1st Century Ms discovered? Wallace says so!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Greektim, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
  2. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    WOW!

    IF indeed the truth, we would have perhaps a first copy off the original manuscript penned by mark Himself!

    IF there are no "surprises", should pretty much lay Bart E criticisms to their eternal resting ground!
     
  3. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does having a 1st century scrap of a NT manuscript do for Christianity and its defense?
     
  4. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? I think Dr. Ehrman raises some valid questions that deserve competent answers.
     
  5. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    It certainly increases the argument of the reliability of the NT. Part of Ehrman's argument is that the NT was written too much later after the facts and therefore unreliable.

    I am excited for other reasons. If true, this will help to establish the conservative dating for the original NT writings. But much will depend on its place of origin and textual family (if any existed in the 1st century).
     
  6. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I think we've talked about this around here...maybe somewhere else. It is compelling if its true. However, Dr Wallace shouldn't have put it out that way.

    The fragment (from the Green Collection) is small and is going to be very hard to authenticate. Recently they posted a possible photo and it is causing a lot of questions. I'm not saying this isn't going to be authentic, but it is dubious.

    Frankly I don't think it is helpful until we get appropriate info. The NT has been so researched and supported this will help but I wonder how much. The prospect of a first century fragment is increasingly exciting, but I'm withholding any significant hope until we can really see the peer-reviewed data.
     
  7. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    So this will prove that Mark was written 5 or 10 years earlier than the non-conservatives say? How? And why so important to "prove."
     
  8. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps they will discover it was the autograph itself, discarded to a rubbish heap in Egypt. This might actually help Ehrman's case, when you think about it.
     
  9. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps it is the rough draft Mark himself wrote before writing his final copy, in which case the real Mark would actually be newer than this fragment. Or maybe it's a fragment of long lost Q? The exciting possibilities are endless!
     
  10. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    No... if it is truly a 1st century Ms, and considering how long it takes to produce and distribute Mss, it would push the writing of Mark pre-70... at least help that argument. So definitely more than 5-10 years.

    And why so negative??? It's like you are mad they may have found this possible 1st century Ms.

    And Egypt didn't have rubbish heaps either. I smell a KJVO in the midst.

    It may be a pre-markan version... that is a slight possibility (very slight considering the age or veracity has not been confirmed). But if it is Mark, then it is probably not Q. Q is the hypothetical document of the writing that Matthew and Luke have in common with each other. And there are views that put forth a progressive publication of gospel accounts. So there is nothing to be cynical about . You are just demonstrating your incivility.

    I feel like you are trashing the field of study I am dedicating my life to. What's with the cynicism? What is the cause for all of this. I've smelled crap that didn't have this kind of fowl odor to it.
     
  11. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, there was a time when one might have said that, but he is too far out in left field to even deserve a response of late. He continues to drift leftward and is for all purposes a practical atheist by his own statement.
     
  12. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liberals have made definitive statements about the dating of Scripture without any true research to back up those statements. Finding manuscript evidence always works to shut up those who have spoken from some logical base only -- as have the findings of inscriptions to David, Ur of the Chaldees, names from OT writings, etc. All the ACTUAL findings fly in the face of the leftists who say that such just could not be so -- based on NOTHING except a bias against some biblical issues as an a priori.
     
  13. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,149
    Likes Received:
    365
    I think it's just so amazing how we find these manuscripts and it proves one thing - the Bible is an amazing book that has been so well preserved - preserved better than any other book in history. It speaks of a Divine protector. :)
     
  14. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0

    didn't the Dead sea Scrolls "confirm/prove" that the OT has we have it preserved for us what essentially same as the original OT books wriiten under inspiration of God?

    As they were MUCH closer to datingof the first copies than what had available until that time?

    In same fashion..

    IF earliest copies validate thatour establish NT text was essentially same as original manuscripts, that jesus was who he said and calimed to be...


    Again, how would that help prove Bart E case for unreliability o fthe biblical text?
     
  15. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Such as?
    As His criticisms seem to be based more upon his problems with God personally, and not with the reliability of the fhistoricl veracity of the scriptures!
     
  16. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think that you have hit the proverbial nail on the ole head!
     
  17. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I'm not GreekTim but these are actually good questions...which is rare...

    Not necessarily. For some reason there are a bunch of textual tradition fables going on around about the nature of some of the documents from Qumran. Many of them are overinflatations of reality.

    What is helpful in Qumran (or the DSS) is the nature of fidelity in some of the documents uncovered in the caves...but not all. While you can go up to the Isaiah scroll (1QIsa) and (if you are so equipped) read a very well transmitted later 2nd century BC/E document there are problems in underlying aspects of the text and within many of the other texts.

    What is difficult is that so many of the other documents are fraught with textual issues and a unique exegetical method which is extremely confusing for the uninformed lay person. Also the eschatological/apocalyptic nature of the Qumranic community can bring in a lot of baggage for someone immersed in modern literary beliefs that are applied to the biblical text. This is dangerous.

    So Qumran (DSS) is a mixed bag. It is infinitely helpful in understanding Second Temple Judaistic midrash and textual studies...but has many more areas of difficulty for some evangelicals than it is helpful. See below.

    The discoveries at Qumran are HUGE for biblical studies. This is true but just because they are, largely 3-1 century BC/E documents doesn't make them more authoritative and it still acknowledges that they aren't extant. Be careful how you apply, again, a modern literary critical mindset to these.

    Well the thing with the Markan fragment under discussion is that we need to authenticate it and we need to understand it in light of its alleged context.

    Dr. Ehrman's issue with the NT is so ridiculous it is barely reasonable. He's asking for .0001% accuracy to the extant document that clearly isn't available. His standard is so high, and so hypocritical scholastically, that one can never know anything about any document from before 250 years ago. At that rate he'd probably suggest the Constitution (which is, in one form, on display at the National Archives) is not necessarily credible.

    I understand, sort of, Jonathan.Borland's points and am sympathetic. However exciting the possibility of a first century Markan fragment is, we need to properly understand it and examine it. Just because it is from the first century (and still not extant) doesn't inherently make it better. (and I'm a Critical Text guy!) We need to see it validity, authenticity, and viability for proper placement. There is, potentially, a lot of damage which can still be done.
     
  18. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Maybe, if for no other reason than it makes us stronger.

    The difficulty with Dr Ehrman's questions is that they are always placed from a positive of negative assumption concerning the text of Scripture. It's easy to make a negative claim...the burden of proof immediately transfers and you have to do no actual legwork to make the statement.

    As good evangelicla textual scholars have replied to Dr Ehrman our case for the faithfulness of the NT text has been strengthened. This is a great benefit. Yet we have also failed to hold him properly accountable to provide rationale for his negative claims. (Granted he does this more than other philosophers/scientists/textualists)
     
  19. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    To me, the entire problem with bart is that he has 'reasons" why he cannot accept that God would have supernaturally preserved extant to us 'close enough" of the oroginal documents that we can indeed say that it would be the Word of God for us today...

    Also, christianity hangs upon the person of Jesus, not views on His bible...

    IF Jesus was who He claimed to be, IF he died and rose from the dead...

    Chrsitianity is true, AND we can trust that God would have preserved for us an accurate copy of the Bible that tells us what he has done!
     
  20. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Why did you have to quote my entire post to reply to the one point about Dr Ehrman?
     

Share This Page

Loading...