Jesus SportsGospel Line in the Sands-Odds that GMark post 70

[ghost]

Is it true that the demoniac is called "Gerasene", "Gergesene", "Gadarene"? If so, then why is that?

[ghost]

It's on pp 165–167 of Carotta's PDF…

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/wj ... ar1999.pdf

[ghost]

It's notes 331–338 on p 419 of the notes PDF…

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/wjc_d/noten.pdf

[ghost]

According to note 332 Mark 4:35 to Mark 5:20 matches the crossing of the Ionian Sea and the battle of Dyrrhachium. Mark 4:35 to Mark 4:41 ("Stilling of a Storm") is the crossing of the Ionian Sea. Mark 5:1 to Mark 5:20 ("Healing of a Demoniac") is the battle of Dyrrhachium.

[ghost]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... hapter%3D6

Accordingly having put seven legions on board, as we have before observed, he set sail the fourth of January, and arrived next day at the Ceraunian mountains: where, having found, among the rocks and shelves, with which that coast abounds, a tolerable road; and not daring to go to any port, as he apprehended they were all in the enemy's possession; he landed his troops at a place called Pharsalus, whither he brought his fleet, without the loss of a single ship.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The brave and truthful [but only in the context of Textual Criticism and not Bible History] Bart Ehrman has previously reported regarding GMark:

First-Century Copy of Mark? – Part 1

On February 1 [2012]I had a public debate in Chapel Hill with Daniel Wallace, a conservative evangelical Christian New Testament scholar who teaches at that bastion of conservative dispensationalist theology, Dallas Theological Seminary
...
In the debate I pointed out that our earliest copy of the Gospel of Mark was P45 (called this because it is the 45th Papyrus [hence “P”] manuscript to be catalogued), which dates to around the year 200 CE – i.e., 140 years after Mark was first written. That’s our earliest copy. Between the original of Mark and our earliest copy there were something like fourteen decades of copying, and recopying, and recopying of Mark. Year after year it was copied. And the copies were being changed at every point. And then later copies were copies of the earlier changed copies. Then those earlier changed copies were lost; as were the copies based on them; and the copies based on them. Until our earliest surviving copy, P45 – which itself is not a complete copy of Mark, but highly fragmentary. Our first complete copy of Mark dates to around the year 360 – nearly three hundred years (count them 300 years) after the “original” of Mark.
...
In his response to my discussion in the debate, Dan made a surprise announcement. We now have a first-century copy of Mark, he told the astonished audience (and the astonished Bart). When asked, he would not, or could not, tell us very much about this first-century copy of Mark.
...
All Dan would say is that the manuscript had been discovered; it had been dated by a renowned (but unnamed) palaeographer (i.e., expert in ancient handwriting: that’s how ancient manuscripts are dated, by analyzing the handwriting) who “had no theological bias” (I was not sure why Dan made that point; what does theology have to do with the dates of ancient handwriting); and that it would be published by the respectable publishing house E. J. Brill “in about a year.”

JW:
It's now been over 2 and a half years (about the time of Jesus' supposed ministry) with no publication. My own speculation is that the fragment is sufficiently early as to show variation with GMark and the fundamentalists who control the fragment still have not decided how to spin it. They may be shopping for supposed "experts" to find the most favorable analysis while making everyone sign a non-disclosure agreement in the meantime. Certainly the pattern of Textual Criticism here is a relationship between Age and Variation (the earlier, the more variation).

And now this:

[Dr. Craig Evans] First Century Fragment of Mark

A YouTube video showing a slide (slide, Craig, slide) from the evil and wicked Craig Evans that claims the mysterious first century fragment of GMark has been dated to the 80s (contemporary than with Mr. Belvedere) and will be published "later in 2014". This was at an Apologetics conference in March 2014. Really Bad Bible Scholarship

As it pertains to this Thread as evidence for the dating of GMark, I note with interest that the fundamentalists here, Wallace and Evans, are starting with their conclusion, that this fragment is 1st century, before the evidence and analysis has been presented/performed. In an irony that I think the author of GMark would really appreciate, the offending fragment could actually provide better evidence of post 70 than pre 70 as when the evidence is published with the authors arguing for pre-70 it may be strange/bizarre/macabre while the more objective evidence is illustration/example of Christian custodian/scholarship's motivation/bias for pre-70.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Was at The Singer Evans debate last night regarding whether that guy from the Christian Bible who's name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y" was the prophesied Jewish Messiah (what a show!) and after the debate I bought one of Evans books (I think it was the only one he sold) so I could ask him a question =

If you could be any animal you want, which one would it be?

Just kidding, I asked him if he had any update on that first century fragment of the Gospel of Mark. He said it would be published in 2015.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[cienfuegos]

Though controversial, I think Mark's passion is influenced by Josephus (JW, 6.5.3) which is dated to the mid-60s. I think it is unlikely that the gMark author incorporated this very much before 70 if at all. Therefore, the odds are better for after. Given that the premise isn't secure, I think the odds should be adjusted slightly in favor of post-70.

[JoeWallack]

Crazy Dating

JW:
It's now been over 2 and a half years (about the time of Jesus' supposed ministry) with no publication. My own speculation is that the fragment is sufficiently early as to show variation with GMark and the fundamentalists who control the fragment still have not decided how to spin it. They may be shopping for supposed "experts" to find the most favorable analysis while making everyone sign a non-disclosure agreement in the meantime. Certainly the pattern of Textual Criticism here is a relationship between Age and Variation (the earlier, the more variation).

And now this:

[Dr. Craig Evans] First Century Fragment of Mark

A YouTube video showing a slide (slide, Craig, slide) from the evil and wicked Craig Evans that claims the mysterious first century fragment of GMark has been dated to the 80s (contemporary than with Mr. Belvedere) and will be published "later in 2014". This was at an Apologetics conference in March 2014. Really Bad Bible Scholarship

As it pertains to this Thread as evidence for the dating of GMark, I note with interest that the fundamentalists here, Wallace and Evans, are starting with their conclusion, that this fragment is 1st century, before the evidence and analysis has been presented/performed. In an irony that I think the author of GMark would really appreciate, the offending fragment could actually provide better evidence of post 70 than pre 70 as when the evidence is published with the authors arguing for pre-70 it may be strange/bizarre/macabre while the more objective evidence is illustration/example of Christian custodian/scholarship's motivation/bias for pre-70.

JW:
In addition to whatever the claimed direct evidence for dating will be we also have an issue of Provenance. Anytime you have a discovery by a biased party, Provenance is decreased. I think here, everyone would agree that a biased party is the likely discoverer. The time lag between notice (early 2012) and publication (post 2014) is further decreasing provenance. Possible issues:

• 1) No identification of the discoverer. Uncertainty decreases Provenance.
  
  2) Is there a control between what was discovered and what will be presented?
  
  3) What is the nature of the Confidentiality Agreement? Is the Discoverer shopping supposed experts and not allowing public commentary unless it is approved by the Discoverer?
  
  4) If 3) is the case, is it unethical for a supposed Bible scholar to sign such an agreement?
  
  5) Is it possible for the Discoverer to exorcise the/a fragment in part/total if the Discoverer thinks full disclosure would hurt Christian assertion?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Full related paragraph from Bart Ehrman blog:

Defending the Destruction of Mummy Masks

[Craig Evans]

The disappointment is that I have just learned that the Mark fragment will not be published this year after all. The Green Scholars manager, Jerry Pattengale, told me today that it will be another “couple of years.” Why the delay I do not know. I suspect – and this is only a guess – is that there is interest to include a few more old NT papyri recovered in the last year or so. I cannot tell you more, mostly because I do not know more. My guess is that there may be a couple more 2nd century papyri to add to our list.

JW:
1) This is support for my guess that the reason for the delay is that the Markan fragment is early and goes against Christian assertion. Hence, stalling for time hoping for the earliest of:

• 1 - Better Apologies.
  
  2 - Everyone forgetting all about it.
  
  3 - Preemptive return by Jesus.

2) Confirmation of a Skeptic's worst possible related fear. The Green Collection is the owner (Provenance, look out!).

Interestingly, Peter Head (who may be the top Christian Bible scholar now), who has been critical of the handling (so to speak) related to the fragment, is listed as a Scholar for the Green Collection.

In an irony that I think the author (original) of GMark would really appreciate, the first public notice of this fragment was used in an attempt to discredit Bart Ehrman's assertion that we can not be sure of what was originally written in the Gospels, but may end up being the best evidence supporting his assertion.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki