tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post5246775631573007440..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Early Manuscript of Hebrews DiscoveredP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86427615782893662022019-10-18T15:21:46.701+01:002019-10-18T15:21:46.701+01:00Could anyone direct me to the publication of the H...Could anyone direct me to the publication of the Hebrews 11 homily that has been dated to the second century? I cannot seem to find any information about it. I know about 1st Century Mark but I am more interested in the Hebrews homily. Thank you in advance.<br />my email is chuckm137@gmail.com Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13266608445781843866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-72825542206115157362018-11-24T20:18:05.749+00:002018-11-24T20:18:05.749+00:00 Could anyone direct me to the publication of the ... Could anyone direct me to the publication of the Hebrews 11 homily that has been dated to the second century? I cannot seem to find any information about it. I know about 1st Century Mark but I am more church more interested in the Hebrews homily. Thank you in advance.<br /> my email is chuckm137@gmail.com Charles Marburgerhttp://www.oldegoodthings.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-80874417470537236262011-04-14T15:02:19.672+01:002011-04-14T15:02:19.672+01:00Thanks, Dr. Parsons. I'm glad everything seem...Thanks, Dr. Parsons. I'm glad everything seems to have been sorted out.<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-61332891201760627032011-04-13T22:22:26.918+01:002011-04-13T22:22:26.918+01:00There has obviously been an unfortunate misunderst...There has obviously been an unfortunate misunderstanding. Anonymous is not an official spokesperson for Baylor University, and no formal reprimand has been lodged against Mr. Small by Baylor. The issue has been resolved internally to the satisfaction of all parties.<br />Best Regards,<br />Mikeal Parsons<br />Department of Religion<br />Baylor University<br />(sorry I left off my institutional affiliation which is pretty important here!)Mikeal Parsonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-42326859497536101302011-04-13T22:07:17.536+01:002011-04-13T22:07:17.536+01:00There has obviously been an unfortunate misunderst...There has obviously been an unfortunate misunderstanding. Anonymous is not an official spokesperson for Baylor University, and no formal reprimand has been lodged against Mr. Small by Baylor. The issue has been resolved internally to the satisfaction of all parties.<br />Best Regards,<br />Mikeal Parsons<br />Department of ReligionMikeal Parsonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44534975718186125472011-04-13T16:28:01.965+01:002011-04-13T16:28:01.965+01:00I wonder if Baylor U. will try to discipline me as...I wonder if Baylor U. will try to discipline me as an assossory to Brian's crimes for asking him (see above) to give the dimensions of the fragment?<br /><br />In all seriousness, if any of us had been where Brian was, and were told that non-flash photography was OK, we would have snapped photos, then rushed back to the office, and then collated that fragment to see what was there. <br /><br />If they had wanted to preserve that task for the assigned scholar, then they shouldn't have put it on public display and given the OK for photos. <br /><br />As it is, they apparently expected the public to act like Sargent Schultz after seeing the fragment..."I see nothing...I know nothing!"Darrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-23158278805379787242011-04-13T15:57:33.902+01:002011-04-13T15:57:33.902+01:00There is a nice video here : http://www.parenbonjo...There is a nice video here : http://www.parenbonjour.com/2011/04/worlds-largest-private-collection-of.html<br />You get a glimpse of a photo of P39 in the background at one point, but I couldn't see any papyri with Hebrews 11!Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-6333830795168799892011-04-13T15:16:16.742+01:002011-04-13T15:16:16.742+01:00So any way the implication behind this announcemen...So any way the implication behind this announcement is that the Green group have been purchasing unidentified literary papyri (Dr Carroll is working on publishing 15). I wonder where from. Fresh material from Egypt would be an option, but not exactly on the legal side of the spectrum. Literary texts already in Western collections and up for private sale are unlikely to have remained unidentified unless in the hands of someone who didn't care or know what they were. It could be an interesting story.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83181967930210982202011-04-13T06:36:40.415+01:002011-04-13T06:36:40.415+01:00Anonymous,
The statement about cartonnage probabl...Anonymous,<br /><br />The statement about cartonnage probably originated as an incorrect deduction based on the statement in Scott Carroll's profile-page at the Baylor University ISR site, where it is stated that Carroll is "presently directing the research of some of the earliest-known Greek literary papyri in the world which Dr. Carroll extracted from mummy cartonnage and some of the earliest biblical texts known to-date." <br /><br />Now then: I'm in a Ziba-versus-Mephibosheth moment, but it seems to me that if Brian Small had really made an effort to behave unethically, he would have put his pictures of the papyrus online already. The fact that he did not do so says something. His report was incapable of ruining whatever surprises await when the papyrus is (eventually) published. So other than an apparent misunderstanding - you say photography was prohibited; Brian says non-flash photography was allowed - which does not seem to be Brian's fault, the whole situation seems non-problematic. <br /> <br />Also: I assure you there has been no "veiled threat" from any participants here; what was meant was what was said; that's all. The intent, I believe, was not at all to castigate you, but to invite you to disclose your identity, since you seem to be invested in the subject somehow and you're basically saying, "We have top men working on it right now." Who? <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-76315292934473132992011-04-11T19:00:54.049+01:002011-04-11T19:00:54.049+01:00I too, am a little concerned about the treatment o...I too, am a little concerned about the treatment of Brian. If the papyrus was on display, it's fair game to blog about. No IP is involved. The payprus itself is clearly too old to be copyrighted. Patents and trademarks don't apply. The only 'IP' that can apply is the owners right to control physical access to the article (known in IP circles as 'trade secret').<br /><br />Brian clearly did not from post the photos out of professional courtesy not because of an legal obligation. He reported only what was plainly published at the show. No one in this group would even think that he was "working on the papyrus". He made it quite clear someone else was working on the papyrus itself.<br /><br />If Brian was told *not* to take photos (either explicitly, or by general signage), then on that account (and that account alone) may merit some discipline. Clearly Brian believes that he had permission to take pictures, which makes the breach of contract issue *Baylor's* problem, not Brian's.<br /><br />The story had to generated a lot of goodwill for the final publication of the papyrus. Baylor's reaction to the blog has considerably damaged that. An apology from Baylor and Anonymous would probably completely restore that goodwill. <br /><br />bobBob Relyeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063651264391311686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24667357169194968962011-04-11T07:26:19.768+01:002011-04-11T07:26:19.768+01:00The correct link is
greenscholarsinitiative.orgThe correct link is<br /><a href="http://www.greenscholarsinitiative.org/" rel="nofollow"><br />greenscholarsinitiative.org</a>The White Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-29051583596009405762011-04-11T07:22:20.978+01:002011-04-11T07:22:20.978+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.The White Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-64932877015756461592011-04-10T22:29:42.444+01:002011-04-10T22:29:42.444+01:00I was in Lichfield cathedral last week during the ...I was in Lichfield cathedral last week during the Birmingham colloqium. As I entered the exhibition of several invaluable items, like the Chad Gospels, or first edition of the King James, I asked if I could take photographs.<br /><br />Yes, but without flash was the answer. Apparently, this was also what the visitors were told by the staff during the exhibition at Baylor. If what the staff said about photos was "in violation of Baylor's contractual agreement with the Exhibition" then whose problem is that?<br /><br />Why do you (anonymous) suggest that the student took photos "surreptitiously" and who does not take photos for their "own advantage"?Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-5175720035263926352011-04-10T21:16:19.542+01:002011-04-10T21:16:19.542+01:00Apparently two comments by "anonymous" h...Apparently two comments by "anonymous" had got stuck in the spamfilter, so they have now been published and appear in chronological order; the first starts with "The item was dated by The Director of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus Project at Oxford, Dirk Obbink. " The second with "Museums and exhibitions around the world display items, expecting comments to be made on what is made public or can be derived by an observer, but almost universally restrict unsolicited photography."Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30757569380715352832011-04-10T19:56:47.520+01:002011-04-10T19:56:47.520+01:00No comment.No comment.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-63173293704876120102011-04-10T19:56:26.185+01:002011-04-10T19:56:26.185+01:00I thank you all for coming to my defense. Regardi...I thank you all for coming to my defense. Regarding the photographs: when I entered the exhibit hall, I was given permission to use photography without flash. I saw other people taking photographs as well. If there was a contractual agreement about photography, the attendants on hand did not seem to be aware of it. I did not publish or distribute the photographs in any way. So where am I in the wrong about this?<br /><br />The most sinister motives have been put on my actions. It has been suggested that I represented the work as my own work and that I have claimed to be an expert in identifying the manuscript. I have made neither claim. I was simply reporting what I saw and learned about a new manuscript that was on public display. The placard at the exhibit identified it as a manuscript on Hebrews 11 dated to the second. All 4,000 people who went to the exhibit could read the same words I read and learn about the manuscript in the same way. Neither have I "worked" on the manuscript; some people asked questions and I responded. There was a discussion, just as if I had discussions among my own colleagues at Baylor, but in this case it is a more public forum.<br /><br />If it was inappropriate for me to report the discovery of a new manuscript on Hebrews, then I apologize. I certainly meant no harm and there was no intention to undermine the work of another scholar. There is still much that needs to be studied about this manuscript and I look forward to the publication of its results.Brian Smallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14209118115977821617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-977689552446918632011-04-10T19:55:20.655+01:002011-04-10T19:55:20.655+01:00Not really a great start for the Greek Collection ...Not really a great start for the Greek Collection Initiative. Perhaps we should start a scrap book.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-34248949339870938742011-04-10T18:40:50.181+01:002011-04-10T18:40:50.181+01:00Museums and exhibitions around the world display i...Museums and exhibitions around the world display items, expecting comments to be made on what is made public or can be derived by an observer, but almost universally restrict unsolicited photography. No problem with speculation on a blog site. The point is, which seems to missed on some, that the student came into the exhibition and took photos surreptitiously and apparently for his own advantage (he is working on a dissertation on Hebrews) without even seeking permission, which would have been denied. As I understand, he never even requested to talk to the anyone representing the collection about the object to find out anything about it and although approached about his actions, went straightaway with the photos and tried to work on the images, posting what he could derive from it. This has nothing to do with scholarship or academic freedom. It is a question of ethical conduct. This is precisely how misinformation is disseminated. The item will be properly published in due time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38993241991835123652011-04-10T17:45:15.120+01:002011-04-10T17:45:15.120+01:00If the papyrus was displayed publicly, and identif...If the papyrus was displayed publicly, and identified by the exhibitors, what on earth can be the problem? <br />I am relieved to hear the papyrus is not from cartonnage— that (as I implied earlier) would really have been spectacular per se.G.W. Schwendnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12348141394678110423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70126535121296984942011-04-10T17:20:16.179+01:002011-04-10T17:20:16.179+01:00I agree with Tommy. The view presented by "an...I agree with Tommy. The view presented by "anonymous" (whoever) does not reflect well on the academia, if it represents it at all.Timo Flinknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87539186222867778532011-04-10T16:52:00.917+01:002011-04-10T16:52:00.917+01:00I heartily agree with Wieland and Christian.
We ...I heartily agree with Wieland and Christian. <br /><br />We have a saying in Swedish, "You cannot both keep the cookie and eat it." If you put a papyrus on display (along with some basic information), why make fuss if someone blogs about it. Was the idea to promote the collection for a certain public except for scholarly circles? The bottom line of Brian's blogpost, which he has apparently deleted now, and my blogpost is that we welcome this as good news. We are very grateful that the papyrus has been assigned to a scholar to edit, and we are eagerly awating its publication. This excitement and anticipation ought to be very positive for the scholar working on the editio princeps.<br /><br />I am very suprised and disappointed with the harsch attitude reflected by "anonymous." The thought that you might represent the Green Scholars Initiative or Baylor university makes me sad.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74584321209369617532011-04-10T16:14:12.783+01:002011-04-10T16:14:12.783+01:00It is presumptuous and naive to call control of in...It is presumptuous and naive to call control of intellectual property rights by an owner (private or public), petty. You presume you have the right of access to any and everything in this age of digital immediacy. You cannot walk into any library. museum, exhibition, or achaeological site in the world, set up a tripod and start shooting photos for your own use without permission and imagine especially when it it specifically prohibited. Nor can you demand to see things institutions chose not to show you. That's the way it works--everywhere. Call Small a scholarly crusader. I call it unethical--especially after he gave his word. It has nothing to do with Baylor or the owner. And if Anonymous is given as an option for submission, why would you castigate, deride or even make a veiled threat against someone for choosing to use it? Talk about petty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-64521732933519732372011-04-10T12:31:08.815+01:002011-04-10T12:31:08.815+01:00Anonymous ... your comment makes you and Baylor lo...Anonymous ... your comment makes you and Baylor look petty. I certainly hope that Brian has not received grief for this.Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55829975695613962482011-04-10T09:04:47.801+01:002011-04-10T09:04:47.801+01:00Ah Anonymous, how embarissing!
Please, stop this ...Ah Anonymous, how embarissing! <br />Please, stop this nonsense ... <br />Why is it unethical to report about a new papyrus? This is absurd! <br />Brian Small, you did the right thing. <br />Anonymous, we will know who you are when the papyrus is published. [filed ---> Resubmission] :-)Wieland Willkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376942788228063430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26018808737100585632011-04-10T06:41:11.754+01:002011-04-10T06:41:11.754+01:00While extremely significant literary papyri have c...While extremely significant literary papyri have come from mummy cartonnage and from domestic cartonnage in the collection, it was nowhere suggested that this papyrus came from cartonnage. The piece is quite legible, for someone who can read Greek and has basic training in paleography. The text was tentatively dated by a world-renown specialist. The papyrus has been assigned for research. It will be published according to the highest academic standards in due time. There was a contractual agreement between Baylor and the exhibition prohibiting photography of items nevertheless Brian Small took pictures, tried to work on the papyrus and took the liberty to report on it despite being told explicitly that if he did so he would be acting unethically. He has been reprimanded by Baylor. Ownerships, intellectual property rights, contracts and one's word, matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com