On The Longest Possible Timeline The Survival Rate Of Difficult Markan Readings Goes To Zero. First Rule Of Text Club

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

On The Longest Possible Timeline The Survival Rate Of Difficult Markan Readings Goes To Zero. First Rule Of Text Club

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:41 am

First Rule of Text Club

JW:

Date Range Extant Commentary
1st Century Nothing GMark may not have been written in the 1st century. There is no direct or quality evidence that it was. In order for orthodox Christianity to assert that it was witness based if about two generations passed before GMark was written there would generally be very few potential witnesses who knew someone who knew the individuals in GMark, about 70 years. Likewise there is no direct or quality evidence that GMark was written after the 1st century, so GMark post 1st century is not certain, probable or likely. It is just as good a candidate.

Regarding Christian motivations and the relationship between early extant and difficult readings, there is an inverse relationship. Christianity wants early extant and does not want difficult readings. Textual Criticism demonstrates a clear relationship between dating and difficult readings. The earlier the reading the more likely it is to be difficult. The supposed currently unpublished but asserted 1st century fragment of GMark may turn out to be a case in point. The existence of this fragment was first publicly identified in 2012. Since then fragments of Christian Bible Scholarship have asserted that it likely dates to 1st century but have not given any details about the specific text. Due to the time lag Provenance has been damaged, if not ruined, and the credibility of the owner/handler is now damaged/ruined. The waiting period introduces the possibility that the owner/handler did/does not want timely publication for some reason. Christian Bible Scholarship, especially fundamentalist, would want publication of an early fragment but would not want publication of an early difficult fragment. Evil possibilities are, exorcism of the fragment in total or part. Interestingly, the reluctance of Christian Bible Scholarship to publish may be evidence that the fragment is indeed early but has not been published because of a difficult reading. This would line up with the general observation mentioned here of Textual Criticism, because the fragment is early, it has a difficult reading. The first Rule of Text Club = Don't talk about early Difficult Readings.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

What Christian Textual Critic Is Uptight, What Markan Fragment Is Out Of Sight, And In The Groove (Green Ovaries)?

Post by JoeWallack » Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:38 am

JW:

Date Range Extant Commentary
1st Century Nothing GMark may not have been written in the 1st century. There is no direct or quality evidence that it was. In order for orthodox Christianity to assert that it was witness based if about two generations passed before GMark was written there would generally be very few potential witnesses who knew someone who knew the individuals in GMark, about 70 years. Likewise there is no direct or quality evidence that GMark was written after the 1st century, so GMark post 1st century is not certain, probable or likely. It is just as good a candidate.

Regarding Christian motivations and the relationship between early extant and difficult readings, there is an inverse relationship. Christianity wants early extant and does not want difficult readings. Textual Criticism demonstrates a clear relationship between dating and difficult readings. The earlier the reading the more likely it is to be difficult. The supposed currently unpublished but asserted 1st century fragment of GMark may turn out to be a case in point. The existence of this fragment was first publicly identified in 2012. Since then fragments of Christian Bible Scholarship have asserted that it likely dates to 1st century but have not given any details about the specific text. Due to the time lag Provenance has been damaged, if not ruined, and the credibility of the owner/handler is now damaged/ruined. The waiting period introduces the possibility that the owner/handler did/does not want timely publication for some reason. Christian Bible Scholarship, especially fundamentalist, would want publication of an early fragment but would not want publication of an early difficult fragment. Evil possibilities are, exorcism of the fragment in total or part. Interestingly, the reluctance of Christian Bible Scholarship to publish may be evidence that the fragment is indeed early but has not been published because of a difficult reading. This would line up with the general observation mentioned here of Textual Criticism, because the fragment is early, it has a difficult reading. The first Rule of Text Club = Don't talk about early Difficult Readings.
2nd century Unpublished fragment? First-century Mark: More Information! Reasons 2nd century text is the most likely to have Difficult Readings:
1. It's the earliest.
2. Most Manuscripts of GMark would have been by themselves as opposed to part of a Canon collection. Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") gives the orthodox position late 2nd century that there are four Gospels that are all authoritative. A Manuscript of GMark at this time that stood by itself would be much more likely to be exorcised/edited than a Markan Manuscript that was part of a Canon collection where Christian Apologists could claim that for Difficult Markan readings the other Gospels supplemented/clarified/corrected GMark.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

perseusomega9
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: On The Longest Possible Timeline The Survival Rate Of Difficult Markan Readings Goes To Zero. First Rule Of Text Clu

Post by perseusomega9 » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:27 am

A Manuscript of GMark at this time that stood by itself would be much more likely to be exorcised/edited than a Markan Manuscript that was part of a Canon collection where Christian Apologists could claim that for Difficult Markan readings the other Gospels supplemented/clarified/corrected GMark.
Such as conveniently sandwiching it between Matthew and Luke

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:01 am

JW:

Date Range Extant Commentary
1st Century Nothing GMark may not have been written in the 1st century. There is no direct or quality evidence that it was. In order for orthodox Christianity to assert that it was witness based if about two generations passed before GMark was written there would generally be very few potential witnesses who knew someone who knew the individuals in GMark, about 70 years. Likewise there is no direct or quality evidence that GMark was written after the 1st century, so GMark post 1st century is not certain, probable or likely. It is just as good a candidate.

Regarding Christian motivations and the relationship between early extant and difficult readings, there is an inverse relationship. Christianity wants early extant and does not want difficult readings. Textual Criticism demonstrates a clear relationship between dating and difficult readings. The earlier the reading the more likely it is to be difficult. The supposed currently unpublished but asserted 1st century fragment of GMark may turn out to be a case in point. The existence of this fragment was first publicly identified in 2012. Since then fragments of Christian Bible Scholarship have asserted that it likely dates to 1st century but have not given any details about the specific text. Due to the time lag Provenance has been damaged, if not ruined, and the credibility of the owner/handler is now damaged/ruined. The waiting period introduces the possibility that the owner/handler did/does not want timely publication for some reason. Christian Bible Scholarship, especially fundamentalist, would want publication of an early fragment but would not want publication of an early difficult fragment. Evil possibilities are, exorcism of the fragment in total or part. Interestingly, the reluctance of Christian Bible Scholarship to publish may be evidence that the fragment is indeed early but has not been published because of a difficult reading. This would line up with the general observation mentioned here of Textual Criticism, because the fragment is early, it has a difficult reading. The first Rule of Text Club = Don't talk about early Difficult Readings.
2nd century Unpublished fragment? First-century Mark: More Information! Reasons 2nd century text is the most likely to have Difficult Readings:
1. It's the earliest.
2. Most Manuscripts of GMark would have been by themselves as opposed to part of a Canon collection. Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") gives the orthodox position late 2nd century that there are four Gospels that are all authoritative. A Manuscript of GMark at this time that stood by itself would be much more likely to be exorcised/edited than a Markan Manuscript that was part of a Canon collection where Christian Apologists could claim that for Difficult Markan readings the other Gospels supplemented/clarified/corrected GMark.
3rd century Papyrus 45 P45 contains parts of Chapters 4-9 and 11-12. P45 is most suspiciously missing Chapter 10 as noted in my Award winning Thread Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings. For those not initiated unto the Mysteries of Mark, Chapter 10 would be where Secret Mark would have been and an analysis of extant P45 reveals that it originally contained about a Chapter more than extant GMark. As also noted in that unholy Thread P45 is missing the parts of GMark that contain the most Difficult readings below.
P45, being 3rd century, was in Canon form. Unlike its 2nd century ancestors it did survive in part, except for the naughty bits. The objective Skeptic can't help wondering, based on motive and opportunity and the trend that this Thread is demonstrating, if something nefarious was involved or at least some type of suppression.


Difficult Reading Missing in P45?
1:1 The son of God Yes
1:2 Isaiah the prophet Yes
1:10 Into him Yes
1:41 Angry Yes
3:5 Angry Yes
10 Secret Mark Yes
13:32 Neither the son Yes
14:28 Galilee Yes
16:8 ending Yes


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: On The Longest Possible Timeline The Survival Rate Of Difficult Markan Readings Goes To Zero. First Rule Of Text Clu

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:24 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:27 am
A Manuscript of GMark at this time that stood by itself would be much more likely to be exorcised/edited than a Markan Manuscript that was part of a Canon collection where Christian Apologists could claim that for Difficult Markan readings the other Gospels supplemented/clarified/corrected GMark.
Such as conveniently sandwiching it between Matthew and Luke
Bingo!

gmx
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: On The Longest Possible Timeline The Survival Rate Of Difficult Markan Readings Goes To Zero. First Rule Of Text Clu

Post by gmx » Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:22 am

Hey Joe,

It has often occurred to me that these highly-publicised manuscript finds that never eventuate are similar to the water-powered or air-powered cars that continually appear in popular media and are never heard from again (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_OneCAT and https://gizmodo.com/5016343/genepax-unv ... d-air?IR=T). The PR releases are obviously geared around investment, and the underlying premise is assumedly fraudulent.

The difference with the early Mark fragment, to me, is the suggestion that well-regarded papyrologists (ie Dirk Obbink) are involved. Why wouldn't Obbink publicly dissent or litigate if his named has been used nefariously?

So, on the assumption that Obbink has viewed "the fragment", and therefore can't deny involvement, what is the motivation for the existence of the fragment being "leaked" but remaining unpublished for 6 years? Scott Carroll said in 2015 that he had viewed the fragment twice, both times in the possession of Obbink. Does Obbink's silence corroborate the existence of an early Mark fragment?
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Missing The Mark

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:47 am

JW:
Had lunch with Ehrman yesterday. He said he was told at The Bible Museum that the thinking is that the fragment of GMark was planted in mummy cartonnage and that is why it has not and will not be published. Gilad Atzmon of course thinks the powerful Jewish Media is preventing publication and Robert Fisk merely suspects Israel.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

gmx
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: On The Longest Possible Timeline The Survival Rate Of Difficult Markan Readings Goes To Zero. First Rule Of Text Clu

Post by gmx » Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:37 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:47 am
JW:
Had lunch with Ehrman yesterday. He said he was told at The Bible Museum that the thinking is that the fragment of GMark was planted in mummy cartonnage and that is why it has not and will not be published. Gilad Atzmon of course thinks the powerful Jewish Media is preventing publication and Robert Fisk merely suspects Israel.
My understanding is that the fragment has been associated with mummy cartonnage since its first public mention. Those who have spoken about it publicly have confirmed the method of its retrieval. I'm not sure how this fact could now alter the viability of its publication?!?

Regardless of the rights or wrongs associated with how the fragment was obtained, surely if it now exists and can be confirmed as being 1st century CE (obviously by something other than paleography), its historical significance mandates its publication, and trumps all other objections.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: On The Longest Possible Timeline The Survival Rate Of Difficult Markan Readings Goes To Zero. First Rule Of Text Clu

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:50 am

'Cos the "cartonnage" becomes important to the story if, surrounding the fragment on the cartonnage, are traces of Elmer's Glue-All bought from a Walmart in Ames Iowa.

CW

PS, re: Atzmon: When did Hatred of Jews become a requirement for NT Studies? Oh...Wait a minute...

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Apologists Now!

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:01 am

Charles Wilson wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:50 am
'Cos the "cartonnage" becomes important to the story if, surrounding the fragment on the cartonnage, are traces of Elmer's Glue-All bought from a Walmart in Ames Iowa.

CW

PS, re: Atzmon: When did Hatred of Jews become a requirement for NT Studies? Oh...Wait a minute...
JW:
Steven thinks that it is the fragment that is authentic and that Simonides forged the mummy cartonnage with leftover "Sinaiticus" materials.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Post Reply