Loading...I will continue here with select reposts of the first-century copy of Mark fiasco, in light of my recent interview in the topic and my now renewed interest in the issues involved. (See the previous posts if you’re not aware of the claims from 12 years ago that one had been discovered.)
I personally think that there are no shenanigans going on when Dan Wallace tells us that a fragment of the Gospel of Mark has been found and that it can, with reasonable certainty, be dated to the late first century. I’m not saying that I know he is right. Far from it. In fact, one of the most disconcerting things about this claim is that they are not making the papyrus available so real experts can study it and let us know what it really is and to what period it can be dated. But let’s suppose that once it is published – now the date is no longer 2012, as originally stated, or 2015 as stated last week, but 2017 or later, for reasons no one will explain – it turns out to be a very early fragment of the Gospel of Mark. The question no one seems to be asking is: What difference will it make?
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!
Ah, but what if it turned out to be a fairly lengthy fragment from Morton Smith’s ‘Secret Mark’. That would surely put the proverbial cat amongst the ecclesiastical pigeons 😉.
Question: I’ve never thought about this before, but now I wonder…
So you’re a writer in the ancient world (or any time before printing), and you write, say, a work of philosophy, funny stories, or a life of an apocalyptic preacher. Presumably you want other people to read it. Do you (or your amanuensis) just take the one copy and give it to a friend, and if he or she thinks it important has more copies made to give to their friends, and so on? Or do you give it to a scriptorium to have several copies made? I know that there were bookstores in the ancient world. That is, were there multiple hand-written copies, likely with variants, from the very beginning? And do you keep a copy for yourself?
Depends on who you are, what your financial resources are, and what your purpose is. So all are possible. Among the elite, you mioght have a group of friends come over to hear you read it and then give them all a previously produced copy. Lots of optoins. My guess with the Christian writings a book was written, someone wnated a copy and copied it, someone else whnted a copy — and only later are multiple copies made at once
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_137
Is this an accurate summary?
Don’t know!
Dr. Ehrman,
The God of Moses (Yahweh) and Moses were flat-earthers (given Genesis 1: 6).
Ferdinand Magellan (1480–1521) was a Portuguese explorer who is credited with masterminding the first expedition (8/1519-9/1522) to circumnavigate the world.
Circumnavigation ends acceptance of flat-earth.
In the movie Agora (2009) there was a scene where Hypatia (died 415 AD), astronomer, was looking at a model of round planets.
Around 350 BCE, Aristotle declared the Earth was a sphere.
The Septuagint may have been completed in 247 BCE but they left flat-earth language in Genesis.
Do you think Jesus went with Moses (making Jesus a flat-earther) or Aristotle on the shape of the Earth?
We cannot have God and Jesus who became God being flat-earthers.
Steefen
Dr. Ehrman
YouTube channel Oskars Lapa, Video: “What on Earth Happened Ewaranon (1-13 Full documentary) MUST Watch” gives a good explanation of why the Sun is not 93,000,000 miles away. The video is 5 hrs 52 minutes and is well worth it. I understand that Greco-Roman education may have taught that the earth and other planets were spheres (because of Aristotle), but there is a model with greater explanatory power. I wondered why CERN (The European Council for Nuclear Research) was interested in Norse Mythology which also uses the flat-earth model as does Genesis.
Steefen
Dr Eheman, I follow your argument. Makes perfect sense. My question is actually about Luke. Jesus raising the widow’s son from death is only found in Luke I believe. Wouldn’t such an event be known to everybody (whether they believed it or not is another matter)? Out of all the documents surviving from that time, not only biblical sources but everything that was written, would there not be any account whatsoever to independently report on such an event? We know more about people’s diet than about the man people thought was God. Would nobody interview the son himself? And if nobody else commented on this shouldn’t at least the other gospels say something especially as they’re about Jesus and his miracles?
If he’s God as they believed him to be at the time of the writing of the Gospels I’d imagine EVERYTHING he said and did would be recounted and recorded over and over.
Many thanks for your efforts to be available to the likes of me, a former Muslim who converted to Catholicism and is now thoroughly confused.
I suppose something similar could be said about lots of Jesus’ miracles, including his other resuscitations…. Yup, why isn’t there more talk about Jesus doing these things. As you probably know, he is not mentioned in any Greek or Roman source until 80 years after his death.
I agree. Particularly the miracles that are intended as myths to make a theological point. Best example I know is changing the water to wine at the Cana wedding feast. This is clearly intended to signify that Jesus’ message is to change from the old Jewish law represented by the ceremonial water to a new wine that is a fresh and much better message, i.e. the message he is preaching.
Let’s imagine a new discovery sheds light on one of the most important textual variants in the Gospel of Mark, such as those in Mark 1:1, Mark 1:41, Mark 9:29, Mark 11:26, or Mark 16:9-20. Would you consider this a significant and crucial development that could change our understanding of textual criticism concerning the Gospel of Mark?
Oh yes. But if it was significantly different in these important verses other scholars would say “it’s not really Mark”
Hi paul talks about talking in tongues and soing miracles in a not clatified way could he be lyng when he says he does miracles or what could he mean by the miracles?
Anyone could be lying at any time. The question is always, how good are your reasons for thinking so?
Does paul sometimes lie or exaggerate in his letters?
For example could he lie in 2 corinthians 12 when he says he did miracles?
Well, I personally don’t think he did anything we would call a miracle; but we’re not sure what exactly he’s referring to.
I agree arguments that Mark originally ended at 16:8 are compelling, but I do still find the idea of a “lost” ending interesting to consider. So a couple questions.
1. If an “original” ending were lost it would have to have been very early in the transmission, right? Evidenced by the surviving manuscripts and the existence of added endings?
2. Do you think maybe the vivid post-resurrection appearances described by Matthew and Luke hint that they possessed copies of Mark without such? Perhaps one of the deficiencies in Mark they thought needed correction?
Thanks!
1. Yup. 2. Nope, not necessarily. The appear to be responding to views in circulation about Jesus spiritually being raised, which would not have to come from one particular written account or another.
Out of curiosity, if it were generally similar to Mark, but with significant differences, could it be a fragment of Q? And what would it take to convince scholars of such a thing? I’m not suggesting that it actually is, of course, but I do wonder if, somewhere among the multitude of textual fragments in museums and libraries, a fragment of Q might be lurking.
Probably not, since Q appears to have been principally sayings of Jesus and Mark is overwhelmingly narrative (only two chapters of extended teachings, and they are replicated already in Matthew and Luke)
I think it matters because it shows consistency throughout time. It may not be an original, but the likelihood that it’s the same or close to the original increases.
Besides that, why are we relying on Obbink’s dating of the manuscript? He’s lied and schemed about so many things that he could have dated the Mark fragment later just to take the heat off of himself. That fragment needs to be reexamined by someone trustworthy.
I remember questioning Obbink’s integrity several years ago, but it seemed incredulous to even think such a thing within the scholarly community at the time. Let’s not get duped again by trusting him with the dating simply because it’s assumed that he wouldn’t lie about his own work. People have been lying about manuscripts for hundreds/thousands of years to serve their own purposes.
Many other experts have examined it and agree it is late second to early third century. When it comes to manuscript dating, experts *never* take someone else’s word for it.
A note by the author explaining why it was written and the belief themes used would be fantastic. This could be in the margins or an extra page, etc.
Has anyone ever claimed to have found such a document?
Nope.