tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post9040774177864581453..comments2024-03-29T00:57:56.876+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: First century Mark fragment and extensive papyrus/i?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38369824217018300782012-03-05T21:52:44.802+00:002012-03-05T21:52:44.802+00:00A new interview with Dan Wallace aired yesterday o...A new interview with Dan Wallace aired yesterday on Stand To Reason. He discusses the new manuscript discoveries and touches upon some of the issues raised in this thread. You can access a link to it below. When you go to the website you can access the interview near the top left of the page where it says “This Week’s Broadcast” or scroll down a little to “Archived Broadcasts.” The interview with Dan Wallace begins around 1:52:00. <br />http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Radio_ArchivesStephen Joynerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01473376300117847506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84219549092380033312012-02-29T03:32:39.135+00:002012-02-29T03:32:39.135+00:00Hi,
And another problem was mixing the 43% creati...Hi,<br /><br />And another problem was mixing the 43% creative math in with the announcement of the new papyri.<br /><br />This was clearly designed to give the false impression (as received by some posters here) that the new stuff was large. <br /><br />When we actually do not know if it is a word, a verse, or what.<br /><br />And whether, as seems likely, it is yet another example of opportunistic dating, similar to using P46 P66 P72 P75 in a second-century claim.<br /><br />Shalom,<br />StevenSteven Averyhttp://purebible.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86749193109268072072012-02-29T03:27:30.300+00:002012-02-29T03:27:30.300+00:00Hi Folks,
In any discussion of the 43% claim by 2...Hi Folks,<br /><br />In any discussion of the 43% claim by 200 AD (in one place Daniel talked of a century after the completion of the NT - apparently playing around with a late date of Revelation, itself not included in these texts, to get close to 200 AD) ....you really have only four papyri with a large body of text:<br /><br />P46 P66 P72 P75 <br /><br />These four supply over 90% of the "43%".<br /><br />And these are more considered as 3rd century than 2nd, making the whole claim smoke and mirrors (ie. word-parsing trickery). Wording designed to deceive should simply be exposed.<br /><br />(This is without getting into the misplaced significance of the whole issue.)<br /><br />Shalom,<br />Steven AverySteven Averyhttp://purebible.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71934166407373363252012-02-24T21:02:08.436+00:002012-02-24T21:02:08.436+00:00Here is a recent interview with Dr. Wallace about ...Here is a recent interview with Dr. Wallace about the Mark fragment. http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/6773121a-35c4-4de2-8ab2-0a3d7b535b6fStephen Joynerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01473376300117847506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70402913120805318112012-02-17T15:23:07.643+00:002012-02-17T15:23:07.643+00:00Congratulations, Matthew, for the 50th comment on ...Congratulations, Matthew, for the 50th comment on the question of the 43 per cent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48990570478860893772012-02-16T20:08:43.604+00:002012-02-16T20:08:43.604+00:00Darrell,
I only quoted what Ben Witherington had ...Darrell,<br /><br />I only quoted what Ben Witherington had to say as it contained possibly the first bit of information on who the anonymous person who dated the Mark fragment is "An epigrapher from Oxford". The "epigrapher" part is a bit of a problem unless Ben Witherington meant to say palaeographer, in which case, could he be refering to Dirk Obbink?<br /><br />Regards,<br />Matthew HamiltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-60627111629050299032012-02-16T19:35:39.855+00:002012-02-16T19:35:39.855+00:00Darrell:
You mean 147 out of 661 verses. NA27, 01,...Darrell:<br />You mean 147 out of 661 verses. NA27, 01, & 03 only have 661 verses in Mark.<br /><br />--You are right. I was thinking in terms of verses in the Majority Text, which is what I use to collate.Darrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-29624149141051217572012-02-16T13:20:31.375+00:002012-02-16T13:20:31.375+00:00According to the blog post Matthew mentioned, toge...According to the blog post Matthew mentioned, together with the comments, also claimed:<br />A NT fragment other than Mark, first century, codex.<br />Qumran (papyrus?) mss.<br />A lost work of Aristotle.<br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/02/15/the-ripening-of-the-green-collection/Stephen Goransonhttp://www.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-52149626189502044712012-02-16T05:19:42.460+00:002012-02-16T05:19:42.460+00:00Darrell:
You mean 147 out of 661 verses. NA27, 01,...Darrell:<br />You mean 147 out of 661 verses. NA27, 01, & 03 only have 661 verses in Mark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-43460500911141385192012-02-15T23:10:12.374+00:002012-02-15T23:10:12.374+00:00Matthew,
Wait a minute, he said "even if it...Matthew, <br /><br />Wait a minute, he said "even if it were from the second-third century it would still be the earliest evidence of this size"?<br /><br />Isn't P45 dated to the second-third century? P45 contains witness to 22% of Mark's gospel. 147 verses out of 678 by my count. Is he saying that this new manuscript contains as much of Mark's gospel as P45? 22% of Mark?Darrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-3141815024585301532012-02-15T21:18:02.996+00:002012-02-15T21:18:02.996+00:00Over on Bible and Culture Ben Witherington had thi...Over on Bible and Culture Ben Witherington had this to say:<br />"The brief lecture by Scott Carroll at GCTS Charlotte last Friday night highlighted some of the most exciting aspects of the Green Collection. It is possible that a very early copy of the Gospel of Mark in Greek, possibly the very earliest is a part of this collection. An epigrapher from Oxford has already prepared to say that it is a first century copy! While I doubt this, and various eyes will need to go over the manuscript before any firm conclusion can be drawn, even if it were from the second-third century it would still be the earliest evidence of this size (it does not include the whole Gospel, sadly it does not include Mark 16) that we have."<br /><br />Regards,<br />Matthew HamiltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40418173513595710352012-02-14T18:50:49.589+00:002012-02-14T18:50:49.589+00:00Dr. Wallace’s announcement of new discoveries is a...Dr. Wallace’s announcement of new discoveries is at 1:13:40 and Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Wallace discuss it briefly at 1:48:10.Stephen Joynerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01473376300117847506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51459697761062977992012-02-14T18:04:58.587+00:002012-02-14T18:04:58.587+00:00The debate where Dr. Wallace announces new manuscr...The debate where Dr. Wallace announces new manuscript discoveries, including a possible 1st Century Mark, is now online.See it here---> http://youtu.be/kg-dJA3SnTAStephen Joynerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01473376300117847506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38706498831203407902012-02-13T23:27:30.544+00:002012-02-13T23:27:30.544+00:00Something should be kept front and center in the d...Something should be kept front and center in the descriptions of those early papyri described as "extensive" -- the important qualifying adverbs which were in Dr. Wallace's article, but which may have gotten misplaced somehow in the thoughts which some attendees might have taken home from the debate: the adverbs "possibly or definitely."<br /><br />In the article, he listed MSS which the INT people have listed as "probably or definitely" from the second century:<br /><br />P52, P90, P104, P66, P46, P64+67, <br />P77, P103, 0189, P98. <br /><br />Of those 10 (figuring 64 and 67 are pieces of the same MS), P66 is considered "c. AD 175-225" and thus *possibly* second-century. 0189 is called "2nd or 3rd century." And P46 is "ca. 200," as likely to be early third-century as late second-century. <br /><br />So the ones that are securely said to be second-century MSS are P52, P90, P104, P64+67, P77, P103, and P98. <br /><br />Then he offers P4 as "probably" second-century, and P32 as a MS for which a production-date in the second century is "possible." Then he mentioned that Herbert Hunger thought that P66 was produced no later than the mid-100's. And, finally, he submitted P75, on the grounds that its original editors estimated its date to be in the late second or early third centuries.<br /> <br />Remove those /possibly/ and /likely/ items from the equation, and then ask, "How many verses of the NT are represented by MSS *securely* dated to the 100's? What percentage of the New Testament's verses does that amount to, even counting parts of verses as whole verses?"<br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />James Snapp, Jr.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49732048246968970702012-02-13T22:44:32.817+00:002012-02-13T22:44:32.817+00:00To expand upon my comment at the current conclusio...To expand upon my comment at the current conclusion of the "Mark 1:41 and Ehrman" comments:<br /><br />While no one should ever think that Dan would advocate the originality of the Byzantine Textform, I <i>do</i> consider his comment (repeated by Jim Raymond) to seriously weaken Dan's own advocacy of Mk 1:41 ORGISQEIS, given that such is found only in a single Greek MS (Codex Bezae). <br /><br />Since Dan's point involved a specific hypothetical in which a <i>single</i> Greek MS (papyrus or otherwise) happened to read a particular word "while all other manuscripts" differed, why should not the same conclusion follow in the Mk 1:41 instance -- namely, that "New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts"?maurice a robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207682737855397058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21126081229908778162012-02-13T22:23:05.397+00:002012-02-13T22:23:05.397+00:00Bob,
You wrote: I would presume the 4 were p66, 0...Bob,<br /><br />You wrote: I would presume the 4 were p66, 0189, p75, and p32. I'm not clear if Brett included this in the 2nd century or the 3rd century calculations.<br /><br />2nd Century.<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02629846299168729972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50918042722491963262012-02-13T22:21:39.865+00:002012-02-13T22:21:39.865+00:00Jim,
You have misunderstood Dan's point of &q...Jim,<br /><br />You have misunderstood Dan's point of "the Lord" or "Jesus." In the illustration, Dan is saying that in this instance, "the Lord" is a singular reading, and "Jesus" is in all of the other 475 mss containing this verse. No implication at all regarding the Byz mss in this illustration.<br /><br />Your comment regarding the statement by Dan, "we [are] confident of the original because we've known and accepted it for such a long time..." This doesn't strike me as a comment Dan would make, but perhaps it was in a unique context. <br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02629846299168729972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-3956966014198463602012-02-13T19:55:25.196+00:002012-02-13T19:55:25.196+00:00Dr Wallace's list of 2nd century manuscripts i...Dr Wallace's list of 2nd century manuscripts is published here:<br /><br /><a href="http://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri" rel="nofollow">http://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri</a><br /><br />Though I'm not sure it clears things up. The list includes 10 manuscripts (p65/p67 listed as one manuscript), and then adds 3 more a possibilities (p4, p32, and p75). He acknowledges you could count p4 with p65/p67.<br /><br />In <a href="http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/05/dan-wallace-in-jets.html" rel="nofollow">http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/05/dan-wallace-in-jets.html</a><br /><br />Peter Head reposted a message from Brett that said the list he worked with was 12 manuscripts:<br /><br />“(MSS that are possibly prior to 200 are in italics; the rest are in regular type). Of the 12 manuscripts on Dan’s list, 8 were in italics and 4 were in regular type."<br /><br />I would presume the 4 were p66, 0189, p75, and p32. I'm not clear if Brett included this in the 2nd century or the 3rd century calculations.Bob Relyeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063651264391311686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-52275075961577610562012-02-13T19:50:17.159+00:002012-02-13T19:50:17.159+00:00Additionally, if Dan is advocating that we confide...Additionally, if Dan is advocating that we confident of the original because we've known and accepted it for such a long time, then wouldn't this support the notion that the Byzantine textform represents the original because from at least the 6th if not the 5th century on, it was accepted as the original.Jim Raymondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76399210572885967922012-02-13T19:46:55.302+00:002012-02-13T19:46:55.302+00:00When Dan says, "As an illustration: Suppose a...When Dan says, "As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts", is he advocating the Majority Text theory? I doubt he is in favor of that method, so I wonder if he has given inadvertent approval of it.Jim Raymondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13000488649907539172012-02-13T15:57:58.714+00:002012-02-13T15:57:58.714+00:00Christian,
My concern is with papyri like P66, th...Christian, <br />My concern is with papyri like P66, that has an assigned date of 200, i.e. beginning of the third AD—i know tho sis off by a year, but this (early third, not late second) was the intention of the ed.or. anyway. <br /><br />Second, Turner gave a sound philological reason for this date apostrophe written within a word between nasal consonants: αγ’γελουϲ in this codex throughout, i believe, not only once, as in P46 (just quoting from memory, so i only think this is right). This practice is unusual in second AD docs. but not unusual in the third and following centuries. <br /><br />Since the paleographical date cannot be precisely fixed, <br />(being stylistic, not historical), good method dictates that Turner's philological observation be, prima facie, decisive. And further, this observation points to the later date, again, prima facie, because if we assume the scribe was, atypically, using a third century convention in the second, rather than the reverse, it sounds like (and is) special pleading.<br /><br />Comfort, in Encountering the Mss., thinks the opposite, that possibility is preferable to a probability (we do have isolated case of apostrophe's used in this way in the second). He goes on beg the question, attempting to use the paleographical date to determine the probability of this use of the apostrophe in the second. But the paleography is the very thing in question, and cannot be used to support itself.<br /><br />FInally, any such calculation (the 43% of the nT witnessed in the second AD calculation i mean) must rebut Bagnall's thesis in Early Christian Books in Egypt in some way. A scholar of his stature cannot simply be ignored. He makes excellent points; this does not mean these are the only points to be made, but he does offer paleographical discussions seem historical grounding. <br /><br />Perhaps I am in error, and the 43 % figure is not meant to include P66 and others like it (assigned 200 AD).G.W. Schwendnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12348141394678110423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77554254658524857162012-02-13T11:50:26.328+00:002012-02-13T11:50:26.328+00:00GWS said "The spacing in lines 8 and 10 make ...GWS said "The spacing in lines 8 and 10 make nomina sacra (in 8) or nomen sacrum (10) unlikely. This prima facie would lead to a Jewish context (all the more if it is from a roll). If so the tetragrammaton might have been written out, or the pipi used instead."<br />Possibly - but there is a report -perhaps reliable, perhaps not - that the Green Collection has a piece of papyrus with Hannah's Prayer. Unless the Green Collecton has 2 papyri with I Samuel, or unless the fragment in the video is just part of a larger group of fragments (of which not all displayed), then the fragment has I Samuel 1:1-5 on one side, and I Samuel 2 on the other - and is not from a roll. Whether or not it is a Jewish or Christian codex fragment - I don't know<br /><br />Regards,<br />Matthew HamiltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10515169327857418342012-02-13T07:44:05.899+00:002012-02-13T07:44:05.899+00:00GWS,
We welcome respectful interlopers. Is your c...GWS,<br />We welcome respectful interlopers. Is your concern that the presupposition of a NT cannon is anachronistic? My initial impression (without considering the accuracy of the math or the paleography) is that this would be a helpful statistic for someone who is acquainted with the NT as known. Surely, you would not expect Dan Wallace to accept that the modern NT canon was invented in the fourth century for the sake of debate? For evangelicals, at least, it remains clearly historically possible (and confessionally believable) that the 27 books of the NT constitute an early collection of writings tied to the apostles and passed down from the first century onwards.Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54220256129684968342012-02-13T05:41:43.812+00:002012-02-13T05:41:43.812+00:00Brett: you do realize your 43% claim is ahistorica...Brett: you do realize your 43% claim is ahistorical, don't you? I understand the perceived need to manufacture tactics with which to score debating points, but still. I realize I am an interloper here, and have said too much already. So I will detail my misgivings about it elsewhere.G.W. Schwendnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12348141394678110423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-12656578743421978372012-02-13T02:18:10.599+00:002012-02-13T02:18:10.599+00:00I hope I get this post correct! I sent Dr. Head my...I hope I get this post correct! I sent Dr. Head my documentation for my claim, and summarized the finding in the text of my email, in which I made a huge mistake and gave him the wrong information. Let me set the record straight.<br /><br />I am the individual who researched the number of total verses attested in the 2nd century mss for Dan. The number IS 43%. I had said to some that this 43% included the verses from the 3rd century mss as well, BUT I was mistaken. I have reviewed my documentation and the 2nd century mss ALONE attest to this 43%. The 3rd century adds another 14%, so you have 57% of the NT verses attested in the first two centuries after the final canonical letter was penned. <br /><br />Some have asked and the answer is Yes; I did include partial verses as whole verses, which is standard practice in TC. For example, if one ms contains a partial verse only, we would not say we are looking at a portion of the NT and the number of verses it contains is zero! A partial verse is counted as attesting to that verse.<br /><br />Brett WilliamsBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02629846299168729972noreply@blogger.com