'First Century Mark' Now Dated to Second/Third Centuries

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Castles Made of Sand Fragments

Post by Blood » Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:15 am

Obbink and scholars from Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion are jointly involved in the Green Scholars Initiative, which studies ancient manuscripts. Obbink has given 10-day seminars on papyrology at Baylor.
It appears that Obbink is the latest mark targeted by the fundamentalists at Hobby Lobby and the Museum of the Bible (Trobisch was another) to give their apologetic enterprise respectability in the academic world. It's a stealth move, of course. These people have no interest in papyrology per se; their sole interest is in advancing the idea that the Bible's "true" and factual in every respect, and everything that implies politically in the USA.

Just what is "the Green Scholars Initiative"?

https://www.museumofthebible.org/resear ... initiative

Students who participate in collaborative projects [at the Green Scholars Initiative] may apply to the summer Logos conference, which serves as the gateway to the Logos Fellowship, a Christian community committed to the integration of the Christian faith and scholarship as well as the development of academic skills and perspectives. Recently, the Logos conference has taken place in England under the auspices of Scholarship & Christianity In Oxford. Museum of the Bible supports Logos Fellows through prominent scholarly publications, receptions at conferences that encourage networking, summer programming related to archaeology and advanced language skills, and vocational counseling.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: 'First Century Mark' Now Dated to Second/Third Centuries

Post by ficino » Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:47 am

I just discovered this on Daniel Wallace's blog. Wallace is the guy who first made it public that there was a purported 1st century fragment of gMark. Now he gives more details about the NDA etc.


https://danielbwallace.com/2018/06/11/f ... nd-update/

Elijah Hixson is the guy who originally broke the news that the controversial fragment just appeared in vol. 83 of POxy. He zeroes in on Wallace's statement that the prospective seller demanded an NDA. Who was that prospective seller?

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 'First Century Mark' Now Dated to Second/Third Centuries

Post by DCHindley » Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:51 pm

ficino wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:47 am
I just discovered this on Daniel Wallace's blog. Wallace is the guy who first made it public that there was a purported 1st century fragment of gMark. Now he gives more details about the NDA etc.


https://danielbwallace.com/2018/06/11/f ... nd-update/

Elijah Hixson is the guy who originally broke the news that the controversial fragment just appeared in vol. 83 of POxy. He zeroes in on Wallace's statement that the prospective seller demanded an NDA. Who was that prospective seller?

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
It sure does seem to me that *someone* was misrepresenting things to some of these players. What I think would have happened if the Green people handed over some substantial cash for what they believed was a 1st century CE fragment of Mark, they would have been given the document in a presentation case with much pomp and circumstance.

There would be great joy and a steakhouse dinner that evening, where they would sip double bonded sweet tea until the wee hours. But when they get it home afterwards, and open the case for a closer look, it would have been paper mache with a good quality lithograph of the fragment printed on it.

Meanwhile, the middlemen (or man) would hightail it back to Russia (or wherever).

In short, I do not think that there was ever a real seller, only a straw seller. My previous opinion that the craziness was the product of a soft sell artist at the Hobby Lobby corporate offices who was bragging like he had seen it and was about to buy it for the Museum or the Green collection, may still have some truth to it. Once you get a couple of them sweet teas in you (I prefer a brand called Swiss, no relation to Swiss Miss hot chocolate) it becomes hard to think straight and the web of bragging lies gets ever more tangled. But even if this unlikely scenario were to have existed, someone clearly recovered the sales executive's fumble and was running with it to score. He or she or they surely have evaporated into the mist, now that there has been too much negative publicity.

Poor Dan. While I kind of like him, he sure was naïve. I mean, the hood-winker played everyone like a pro, letting them believe whatever gave them the warm fuzzies if it led to an actual sale. Now Wallace is getting all upset that the ESS wasn't let in on the fact that one of their unpublished fragment was supposed to be a 1st century copy of Mark. What was he expecting? Pomp and circumstance? They never publish new volumes with pomp & circumstance. No doubt, had he had his usual papyrological tools with him when he examined it he could have detected that it was paper mache and a lithograph.

Fun!

DCH

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: 'First Century Mark' Now Dated to Second/Third Centuries

Post by ficino » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:20 am

I've wondered whether Obbink independently was trying, not to conclude a sale with the Greens and/or their representatives, but to arise as a white knight, broker a preliminary agreement, convince the Oxyrhynchus Society (or whatever entity is the legal owner of the fragment) that a sale at a huge price is a win-win, and then retain the rights to edit and publish the fragment himself. I have no evidence that my suspected scenario is or is not likely other than to have heard over the years that Obbink is apt at seeing opportunities. But the evangelical scholars/apologists are to be blamed for presenting as fact what was not known as fact.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Fragments Don't Lie But...

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:30 pm

JW:
Oh for Moses sake, I fear Jesus might actually return before CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) puts the possible timetable together:
  • 1) 2011 = Obbink discovers the fragment of GMark.

    2) 2012 = Obbink lets it be known that there is a fragment of GMark that does have evidence of a first century date.

    3) 2013 = EES asks Obbink to professionally date the fragment.

    4) 2014 = Obbink asks GSI if they are interested in purchasing.

    5) 2015 = Obbink purchases a castle in Waco that he knows will cost a lot more in repairs.

    6) 2016 = GSI says purchase price depends on dating.

    7) 2017 = Obbink and GSI in Greek standoff.

    8) 2018 = GSI will not buy before dating so Obbink dates.
For those who need points sharply explained it's possible that Obbink did not want to date the fragment while potential buyers thought it was first century. Thus the time lag before publication.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 'First Century Mark' Now Dated to Second/Third Centuries

Post by DCHindley » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:59 pm

ficino wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:20 am
I've wondered whether Obbink independently was trying, not to conclude a sale with the Greens and/or their representatives, but to arise as a white knight, broker a preliminary agreement, convince the Oxyrhynchus Society (or whatever entity is the legal owner of the fragment) that a sale at a huge price is a win-win, and then retain the rights to edit and publish the fragment himself. I have no evidence that my suspected scenario is or is not likely other than to have heard over the years that Obbink is apt at seeing opportunities. But the evangelical scholars/apologists are to be blamed for presenting as fact what was not known as fact.
I have to wonder what usually happens to the thousands of fragments unearthed in those excavations of ancient Egyptian rubbish heaps. I think some of them, especially the more important ones, were "purchased" or at least placed into the custody of museums for preservation in return for a price used to sponsor the editorial work being done to all the Oxyrhynchus fragments.

However, the EES (or whoever owns the excavated fragments) may well retain the right to allow choice individuals, paid by the EES, to edit them in their good time. Every so often, as the better know fragments got published, they had to dig deeper into the sack to dole out the editorial rights of less important (i.e., non-controversial) fragments to new scholars. To get an institution to sponsor this lesser fragment takes a stronger sales effort. Maybe Obbink gets a commission? <wink>

DCH

User avatar
Blood
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Fragments Don't Lie But...

Post by Blood » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:02 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:30 pm
JW:
Oh for Moses sake, I fear Jesus might actually return before CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) puts the possible timetable together:
  • 1) 2011 = Obbink discovers the fragment of GMark.

    2) 2012 = Obbink lets it be known that there is a fragment of GMark that does have evidence of a first century date.

    3) 2013 = EES asks Obbink to professionally date the fragment.

    4) 2014 = Obbink asks GSI if they are interested in purchasing.

    5) 2015 = Obbink purchases a castle in Waco that he knows will cost a lot more in repairs.

    6) 2016 = GSI says purchase price depends on dating.

    7) 2017 = Obbink and GSI in Greek standoff.

    8) 2018 = GSI will not buy before dating so Obbink dates.
I think it was probably simpler than that.

1) "The Green Collection" establishes a relationship with Obbink because they know he has access to truckloads of papyri, and they need him on board anyway to establish academic cred for their traveling snake oil medicine show
2) "The Green Collection" lets it be known to Obbink that they are willing to pay anything for early Christian papyri he "happens" to find
3) Obbink suddenly begins spending a lot more time with Oxyrhynchus Papyri
4) After going though thousands of scraps Obbink locates something that sounds "New Testamenty"
5) Obbink informs "The Green Collection" that he found an early papyrus of Mark in a mummy mask, not the Ashmolean Museum, so he "may" wish to sell it at the right price
6) "The Green Collection" agrees to float Obbink the money to buy a castle in Waco, Texas, in 2014 as an incentive to sell them the papyrus
7) Negotiations break down in 2017 and Obbink begins CYA operations, pretending that the scrap was never for sale, was always in the Ashmolean, had nothing to do with his mummy mask, and prints the scrap with no fanfare whatsoever in May 2018. Tells the EES and buddies at Oxford it was a big misunderstanding by some gullible but rich hillbillies in Texas.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9526
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 'First Century Mark' Now Dated to Second/Third Centuries

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:53 pm

“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Blood
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: 'First Century Mark' Now Dated to Second/Third Centuries

Post by Blood » Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:54 am

There you go. It implies that "First Century Mark" was supposed to be part of the early scraps mysteriously acquired by "The Green Collection" in 2011.

The article also quotes Steve Green giving the whole game away:

“Well, um, this is in part of the acquisitions that we have, that we have, ah, uh, in uncovering layers of papyrus and as we’re pulling layers away, all different kinds of texts show up, and this happens to be, is, as Dr. Scott Carroll has identified it, the oldest portion of the book of Romans known, dating to middle second century. So this really adds another brick to the wall of evidence supporting what the Bible tells us.”
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp

User avatar
Blood
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: 'First Century Mark' Now Dated to Second/Third Centuries

Post by Blood » Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:26 am

This article cites a press release dated August 1, 2012, entitled "Brill to Publish New Papyrus Series from The Green Collection." This new series was supposed to be edited by Dirk Obbink and Jerry Pattengale. Who is Pattengale? Director of "The Green Scholars Initiative" and overseer of all Green research projects.

This series, entitled "Publications of Museum of the Bible," was supposed to produce one volume a year, but since 2012 there has been only one volume, devoted to unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls fragments (edited by Emanuel Tov and others, not Obbink).

https://brill.com/view/serial/PMB

Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection Editors: Emanuel Tov, Kipp Davis and Robert Duke
Publication Date: 11 July 2016

According to Brill's website, the "Green Scholars Initiative" sounds like a wholly innocuous scholarly undertaking:

"The work on these fragments was conducted under the auspices of the Museum of the Bible Scholars Initiative, whose mission is to publish research conducted collaboratively by scholar-mentors and students. The ultimate goal is to provide students with the opportunity to develop as scholars under the guidance of their scholar-mentors."

The Museum of the Bible's statement on the GSI is quite different. They make it clear one of the main purposes of the group is apologetic.

"Students who participate in collaborative projects [at the Green Scholars Initiative] may apply to the summer Logos conference, which serves as the gateway to the Logos Fellowship, a Christian community committed to the integration of the Christian faith and scholarship..."

Did Brill back away from the series when they realized that it was all about legitimizing Christian fundamentalism in the USA?
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp

Post Reply