tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post7708454376387906441..comments2024-03-28T15:48:18.205+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Craig Evans on Mark FragmentP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-15612742319516246292018-09-08T00:44:35.719+01:002018-09-08T00:44:35.719+01:00And just before the quoted part he says 150 years ...And just before the quoted part he says 150 years is 'the minimum longevity'! See https://books.google.com/books?id=qkw1CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT26&lpg=PT27 .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55520341841572951502018-09-07T23:00:51.871+01:002018-09-07T23:00:51.871+01:00It's possible. But, Evans builds an entire the...It's possible. But, Evans builds an entire thesis on the basis of a mere possibility, and that is problematic. More egregious is the claim in Evans' book, "God Speaks," where he says: "This means that when these copies were made, *the original writings were still available for study, comparison, and copying*" (emphasis his). Evans is here presenting this as a historical fact ("were still available") and not a historical possibility. Brice C. Joneshttp://bricecjones.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-43820250519958307922018-09-06T14:10:49.171+01:002018-09-06T14:10:49.171+01:00Why is it wrong to think an autograph manuscript *...Why is it wrong to think an autograph manuscript *could* last 300 years when we have many manuscripts that have, in fact, lasted 2,000 years? This seems the least problematic part of his thesis. Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-15378570391524985722018-09-06T09:39:14.638+01:002018-09-06T09:39:14.638+01:00Peter M Head,
Okay; there's some sort of &quo...Peter M Head, <br />Okay; there's some sort of "Not Secure" problem with the linked-to article but I know the material you're referring to, and Anonymous further pointed out some additional data in Houston's "Roman Libraries" book. <br /><br />Evans' case for autograph-preservation depends on some generous assumptions, to put it mildly. For one thing, Christian literature was contraband; books by Epicurean philosophers weren't. James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-67828787965495601682018-09-06T09:07:46.876+01:002018-09-06T09:07:46.876+01:00Not the post, "the article linked" in th...Not the post, "the article linked" in the post. As I just said. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70441464640279025572018-09-05T21:39:38.894+01:002018-09-05T21:39:38.894+01:00Anonymous,
Thanks. So, on page 123, Houston state...Anonymous,<br />Thanks. So, on page 123, Houston states (in Inside Roman Libraries) that among the scrolls at Herculaneum, three were copies in the third century B.C., six were copies in the third or second century B.C., and 23 copies were produced in the second century B.C. <br /><br />So reckoning that a scroll that was 300 years old in A.D. 69 would have to have been made in 231 B.C. or earlier, it seems that the claim that we have dozens of 300-year-old scrolls at Herculaneum is wrong.<br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8066517171437779002018-09-05T17:50:09.642+01:002018-09-05T17:50:09.642+01:00Try https://books.google.com/books?id=z0KbBAAAQBAJ...Try https://books.google.com/books?id=z0KbBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA122&redir_esc=y (stage one).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8050180262681784232018-09-05T17:48:03.739+01:002018-09-05T17:48:03.739+01:00Dr. Craig Evans, Sept. 2018, re: Mk. 16:9-20: &q...Dr. Craig Evans, Sept. 2018, re: Mk. 16:9-20: "I really don't know; I suspect Mark did not originally end at 16:8. I suspect that verses 9-20 do represent a later construction. But those verses may contain parts of an original conclusion, and how that original conclusion got lost, I don't know. So, see, I don't have a real simple, straightforward answer for this one."<br /><br />Craig Evans, May 2018, re: Mk. 16:9-20 and Jn. 7:53-8:11: "“There are only two passages of any length where there is any doubt. But there is no doubt, because the manuscript evidence is so substantial and so early, we can identify them as ringers; they don’t really belong in the text.”<br /><br />Granting that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, who wants to build on that? And what he claimed about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and their formatting at the end of Mark is not right; Vaticanus has a blank column but Sinaiticus does not; much of the last column after 16:8 in Sinaiticus is blank but it was the copyists' normal practice to leave blank space below the end of a book before starting the next book at the top of a new column. Sinaiticus' unusual anomalous feature is not a fully blank column (as anyone glancing at the relevant page can see); it is that the scribe who made the cancel-sheet that contains Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 make a special effort to avoid leaving a blank column (as I explain at http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2015/09/codex-sinaiticus-and-ending-of-mark.html ).<br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70381801106486913162018-09-05T17:26:56.167+01:002018-09-05T17:26:56.167+01:00An hour into the interview, Dr. Evans says that we...An hour into the interview, Dr. Evans says that we have, among the carbonized scrolls from Herculaneum, dozens of scrolls that were 200, and even 300 years old, at the time Mt. Vesuvius erupted. Can anyone here confirm this?James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45298691586489911392018-09-05T17:15:31.658+01:002018-09-05T17:15:31.658+01:00Peter M. Head,
Except there is no mention of Herc...Peter M. Head, <br />Except there is no mention of Herculaneum in that post; nor are there any specifics about the age of the scrolls, or their contents. So, again ... could anyone provide specifics on what scrolls from Herculaneum Dr. Evans is describing? James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8314900139699890622018-09-05T12:11:39.609+01:002018-09-05T12:11:39.609+01:00I think that is undoubtedly true. Clearly he didn&...I think that is undoubtedly true. Clearly he didn't know what he was talking about. But to be able to speak with such confidence when you really don't know what you are talking about, that is worrying - not only for the scholar concerned, but for what it communicates to students. <br /><br />Also , for myself I don't like this ambiguous and misleading use of "we". I set myself against using such a presumptious and false way of speaking. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-58920475048092182242018-09-05T11:58:58.938+01:002018-09-05T11:58:58.938+01:00Details in the article linked here: http://evangel...Details in the article linked here: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/05/new-article-evans-on-books-autographs.html<br />Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-22762136168721454572018-09-05T10:12:34.231+01:002018-09-05T10:12:34.231+01:00Could anyone provide specifics on what scrolls fro...Could anyone provide specifics on what scrolls from Herculaneum Dr. Evans is describing?James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26593760754942746592018-09-05T10:03:11.328+01:002018-09-05T10:03:11.328+01:00Craig Evans in 2014 (at https://www.youtube.com/wa...Craig Evans in 2014 (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPgACbtRRs ) : "It was from one of these masks that we recovered a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that is dated to the 80s."<br /><br />Craig Evans 2018: "We don't know where Mark came from; there was confusion about that Mark fragment."<br /><br />And who contributed significantly to that confusion?? Dr. Craig Evans did!<br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-41127113346254166462018-09-04T15:42:20.849+01:002018-09-04T15:42:20.849+01:00Dr. Wallace,
At any point will you be free to dis...Dr. Wallace,<br /><br />At any point will you be free to discuss what you were told regarding the provenance of the text and who conveyed it to you?D. Bradnicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87294069854446237442018-09-04T09:01:44.153+01:002018-09-04T09:01:44.153+01:00Kudos again to Dan Wallace for his straightforward...Kudos again to Dan Wallace for his straightforward approach to setting things right. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-5956536733320218312018-09-03T16:59:00.869+01:002018-09-03T16:59:00.869+01:00Could you say around what time in the video that i...Could you say around what time in the video that is?Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37128991852067963122018-09-03T16:13:14.204+01:002018-09-03T16:13:14.204+01:00Also, this means we still don’t know where he got ...Also, this means we still don’t know where he got his info from.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-19811507025320846252018-09-03T16:11:55.526+01:002018-09-03T16:11:55.526+01:00Thanks for clarifying that, Dan. I’ll make a note ...Thanks for clarifying that, Dan. I’ll make a note in the post.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37418694913983371452018-09-03T16:04:05.676+01:002018-09-03T16:04:05.676+01:00By the way, Evans does not argue that mss last for...By the way, Evans does not argue that mss last for 100-300 years as he states in the interview. Rather he argues that "autographs and first copies" lasted 100-300 years as he states in his BBR article. That's a big difference.Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75960156776417305892018-09-03T14:28:19.546+01:002018-09-03T14:28:19.546+01:00The earlier section is also interesting. Evans see...The earlier section is also interesting. Evans seems to think that to insist on the straight-forward historicity of John's gospel is obscurantist fundamentalism. He treats it like a wisdom parable. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77222834993727106642018-09-03T01:28:13.454+01:002018-09-03T01:28:13.454+01:00Me a "smart aleck"? No, just a "wis...Me a "smart aleck"? No, just a "wise guy." ;)Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68777917994532706232018-09-02T23:04:25.715+01:002018-09-02T23:04:25.715+01:00A couple of the things Evans says suggest that he&...A couple of the things Evans says suggest that he's referring to things Wallace said after signing the NDA, namely the fact that he claims Wallace told him he had seen it and the fact that Wallace at that time told him it had a date range of first to second century, as opposed to strictly first century, which Wallace insists he was initially told.<br /><br />However, in an informal question and answer session like this, where Evans is speaking about conversations from 6-7 years ago, he could easily misremember details like those, or mix together things from those older conversations with things he learned later.<br /><br />I think Wallace was *a* source of Evans's. But I doubt that he was the source for the mummy mask claim. I think that when Evans made that mummy mask claim he was mixing together things that he had learned second-hand from more than one source.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-58854040764365953762018-09-02T21:59:33.541+01:002018-09-02T21:59:33.541+01:00I was not the source of information for Craig Evan...I was not the source of information for Craig Evans. He was mistaken. Honest mistake on his part, but as he told me via email yesterday (Sep 1, 2018) "I am probably conflating conversations from different times (and perhaps different people!)." He added that he knew I have been diligent to keep my word on the gag order. His main point in the podcast was that he was not the source for the dating or for breaking the story. Daniel B. Wallacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-25633392383026090282018-09-02T20:54:23.233+01:002018-09-02T20:54:23.233+01:00I might be able to add a little something here. D...I might be able to add a little something here. Dr. Wallace and I went to Greece together the summer of 2017. He allowed me to help him prepare manuscripts for photography. During that 8 day trip we were together for many, many hours and I asked him privately about the Mark document. He simply said that he could not tell me. If he wouldn't tell me when we are sitting in the hills of Greece totally by ourselves, I am very confident that Dr. Wallace did not violate the agreement that he had signed. I am certainly willing to go on record as believing that Wallace did nothing wrong and was simply caught up in a very bad situation.Sam Lamersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034619796782610512noreply@blogger.com