Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8048
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Neil Godfrey has occasionally been blogging the so-called (coming-to-a-store-near-you-in-2018) "first century fragment" of Mark:
http://vridar.org/2015/01/24/a-papyrolo ... -fragment/
http://vridar.org/2012/02/06/earliest-m ... l-doherty/
If this gains traction, can we expect mythicism to shift gears into supporting Doherty's (or some kind of allegorical or) "metaphorical Mark" thesis?
Godfrey is already trumpeting the find as a win for Doherty (presumably, vis-a-vis his mythicist rivals).
Any bets? Opinions?
http://vridar.org/2015/01/24/a-papyrolo ... -fragment/
http://vridar.org/2012/02/06/earliest-m ... l-doherty/
If this gains traction, can we expect mythicism to shift gears into supporting Doherty's (or some kind of allegorical or) "metaphorical Mark" thesis?
Godfrey is already trumpeting the find as a win for Doherty (presumably, vis-a-vis his mythicist rivals).
Any bets? Opinions?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
-
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Its taking since 2012 to transcribe some one verse scrap? Lol. And I don't see what it could possibly have to do with mythicism. Nobody is going to trust dating to the first century but fundies. Already some fundies say things like that the KJV is based on 1st century mss and the NIV on 3rd. Only people with no concept of evidence will buy this hoax.
Last edited by davidbrainerd on Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Presumably, indeed, since virtually every conservative scholar on the planet dates Mark to the first century, as well (most of them some 20-25 years earlier than Doherty's suggestion of circa 90).Peter Kirby wrote:Godfrey is already trumpeting the find as a win for Doherty (presumably, vis-a-vis his mythicist rivals).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8048
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Certainly, the claim that it belongs to the "80s" is sensational. Such specificity can't (ever) be justified by paleography. Is there something about the site where it was recovered that makes things more specific, perhaps? Maybe they'll publish and put it all out on the table, so we don't have to speculate. One does wonder why it's taking so very long.davidbrainerd wrote:Its taking since 2012 to transcribe some one verse scrap? Lol. And I don't see what it could possibly have to do with mythicism. Nobody is going to trust dating to the first century but fundies. Already some fundies say things like that the KJV is based on 1st century mss and the NIV on 3rd. Only people with no concept of evidence will buy this hoax.
Yes, I think a lot of people will basically dismiss it (and a larger group will grasp at it). Hopefully, if they do so, it's not just reflexive.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Ben C. Smith wrote:
- ... virtually every conservative scholar on the planet dates Mark to the first century...
- Matthias Klinghardt, Jason* Beduhn, and Markus Vinzent are now giving the traditionalist a run for their money
* edited on correction by Ben S
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Sure, but not in sheer numbers, and not with relation to Doherty. My point was simply that confirming a date in century I is in no way a confirmation of Doherty in terms of overall scholarship, since such a date is argued by so many conservatives (and quite a few others); if it is a confirmation of Doherty in any sense, it surely has to be seen as a confirmation of his particular mythicist argument over and against other mythicist arguments.MrMacSon wrote:Ben C. Smith wrote:
- ... virtually every conservative scholar on the planet dates Mark to the first century...
- Matthias Klinghardt, Joseph Beduhn, and Markus Vinzent are now giving the traditionalist a run for their money
(And do you mean Jason BeDuhn? I honestly do not know what date he assigns to the gospel of Mark. Do you have a source or a book and page number?)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Yes. And it opens up other historicist arguments, such as a 2nd-century Jesus who came to be set in the 1st-C.Ben C. Smith wrote:Sure, but not in sheer numbers, and not with relation to Doherty. My point was simply that confirming a date in century I is in no way a confirmation of Doherty in terms of overall scholarship, since such a date is argued by so many conservatives (and quite a few others); if it is a confirmation of Doherty in any sense, it surely has to be seen as a confirmation of his particular mythicist argument over and against other mythicist arguments.MrMacSon wrote:Ben C. Smith wrote:
- ... virtually every conservative scholar on the planet dates Mark to the first century...
- Matthias Klinghardt, Jason Beduhn, and Markus Vinzent are now giving the traditionalist a run for their money
Yes, I did mean Jason (corrected above ^ & ^^)Ben C. Smith wrote: (And do you mean Jason BeDuhn? I honestly do not know what date he assigns to the gospel of Mark. Do you have a source or a book and page number?)
The only recent source I have is this blog-post http://sanctushieronymus.blogspot.it/20 ... ament.html (via Guiseppe)
It refers to "The latest issue of New Testament Studies [Volume 63 - Issue 2 - April 2017] contain[ing] a collection of brief essays on the topic of Marcion's Gospel..."
- Marcion's Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence? pp. 318-323
Matthias Klinghardt
Marcion's Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence? pp. 324-9
Jason Beduhn
Marcion's Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence? pp. 329-334
Judith Lieu
I cite selected passages here http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 722#p67722
"Matthias Klinghardt and Jason BeDuhn both argue against the charge leveled by Marcion's patristic opponents that Marcion redacted a form of Luke's Gospel, asserting to the contrary that Marcion's Gospel preceded both Marcion and Luke and was in fact the earliest Gospel written [This is different from the view of Markus Vinzent, who thinks that Marcion himself actually wrote the earliest Gospel: for a critical interaction with Vinzent's book, see [Dieter Roth's March 2015 comments] here]."
.
.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Okay, yes, I actually own BeDuhn's book on the Marcionite texts, and am quite aware of his views of the relationship between the Marcionite gospel, Marcion himself, and the gospel of Luke. But I was asking about Mark, not Marcion. A scan of the links you provide tells me what Klinghardt thinks about Mark (at least vis-à-vis the other gospels), but I find nothing regarding what BeDuhn thinks about Mark. Can you be more specific?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
No, sorry. Other than this from that blog-post, but it doesn't address Mark -Ben C. Smith wrote:
... But I was asking about Mark, not Marcion. ..I find nothing regarding what BeDuhn thinks about Mark. Can you be more specific?
* I presume BeDuhn's view of the Two-Source Hypothesis could also be framed around Marcion.
BeDuhn sees Luke as a Marcionite-neutral redaction of the Marcionite Gospel, which perhaps took place prior to Marcion. He says: "...it could even be suggested that Luke is a second edition of Marcion's Gospel by the same author." BeDuhn also thinks that the Two-Source hypothesis may be correct*, once Luke is replaced in the equation with the Marcionite Gospel and the reconstruction of Q proceeds along these new lines.
http://sanctushieronymus.blogspot.com.a ... ament.html
I presume Beduhn's book didn't address Mark, either.
I will try to get copies of these recent papers.
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Earls work has been flushed down the drain for a long time, Carriers resurrection bombed completely.Peter Kirby wrote: Any bets? Opinions?
Nothing in this text will change such. Even if it shows a more gnostic take.
Even if different and from the first century, it would not mean it was the original version.
In biology life does not evolve by going up a ladder, and these text would not evolve that way either. It could be a different sect with the diverse versions we know existed.
For me Earls text fails with Pauline interpretation, let alone with what ever comes after.