Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

[outhouse]

Beduhn, and Markus Vinzent are now giving the traditionalist a run for their money

Imaginative claim.

70 Ce is still a firm and credible date by all rights.

Some people make claims but none have made as much sense AS a direct need for written traditions to be compiled because the temple fell.

[MrMacSon]

• ... a direct need for written traditions to be compiled because the temple fell.

• What 'direct need'?

[Peter Kirby]

Any bets? Opinions?

Earls work has been flushed down the drain for a long time, Carriers resurrection bombed completely.

Nothing in this text will change such. Even if it shows a more gnostic take.

Even if different and from the first century, it would not mean it was the original version.

In biology life does not evolve by going up a ladder, and these text would not evolve that way either. It could be a different sect with the diverse versions we know existed.

For me Earls text fails with Pauline interpretation, let alone with what ever comes after.

"This text" is the Gospel of Mark, or a fragment of it, supposedly. I've heard nothing of any different "take."

My premise, for the purposes of this thread, is that faced with certain information and facts, most people will try to accommodate them economically, with a minimum of damage to their most hard-fought tenets. IF the Gospel of Mark were shown to be first century, then, to the extent that this sets up a tension with the alternatives, more might be seen arguing that the Gospel of Mark wasn't intended to be taken literally. Thus maintaining their personal status quo in the bigger picture.

Some are also suggesting that they'd just reject it as false, and some indeed will... and some will find a wedge where they can and argue that they can interpret Mark any which way and it could be written at any given date, and still be completely false... well, because they can. But, if Doherty is any example, as contrasted with some of the second century daters, the first century opinion on dating seems to correlate with the mythical/allegorical/metaphorical interpretation, for mythicists.

[Peter Kirby]

Earls work has been flushed down the drain for a long time

That's very colorful, emphatic language.

But what facts disprove Earl's work?

[rakovsky]

OK, can anyone please tell me what the fragment says?

I have no idea how any of this is going to confirm anyone's theories, unless it says something different than canonical Mark.

[Ged]

The publication was supposed to have been delayed, because several other fragments are being studied with the intention is to publish them all together in book form. So we will have to wait to see the fragment itself. But sounds like it will be significant either way.

[Peter Kirby]

OK, can anyone please tell me what the fragment says?

I have no idea how any of this is going to confirm anyone's theories, unless it says something different than canonical Mark.

There's no indication that it "says" anything. It's a fragment of the Gospel of Mark.

If it was anything other than that, I think we'd have heard about it by now.

Also, if it weren't very small, I think we'd hear bragging about its size.

So take it as a small scrap of Mark that tells you nothing, apart from its claimed age.

When it's published (and that won't be before 2018 apparently), it may or may not have variations in the text, and they may or may not have been attested before. Odds are (if one can speak of odds) that any variations attested, are already attested elsewhere. There may be no text-critical significance at all.

Compare with the p52 scrap of the Gospel of John, which has very little meaning apart from its claimed age.

OK, can anyone please tell me what the fragment says?

No. It's a secret, for now, for the scholars' eyes only.

I have no idea how any of this is going to confirm anyone's theories, unless it says something different than canonical Mark.

Tell that to the (mostly conservative Christian) apologists who believe it will have great meaning for supporting the historical value of the Gospel of Mark (mostly, by requiring the traditional date for the Gospel of Mark, apparently ... i.e. ca. 70, give or take or whatever).

[Peter Kirby]

Nothing in this text will change such. Even if it shows a more gnostic take.

OK, can anyone please tell me what the fragment says?

I get the feeling that outhouse and rakovsky didn't really read the OP closely at all.

The "fragment" or "text" is simply a manuscript attestation of the Gospel of Mark, claimed to be early in date. Unpublished.

There is no direct support in the "text" for any weird readings of Mark (or so I reasonably assume).

My suggestion is that an early date would push some mythicists to concur with Doherty, who dates Mark to the first century, about a "metaphorical" interpretation, so as to cope better with the claimed early age.

[maryhelena]

Neil Godfrey has occasionally been blogging the so-called (coming-to-a-store-near-you-in-2018) "first century fragment" of Mark:

http://vridar.org/2015/01/24/a-papyrolo ... -fragment/

http://vridar.org/2012/02/06/earliest-m ... l-doherty/

If this gains traction, can we expect mythicism to shift gears into supporting Doherty's (or some kind of allegorical or) "metaphorical Mark" thesis?

Godfrey is already trumpeting the find as a win for Doherty (presumably, vis-a-vis his mythicist rivals).

Any bets? Opinions?

A win for Doherty???

Earliest Manuscript of the Gospel of Mark Validates Earl Doherty

Neil also says:

''(Other mythicists — Drews, Wells, Price — have given the Gospel of Mark a terminus a quo of 70 c.e.)''

James Crossley dates the gospel of Mark pre 70 c.e....

Mark Goodacre dates Mark's gospel post 70 c.e. A link to his argument against Crossley below - in the comments section Crossley replies.

The Dating Game VI: Was Mark written after 70?

http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/ ... after.html

(unfortunately some of the links on Goodacre's blog do not work for some of his blog posts..)

Internal evidence places the gospel of Mark pre Antiquities - as I posted on Neil's blog in response to his blog post: ....'' one only has to consider gMark against Antiquities (around 95 c.e.) to come to the idea that gMark was written prior to Antiquities. In gMark, Herodias is married to Philip. In Antiquities it is the daughter of Herodias, Salome, that is married to Philip. Likewise, Slavonic Josephus has Herodias married to Philip. gLuke drops the Herodias married to Philip account of gMark – indicating that it was written after Antiquities....''

Neither historicists nor non-historicists theories are debunked by an early dating for the gospel of Mark.

If early dating for the gospel of Mark is established as being pre Antiquities - then it would be dating theories based on the Bar Kochba War of 135 c.e. that would fall.

• Was Detering Right about the Date of Mark?
  
  However, a handful of exegetes, among them the brilliant German scholar Hermann Detering, see Mark 13 as referring not to the revolt of 70 but to the later revolt of 135, in which the Jewish nation was not only defeated but eliminated.
  
  http://michaelturton2.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... rk_22.html

[Steven Avery]

The date is worthless unless there are clear external factors (a shopping list in the mask from 80 AD, an edict that eliminated new mummy masks at 90 AD).

We know that terminus ad quem dates for manuscripts are notoriously unreliable. Think the papers of Brent Nongbri, think Codex Sinaiticus.
Basically, handwriting and manuscript styles can be duplicated long after their first occurrence.

So the only real question here .. is there a compelling external evidence involved?

Steven