New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Maybe this is the crowd which howls when a mask is disassembled for the mss inside it. Perhaps ... just perhaps ... they fear the mummy police will come to call on their castle, rappelling down like commandos, as they do, from their black unmarked helicopters.

DCH

I'm not happy about your uncritical view and your irony encouraged me. I will not deny the higher importance of some papyri (for example the Artemidorus papyrus). I think it is a matter of judgment in individual cases (quality of the mask). In my view, a good mask should be saved (and in our case it was a good mask). In a documentary I have seen that a very good industrial CT scanner can visualize whether the papyri are described. Latest in twenty years there will be CT scanners with which you can read large portions of the scripture.

[perseusomega9]

http://michaelwholmes.com/posts-and-comments-2/

An excellent, scholarly article.

The Executive Director of the GSI makes clear his reasons for not telling anybody a single word from this manuscript.

We have to be sure of the dating. Is it really a canonical document? Does it really date from the 1st century?

These are difficult questions , which take time to answer.

Hence the delay,of 2 years or more since it was broadcast to the world that there would be a book in 2013 about it.

It is obviously going to take a bit of time to date the work and make sure it is a canonical document.

Until that is done,all that can be said is that it is a fragment of Mark from the 1st century.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
Peter Curry: New Details Emerge about ‘First Century Mark’ from Scott Carroll

But Grandmaster Larry says: It's over!

Brent refers also to the claim that surfaced a few years ago that a “first-century” fragment of the Gospel of Mark had been acquired by the Green family project. I posted about this a couple of years ago here. Things haven’t changed since then: (1) No such papyrus fragment of Mark has been produced; (2) my limited inside-information is that none is likely to be produced, and that the earlier claim was not based on any competent analysis; so (3) the alleged “first-century” fragment of Mark is the papyrological equivalent of an urban myth.

[Ulan]

Thanks for sharing that link. I completely missed that Fackelmann story (linked within) from a couple of years ago. That's a hoot.

[Jax]

It was always possible to date gMark, and gMatthew, earlier than Antiquities and its dating of 93/94 c.e. The mention in both these gospels of Herodias being married to Philip establishes that. (The Herodias and Philip material in Slavonic Josephus supports the gMark and gMatthew account). Josephus, in Antiquities, having a different story to tell.....So a toss up - gMark and gMatthew in error - or Josephus? Coming down on the gospel writers as being in error serves only to let Josephus off the hook - and thus to limit any search for early christian origins.

I would love to know much more about this. Can you or anyone else here please furnish more information about this? Are there any critical articles on this for example? At any rate on differences between the various extant copies of Josephus?

Thank you
Jax