Re: 'First Century Mark' Now Dated to Second/Third Centuries
Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:25 am
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
And there are several numbers in West’s list of unpublished Iliad papyri from Oxyrhynchus that are quite similar to that of the Mark fragment. One even has the exact same number. The format is West’s number, the Oxythynchus number, (date in lower case Roman numerals in parentheses, if a date is given), Greek number of book of the Iliad, line number:
857 P. Ashm. inv. 104/88(b): B 315-28
909 P. Ashm. inv. 104/153(a) (iii): Γ 146-60
910 P. Ashm. inv. 104/9(e): Γ 174-87
929 P. Ashm. inv. 104/36(c): Γ 355-64
951 P. Ashm. inv. 104/42(f): Δ 93-9, 121-8
962 P. Ashm. inv. 104/75(b): Δ 220-35, 254-71
986 P. Ashm. inv. 104/104(a) (iii): E 16-26
1054 P. Ashm. inv. 104/92(a): Z 199-210
1120 P. Ashm. inv. 104/9(a) (i-ii): I 4-33
1140 P. Ashm. inv. 104/14(b): I 422-8, 527-33
1292 P. Ashm. inv. 104/84(b): N 833-7
1320 P. Ashm. inv. 104/87(b) (i): O 1-14
1325 P. Ashm. inv. 104/55(a): O 156-61, 208-13
1334 P. Ashm. inv. 104/138(a) (ii-iii): O 389-400
1382 P. Ashm. inv. 104/141(a) (ii): Π 708-17
Other published pieces with similar inventory numbers include the following:
P.Oxy. 67.4564 = 104/62(a); Euripides (3rd or 4th cent. CE)
P.Oxy. 69.4721 = 104/78(d); Isocrates (3rd century CE)
P.Oxy. 71.4821 = 104/164(a) + PSI inv. 122; comm. to Odyssey (second cent. CE)
P.Oxy. 74.4979 = 104/82(c); medical text? (2nd or 3rd cent. CE)
P.Oxy. 78.5134 = 104/117(c); Isocrates (3rd cent. CE)
P.Oxy. 78.5155 = 104/6(f); Plutarch (3rd or 4th cent. CE)
P.Oxy. 81.5264 = 104/54(c); literary text (2nd or 3rd cent. CE)
P.Oxy. 82.5303 = 104/106(b); magical text (3rd cent. CE)
P.Oxy. 82.5306 = 104/3(a); document (4th cent. CE)
The 'first century' claims weren't the result of an 'apologetic' agenda but perhaps the only the consequence of a pre-existent agenda - i.e. profit was the real motive.The attempted sale of an Oxyrhynchus papyrus by an Oxford professor would certainly be…irregular, to say the least (UPDATE: EES denies attempted sale; see bottom of post). If this commenter is actually Scott Carroll, and if these allegations prove true, this would be quite scandalous.
The infamous First-Century Mark Fragment has finally been published in the latest volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri as P.Oxy. 5345 (vol. 83 [2018]) (so that's the source of the fragment and, apparently, there are no provenance issues involved). However, according to the description provided in the volume, the fragment is not from the first century CE (no wonder!), but rather from the second or even from the third. This dating rectification reminds me of a Radio Yerevan joke. Question: Is it true that Ivan Ivanonich won a car in a lottery? Answer: In principle, yes, but it was not a car but a bicycle and he did not win it but it was stolen from him.