Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
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?

Post by Peter Kirby »

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?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by davidbrainerd »

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.
User avatar
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?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:Godfrey is already trumpeting the find as a win for Doherty (presumably, vis-a-vis his mythicist rivals).
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).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
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?

Post by Peter Kirby »

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.
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.

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
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by MrMacSon »

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.
User avatar
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?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

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
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.

(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
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
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
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.
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: (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?)
Yes, I did mean Jason (corrected above ^ & ^^)


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
The sanctushieronymus.blog post elaborates and says, in part, -

"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]."
.
I cite selected passages here http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 722#p67722
.
User avatar
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?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

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
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by MrMacSon »

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?
No, sorry. Other than this from that blog-post, but it doesn't address Mark -

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 view of the Two-Source Hypothesis could also be framed around Marcion.

I presume Beduhn's book didn't address Mark, either.

I will try to get copies of these recent papers.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by outhouse »

Peter Kirby wrote: Any bets? Opinions?
Earls work has been flushed down the drain for a long time, Carriers resurrection bombed completely.

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.
Post Reply