Alan, I saw this -- Hurtado's point was, what we can ask in the case of this putative fragment of Mark is that the owner(s) enable the scholarly world to access it, so that a critical and measured analysis can be done. Until then, there is no need to ask what I think of the claim that it is a first-century fragment of Mark. No data, no opinion.
However, it's been said from the beginning that a Brill work is scheduled on this and potentially other fragments. A Brill work implies the very kind of "scholarly review" that Hurtado says is necessary. What are the odds that such work is already being done -- and is being done privately, in such a way that he (Hurtado) simply doesn't have access to it?
What's the difference between "the scholarly community" having access to this, vs the owners just simply having engaged selected scholars working under a Non-Disclosure agreement? That's the kind of thing that Wallace hinted at in his debate with Ehrman, that brought all of this up in the first place.
Certainly, as it is, everyone is kept waiting, but this current process (assuming that the private owners have good intentions and that they would be attempting to do correctly -- is there even an "owner's manual" for ancient papyrii?) will avoid the kinds of false starts that we've seen with other early manuscripts ("Jesus wife" and potentially 7Q5). Don't you think?
Alan, I saw this -- Hurtado's point was, what we can ask in the case of this putative fragment of Mark is that the owner(s) enable the scholarly world to access it, so that a critical and measured analysis can be done. Until then, there is no need to ask what I think of the claim that it is a first-century fragment of Mark. No data, no opinion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's been said from the beginning that a Brill work is scheduled on this and potentially other fragments. A Brill work implies the very kind of "scholarly review" that Hurtado says is necessary. What are the odds that such work is already being done -- and is being done privately, in such a way that he (Hurtado) simply doesn't have access to it?
That's what seems to me to be happening here.
Comment has been blocked.
What's the difference between "the scholarly community" having access to this, vs the owners just simply having engaged selected scholars working under a Non-Disclosure agreement? That's the kind of thing that Wallace hinted at in his debate with Ehrman, that brought all of this up in the first place.
DeleteCertainly, as it is, everyone is kept waiting, but this current process (assuming that the private owners have good intentions and that they would be attempting to do correctly -- is there even an "owner's manual" for ancient papyrii?) will avoid the kinds of false starts that we've seen with other early manuscripts ("Jesus wife" and potentially 7Q5). Don't you think?
Comment has been blocked.
I'm sure that Josh McDowell isn't one of the scholars, but he seems to be one of the owners. And a very excited owner at that.
DeleteI agree with you, the ramifications would (or could possibly be) historic. I agree with you, too, better to underestimate than to overestimate.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.