Wallace the fragment, someone else must have (the mystery "researcher"?). Otherwise, it seems as though Wallace is lying about the NDA (which also suggests that he never actually saw the fragment). To your knowledge, did Wallace ever actually see the fragment prior to its publishing. If so, when?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44890870525730151622018-06-04T17:24:25.731+01:002018-06-04T17:24:25.731+01:00Now will Steve Green, among others, comment for th...Now will Steve Green, among others, comment for the record?Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-79836167158853696062018-06-04T17:14:47.425+01:002018-06-04T17:14:47.425+01:00Thank you, EES.Thank you, EES.Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76665130959751051682018-06-04T16:10:16.346+01:002018-06-04T16:10:16.346+01:00Please find a statement regarding the papyrus and ...Please find a statement regarding the papyrus and questions raised here now available on our website here: https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/poxy-lxxxiii-5345 The Egypt Exploration Societyhttp://www.ees.ac.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13639599559475247422018-05-30T17:53:38.398+01:002018-05-30T17:53:38.398+01:00One factor may be when it was cleaned.
If availab...One factor may be when it was cleaned. <br />If available, has anyone asked Revel A. Coles? Whether remembering an early codex, etc.Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.com