Loading...Here again, from years ago, some reflections on the importance of having a first-century manuscript — even if it DID NOT change much of anything we think or know.
********************
In several posts I have been emphasizing – possibly over-emphasizing – that if a first-century fragment of the Gospel of Mark does ever get published, and if it is in *fact*from the first century (which, I should stress, will be almost *impossible* to demonstrate conclusively), that it is very hard indeed to imagine that it will be any kind of game-changer, that it will tell us something different from what we already think. The reason I have been emphasizing this is because the evangelical Christian scholars who are making the headlines with their declarations about the discovery will almost certainly, once it is published, if it ever gets published, claim that it is evidence for their view that we can know what the original text says. See! We have a FIRST-CENTURY MANUSCRIPT!!!
So, consider these posts of mine as a kind of
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
How much can be in a fragment? A verse, or two? A verse omitted that we’ve never seen?
Any tiniest scrap is technically a fragment.
But, are there words on it?
Well, if there are no words they won’t know that it’s a fragment of the New Testament, but it’s still a fragment!
Off-Topic: How did the sheep end up being the good guys and the goats the bad guys? Is there a story behind it?
Ha! I don’t know. I myself prefer sheep because every time I’m around a goat, it tries to butt me!!
mary had a little lamb
have you ever eaten goat meat before?
Once on a alley stand vendor on a side street in a suburb of Beijing
TomTerrific,
I asked this from AI (ChatGPT). Here is how it replied:
1. **Cultural and agricultural context:** In Jesus’ time, sheep and goats were common domestic animals. Shepherds and listeners were well aware of the differences between these animals, making them easily understandable symbols.
2. **Behavior and characteristics:** Sheep are known for their obedience and tendency to stay in the flock, symbolizing righteousness and loyalty. Goats are often seen as more stubborn and independent, which can symbolize rebellion and self-will against God’s will.
3. **Biblical symbolism:** In other parts of the Bible, sheep are often portrayed in a positive light. For example, Jesus calls himself the Good Shepherd who cares for his sheep (John 10:11). Goats, on the other hand, are not highlighted in the same way, and in this parable, their role is negative.
4. **Theological purpose of the parable:** The main message of the parable is to emphasize that people’s actions and attitudes toward their neighbors are crucial at the final judgment. The sheep, who act with love and compassion, are welcomed into God’s kingdom, while the goats, who do not show compassion and help to those in need, receive condemnation. The parable aims to encourage listeners to live justly and compassionately.
Dr. Ehrman, your website says it’s ok to ask off-topic questions to you in posts.
I’ve read all of your blog posts regarding fundamentalism. As a previous fundamentalist your words of concern ring true. In one post regarding Fundamentalist Mistakes you say “And that fundamentalist version of Christianity is NOT “Christianity.” It’s a kind of Christianity. A rather awful kind of Christianity. A kind of Christianity that many other Christians hate deeply, wishing that people who hold such extreme views would simply wise up, think a bit more, or just go away.”
I never knew other Christians feel that way. Or could feel that way. At ALL! Please consider a post (for unaware folk such as myself) that sheds light on how some flavors of modern Christianity view fundamentalism with disdain.
Ah, when I was in seminary at Princeton, fundamentalists were much more the object of disdain than members of other religious traditions or atheists! That’s where I first heard that fundamentlists were “no fun, too much damn, not enough mental, and too many lists” !
Great! interview on History Valley. You answered a question on his show that I asked here too, I thought the same as you did too. Until I did some research which led me to think differently. The description of the words used in Rev 21:1-9 such as a Tabernacle is among humans, New Jerusalem, he who who thirsts from the spring of water of life, are all contrasted in Rev 21:10 – 21:5 where he is moved to a high mountain, why? Now what he is seeing is described as, Jerusalem and not New Jerusalem, No Tabernacle, now its God and the Lamb. And no temple, and now humans are bond servants, instead of dwelling with them, now they’re face to face with God. The spring instead, is now a river of life. The heaven and earth (New Jerusalem) seems more spiritual and consistent with well, earthly references and possibility’s. Where (Jerusalem) has more physical aspects (gold and pearls etc.) not so earthly. Also would we still be referred to as humans at this point? There is more of course, based on Christs accounts found in the Olivant Apocalypse chapters and elsewhere to support this hypothesis.
Mount Vesuvius blew up in 79 AD burying both Pompeii and Herculaneum. The letters of Paul were written around 50-60 AD and the gospel of Mark around 70 AD. At least 1800 papyrus scrolls have been discovered in Herculaneum…one can hope!!!
I think the problem is that there is no evidence (yet!) that Christianity had reached there.
Ultimate game changer?: fragment or more of Mark’s Gospel found in a newly discovered, verifiably previously untouched 1st Century tomb with the following addition at the beginning or end: “I, John Mark, associate of Paul and Barnabas, dedicate this Gospel that I have written with my own hands to my departed mother in the 10th year of the reign of Emperor Claudius.”
You may want to look into the authenticity of that one….
Should have prefaced my comment with the word “Hypothetical” :-). Yes, that was a completely made up example!
My comment is a little off topic, and you may have already addressed it: Is there an English translation of the Bible that you recommend for academic studies?
My decided preference is New Revised Standard Version, which I especially like in an annotated format such as the Harper Collins Study Bible
I recently heard an evangelical pastor make the claim that P52 is dated to ~85 AD. Is there any legitimate reasoning for this claim, or is it likely that he’s just trying to say that we have a fragment from the original copy of the gospel of John for apologetical purposes?
Ha! He’s just makin’ stuff up. The standard dating is 125 +/- 25 years, but more recent analyses have put it near the end of the second century. But obviously hope and wishful thinking spring eternal….