tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post3082219866344127274..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Gary Habermas on First-Century Mark P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-32615993026160824792019-09-05T00:39:41.753+01:002019-09-05T00:39:41.753+01:00When asked for evidence to support the foundationa...When asked for evidence to support the foundational claim of Christianity—the bodily resurrection of Jesus—conservative Christian apologists will frequently point to The Twelve Minimal Facts Argument formulated by evangelical Christian theologian Gary Habermas. Are these “facts” convincing? I don’t think so, but maybe I’m biased. <br /><br />Let’s use the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) to see if these facts really are strong evidence for a bodily resurrection, or, do only Christians find these facts convincing simply because these facts are about the founder of their religion. What will happen if we substitute the name of the founder of a different world religion in the place of Jesus’ name in these “facts”? Let’s see how many Christians will find these “facts” convincing for the supernatural claim of a bodily resurrection when the facts involve some other religion’s founder. We could substitute “Mohammad” or “Joseph Smith” for this exercise but let’s use the founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama, otherwise known as, the Buddha.<br /><br />1. The Buddha died by crucifixion.<br />2. The Buddha was buried.<br />3. The Buddha’s death caused his disciples to despair and lose hope.<br />4. The Buddha’s tomb was found empty.<br />5. The Buddha’s disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Buddha.<br />6. The Buddha’s disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.<br />7. The resurrection of the Buddha was the central message of this new religious belief system.<br />8. The disciples of the Buddha preached the message of the Buddha’s resurrection in the largest city in India.<br />9. Buddhism was born and grew.<br />10. Devout Vedics (the dominant religion in India at that time) changed their primary day of worship.<br />11. The brother of the Buddha converted to Buddhism when he saw the resurrected Buddha (The brother was a family skeptic).<br />12. A Jewish scribe and elder converted to Buddhism. (He was an outsider skeptic).<br /><br />Dear Christian: Would these facts convince you that a man living in India thousands of years ago really did come back from the dead? I doubt it. So why do you believe the same weak claims about Jesus of Nazareth??<br /><br />Abandon ancient superstitions. Embrace reason and science!Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-78747723559842504462018-08-16T09:06:44.436+01:002018-08-16T09:06:44.436+01:00Yes this is interesting. Do any of these new manus...Yes this is interesting. Do any of these new manuscripts contradict the old ones?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04970518406366474507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-28928109729463376472018-07-31T13:56:09.141+01:002018-07-31T13:56:09.141+01:00There seems to be something strange going on with ...There seems to be something strange going on with this whole situation<br /><br />https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/poxy-lxxxiii-5345Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37337266708782634272018-05-31T14:38:01.175+01:002018-05-31T14:38:01.175+01:00Well - now we know - the Mark fragment is not firs...Well - now we know - the Mark fragment is not first century; and despite Habermus's claim of "permission", apparently the paleographer had shed doubt on this first century claim early on:<br />https://danielbwallace.com/2018/05/23/first-century-mark-fragment-update/Beauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16231021323767556713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-25938697108649919062018-03-02T01:19:04.571+00:002018-03-02T01:19:04.571+00:00Ask the Greens or mr Carroll to PUBLISH the thing ...Ask the Greens or mr Carroll to PUBLISH the thing now! A Brill 2013 volume was promised by Dan Wallace....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-39552059273474101332018-03-02T01:10:04.473+00:002018-03-02T01:10:04.473+00:00Dan, but is Habermas not possibly implicating Obbi...Dan, but is Habermas not possibly implicating Obbink in the date range offered? <br />The longer we wait for this papyri to be published the more embarrassing it becomes for those who decided to make bold claims during apologetics debated.<br />Evangelical scholarship is getting a bad name in the process Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55637035085549828292018-03-02T00:33:53.970+00:002018-03-02T00:33:53.970+00:00Fortunately for evangelicals, Karin King’s and Har...Fortunately for evangelicals, Karin King’s and Harvard’s Jesus’ Wife fragment is slightly more embarrassing while at yhe same time Harvard Divinity School keeps on being rewarded as the no 1 theological institution in the world!?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7830188685497393242018-02-28T21:05:06.393+00:002018-02-28T21:05:06.393+00:00Thanks Brent. I had forgotten about this article.
...Thanks Brent. I had forgotten about this article.<br /><br />"Evans said that the only reason he can talk about the first-century gospel before it is published is because a member of the team leaked some of the information in 2012. Evans was careful to say that he is not telling Live Science anything about the first-century gospel that hasn't already been leaked online."<br /><br />I will correct what I said: I think Josh McDowell claimed that they are the same, but I am hesitant to believe him. Evans seems only to be repeating what others have said. I haven't found anyone yet who attended the "Day of Discovery" events who could confirm that the fragments brought out and claimed to be from the masks were actually taken from the masks. Nobody I've spoken to saw where the fragments came from. They saw the masks destroyed, then later, people brought out papyrus. Seems a bit to me like "I'm going to do a magic trick. Ok, now close your eyes...." I never attended one of those events myself, but I've had several friends who did (and even friends who worked at them), and from their descriptions, it sounds like the papyri that the attendees looked at were 'prepared' beforehand. One friend described the 'recovered' papyri as "mysteriously perfectly dry and flat already". That makes me question whether they actually did come from mummy masks, or if the destruction of the masks was just part of the show.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-56166699982948639812018-02-28T10:35:05.369+00:002018-02-28T10:35:05.369+00:00It seems pretty clear that Craig Evans claimed exa...It seems pretty clear that Craig Evans claimed exactly that: Gospel according to Mark, found in mummy mask, dated "before the year 90" (Live Science, January 18, 2015).Brenthttp://brentnongbri.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8857192070692063112018-02-27T21:44:31.107+00:002018-02-27T21:44:31.107+00:00+Daniel B. Wallace
Is the fragment that Habermas i...+Daniel B. Wallace<br />Is the fragment that Habermas is talking about different than the 1st century mark fragment you mentioned in your 2012 debate with Bart?<br /><br />If so do you have any updates on the 1st century Mark fragment you were referencing?<br /><br />Also, do you know anything about the fragment Habermas is talking about?Jacob McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17333317980505363259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13400687481350868522018-02-26T13:04:43.975+00:002018-02-26T13:04:43.975+00:00PG,
In reference o a narrow date; Orsini in the co...PG,<br />In reference o a narrow date; Orsini in the comments to PM’s recent post dated P4+64+67 to 175-200, a really narrow date range like the one expressed above. Orsini also stated, that this was intended to convey the final part of the II century. Isn’t it possible that the 80-110 date range could also be intended to convey something similar?<br /><br />Of course, all of this remains moot until this mysterious papyrus is made available😎<br /><br />Tim<br />Timothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-32191262631258065022018-02-26T09:39:50.184+00:002018-02-26T09:39:50.184+00:00I talked with someone quite recently who claimed t...I talked with someone quite recently who claimed to have seen it. (Although I don't think he actually verified that it really was Mark.)Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-25586494432344019252018-02-25T18:01:11.384+00:002018-02-25T18:01:11.384+00:00I'm fairly certain that no first-century Mark ...I'm fairly certain that no first-century Mark fragment has ever been found in a mummy mask. There were claims of a first-century Mark manuscript. And there were claims of manuscripts found in mummy masks. I think enough people just assumed that the two were the same and it stuck.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-5282928570082411762018-02-25T11:57:58.185+00:002018-02-25T11:57:58.185+00:00Is this the manuscript found inside of an Egyptian...Is this the manuscript found inside of an Egyptian death mask around 2012-13? I remember discussing something like this with a seminary professor who was torn (himself being an archaeologist) about what to do with the paper mache death masks which we dig up that could offer great insight into what is considered "garbage" and therefore ample material for making these masks. <br /><br />Maybe I am confusing historical notes, but I do remember a fragment being discussed, but it also came inside of a greater discussion on how to handle items which must be destroyed.Benjamin Murrayhttps://deeplygrateful.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-72968500036997683982018-02-25T08:35:39.071+00:002018-02-25T08:35:39.071+00:00I don't know anyone who has claimed (at least ...I don't know anyone who has claimed (at least to me) to have seen the first-century Mark, but I do happen to know a few people who claim to have seen UFO themselves. No abductees as yet, though. Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00270874379279604671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37690001608924280622018-02-25T08:33:42.577+00:002018-02-25T08:33:42.577+00:00I'm really not sure about this suggestion, Tim...I'm really not sure about this suggestion, Tim. Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00270874379279604671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-65470595805659408842018-02-25T06:34:01.337+00:002018-02-25T06:34:01.337+00:00There is a way that this fragment could have a nar...There is a way that this fragment could have a narrower date assigned to it on palaeographical grounds, and that is if the fragment has been copied in a documentary hand. When a MS is copied in a bilinear bookhand then palaeographicaly assigned dates are 100 years or more. However, if the fragment was copied in a unique style of cursive documentary hand, then perhaps a narrower range is possible. Just a thought. Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17624096230068499152018-02-25T02:19:52.582+00:002018-02-25T02:19:52.582+00:00As I posted on the New Testament Textual Criticism...As I posted on the New Testament Textual Criticism Facebook group, I did not think that the dating was particularly interesting news since I have heard numbers like that thrown out before. What I thought was the interesting news here was the legal questions surrounding it.Alan Bunningnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-43559638311184581292018-02-24T23:48:10.078+00:002018-02-24T23:48:10.078+00:00Thanks, Dan.Thanks, Dan.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46879172034295126212018-02-24T22:50:45.119+00:002018-02-24T22:50:45.119+00:00Peter, I would agree with you that it is quite imp...Peter, I would agree with you that it is quite impossible, by paleographical means, to date a papyrus within a thirty-year period. I think I heard someone else offer this date-range (80-110), and perhaps Habermas is getting his information from that source. And CSNTM has nothing to do with this fragment. Daniel B. Wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11895936457186272041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-31301811835896259792018-02-24T20:54:17.097+00:002018-02-24T20:54:17.097+00:00I'm afraid the 1st Cent. Mark fragment is beco...I'm afraid the 1st Cent. Mark fragment is becoming to Evangelicals akin to UFO sightings. People swear that others have sighted it, but nobody vouches about it personally. (And the funny thing is that I still secretly hope it will someday appear for all of us to behold.)<br /><br />FlorencAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10188593073548835148noreply@blogger.com