Page 4 of 6

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

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 7:14 pm
by Joseph D. L.
Blood wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 4:33 pm
Where did the "mummy mask" claim come from if it was always known to be part of the Oxyrhynchus collection? None of the 2013-14 hype mentioned Oxyrhynchus.
From what I've gathered over the years, the fragment discovered in the mummy mask is not the same as Oxyrhynchus P. 5345.

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

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 8:36 am
by Secret Alias

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

Posted: Tue May 29, 2018 2:57 pm
by Secret Alias
The claim that the fragment was 'provisionally' dated to the first century from the beginning:

https://brentnongbri.com/2018/05/28/som ... y-83-5345/

Geoffrey Smith adds "As I've said in other comments, I have been told by Daniela Colomo that Revel Coles provisionally dated the fragment, which he did not know was Mark, to the second, not the first century CE. If she is correct, the EES statement is inaccurate."

Castles Made of Sand Fragments

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 6:47 am
by JoeWallack

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

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:46 am
by StephenGoranson
The Egypt Exploration Society has commented further on the Mark ms:
https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/poxy-lxxxiii-5345

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

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:02 am
by Ken Olson
Thanks for the update Stephen. I think this part suggests that some further explanation is required from Daniel Wallace about where the Non-Disclosure Agreement came from which kept him from correcting his emphatic claim to know of a first century fragment of Mark, and also why he felt obliged to agree to it.
Non-disclosure agreement: The EES has no knowledge of, and has never seen, the NDA which Professor Daniel Wallace says someone required him to sign about the unpublished Mark fragment. Professor Obbink too says he has no knowledge of it. The EES has not received any outside request of any sort about the Mark fragment before its recent publication.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:07 am
by Jax
Ken Olson wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:02 am
Thanks for the update Stephen. I think this part suggests that some further explanation is required from Daniel Wallace about where the Non-Disclosure Agreement came from which kept him from correcting his emphatic claim to know of a first century fragment of Mark, and also why he felt obliged to agree to it.
Non-disclosure agreement: The EES has no knowledge of, and has never seen, the NDA which Professor Daniel Wallace says someone required him to sign about the unpublished Mark fragment. Professor Obbink too says he has no knowledge of it. The EES has not received any outside request of any sort about the Mark fragment before its recent publication.
Totally! This should prove interesting. :popcorn:

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

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:20 am
by StephenGoranson
Maybe, maybe relevant here is that a Non Disclosure Agreement (that is, its text) of the Green Scholars Initiative is reported in Ch. 2 of Bible Nation (2017) by Moss and Baden, though mentioned in a context not specifically linked with the Mark ms.

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

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:31 am
by DCHindley
StephenGoranson wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:20 am
Maybe, maybe relevant here is that a Non Disclosure Agreement (that is, its text) of the Green Scholars Initiative is reported in Ch. 2 of Bible Nation (2017) by Moss and Baden, though mentioned in a context not specifically linked with the Mark ms.
This is another example of just how confused Wallace's source had been. The fact that he completely convinced Wallace of his statements perhaps suggests we are talking about a marketing exec or sales exec., not necessarily some sort of attampt at subterfuge. To be honest, Wallace is a pretty straight hitter in my humble opinion. Don't agree with his religious expression, but I am not about to call him a liar.

DCH (sorry, lunch break is over)

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

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:57 am
by Steven Avery
Good info above, and the other thread about the apology. Especially the principles saying, “we no NDA”.

Wallace, afaik, has already been asked a few times as to why and with whom he signed the NDA, which became key to the six years of absurd speculation drama. From the above, it looks likely that it was with someone with a $ motive. Wallace may have even agreed, formally or verbally, not to say anything about the NDA after its restrictions on the fragment expired.

Afaik, Daniel Wallace has simply skipped the questions. There does seem to be a significant motive and ethics issue involved.