The 'First Century' Gospel of Mark, Josh McDowell, and Mummy Masks: What They All Have in Common

5/4/2014

Screen shot of mummy mask (taken from video of Josh McDowell, below)

To continue my posts about private collecting of historical artifacts, I provide below extracts from a video of Josh McDowell that contains some highly disturbing comments and images. (Thanks to an interested reader of this blog for bringing the video to my attention.) In this video (posted below), McDowell explicitly explains his involvement in the deciphering of mummy masks, images of which Scott Carroll has also made public (see my last post on this here). McDowell is a Christian evangelical apologist with no scholarly credentials. He is perhaps best known for his book, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which attempts to prove the legitimacy, relevancy, and historical accuracy of the Bible. This book has itself become a "Bible" for fundamentalist Christians. What we learn from this video is that, apparently, McDowell is one of the main persons dismounting mummy masks. He states in the video that he doesn't know what he is doing and has to rely on what scholars tell him. In his PowerPoint, he shows many of the same images that appear in Carroll's PowerPoint in the video I posted last week.

All of this is deeply disconcerting and I would ask readers of this blog to disseminate this post widely. The scholarly community needs to be more and more aware of these practices, how these artifacts are being used, and the religious agendas behind it all.

“It was in here that we discovered Mark, the oldest ever: back to the first century. Before then it was 120-142, the John Ryland Papyri [sic]. Now, what you do, you take this mask [chuckles]…Scholars die when they hear it, but we own them so you can do it. You take these manuscripts, we soak them in water. There is a process we use with huge microwaves to do it but it’s not quite as good. We put it down into water at a certain temperature and you can only use Palmolive soap, the rest will start to destroy the manuscripts; Palmolive soap won’t. And you start massaging it for about 30-40 minutes you’ll pull it up and ring it out, literally ring it out, these are worth millions, and you’ll put it back in for 30-45 minutes.”
McDowell's statement that "we own them" suggests he is heavily involved in this collection, perhaps financially. I'm interested in learning more about the Palmolive soap and those "huge microwaves." In any case, McDowell explicitly reveals where the so-called "first-century" Gospel of Mark came from: a mummy mask.

“And you start pulling it apart. You say, “What?” Yep! They’re layered on top of each other. You start pulling them apart. Most scholars have never touched a manuscript. You have to have gloves on and everything…we just wash them and hold them in our hands. [Laughing] We don’t even make you wash your hands before.”
Apparently this is very funny to McDowell.

“A manuscript by definition is not an entire book; it’s a portion of the book.”
This is a new definition of "manuscript," folks. Replace all old definitions with this one.

“Now, see my hand up in the right hand [of the PowerPoint slide], that’s a pair of tweezers. And you take those tweezers and you start pulling the layers of manuscripts off. I was so scared the first time I did it…'What if you tear it?' They say, 'Well you tear it. Since we own it, it’s OK.'”
This attitude toward historical artifacts is disturbing. Private ownership means to these people that anything goes. They are essentially saying, "If we tear artifacts up in the process, then so be it. We own them and no one is here to hold us accountable."

“We have three classical scholars brought in, because I’m not a classical scholar. And they’re able to help me understand what we are doing…So I soaked it in water…and started peeling it off. That there [pointing to an image on a projector screen] is the oldest copy of the book of Romans by 125 years, ever discovered. Shoots the hole in every liberal theology about Romans and when it was written. If you’re a scholar—I’m not—and you discover one manuscript like that and your name is put on it that makes your entire career...No, it’s literally what you call a career-maker.”
So, the apparent specialists take the back seat while the pastors take to the papyri. The fact that McDowell invokes "liberal theology" is important, because it reveals his agenda: he is mainly interested in using these papyri and their dates (which are questionable at best) to prove the authenticity of the Bible.

“The top scholar in the world was in my office the other day and he brought in some new discoveries and we’re looking at it and we’re playing…we’re going to be doing two more of these masks December 5th and 6th…and he said Josh I hate to say this to ya, but in the last mask we broke your record: we took it back another 25 years, the book of Romans.”
It is interesting that all these texts get dated earlier and earlier. I am still waiting for the day that someone explains to me these peoples' methods of dating. As it stands, they apparently have discovered many, many of the world's "earliest" papyri that remain unpublished. I would guess that the "top scholar" is a reference to Scott Carroll.

"When it comes to the New Testament, as a result of several months ago, we now go back to within 50 years with God’s word…We were unlayering manuscripts that had not been seen for 2,000…a portion of the Gospel of Mark, first century A.D., where the liberal theologians all their teachers when you debate them and everything said none of these could be written until way into the end of the second century, into the third century, impossible they could have been written: one discovery took it all the way back into the first century and shot a shotgun off in liberal theology on their entire dating line. One discovery. It’s on Mark, and within probably, by November 15th, it will be published. I hope so because I want to use it on the 5th and 6th of December.”
So, the first century fragment of Mark was supposed to have been published November 15th, 2013. We are still waiting on that publication as of today. From this description, it seems that McDowell was also part of this discovery.

UPDATE: In the comments to this post, Matthijs den Dulk has provided a link to images of some of these papyri that he found publicly available on McDowell's website. One of them is of Homer's Iliad, the very end of book 15 (see image below). The script can be dated pretty confidently to c. 1st cent. CE. See Turner, GMAW, #15, #18, #37. Late 1st cent. BCE and early 2nd cent. CE cannot be ruled out. I would have to study the hand in more detail.

Was He A Lunatic? from Gracespring Bible Church on Vimeo.

106 Comments

Timothy Mitchell link

5/5/2014 12:40:59 am

It looks like he is claiming that the mummy sarcophagus can't be dated later than 125 CE and thus it follows that the cartonnage must contain 1st century papyri. I am interested in knowing why this cut-off date for the mummy is so certain.

Andy Chi Kit Wong (howtindog)

5/9/2014 10:03:49 am

McDowell said in the video that those masks were made up until 125 CE hence a good indicator of the manuscripts' early date, but then I found a 2011 press release by Baylor U suggesting otherwise. It says: "[Scott] Carroll -- surrounded by hushed students and other professors -- dissolved ancient Egyptian mummy coverings in a gentle dissolving bath... What emerged were more than 150 fragments of ancient papyri texts -- treasures including funerary texts, letters in Greek and in Coptic, a fourth-century A.D. (C.E.) Coptic Gospel text and fragments of classical writings by Greek authors." Assuming that the masks Carroll worked on were the same type of masks that McDowell talked about, they must have been made way beyond the first century, no? Or did I misunderstand what the press release was saying?
http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=100064

mark

9/12/2015 10:37:33 pm

Using a more contemporary illustration, if some no name novices were to have painted over originals by Leonardo da Vinci and the "new" paintings were from the 1800's, would there be an outcry for removing the novice paintings to display the Leonardo da Vinci master pieces:?

I think that is what we have here. Priceless papyri manuscripts have been preserved in these Egyptian burial masks. There is a good chance in my opinion that other copies of masterpieces, some perhaps that have never been known to exist, could be discovered.
That perhaps first copies or even second copies of Christian gospels exist from 2000 years ago is mind boggling. If the originals were written around 50 to 70 AD for Mark, Corinthians and Romans, then having copies in coptic or greek from the 80 or 90 AD would be incredible and priceless.

gary

5/23/2019 06:57:51 pm

Just how historically reliable are the Gospels and Acts if even prominent conservative Protestant and evangelical Bible scholars believe that fictional accounts may exist in these books? I have put together a list of statements from such scholars and historians as Richard Bauckham, William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, Craig Blomberg, and NT Wright on this issue here:

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2019/05/23/bombshell-how-historically-reliable-are-the-gospels-if-even-conservative-bible-scholars-believe-they-may-contain-fictional-stories/

Peter Head

5/5/2014 01:43:41 am

This is disturbing at many different levels.

joe thomas

5/6/2014 02:36:25 pm

Peter, would you like to elaborate what exactly is disturbing you?

Quixote

1/21/2015 05:16:19 pm

This, of course, is not the first time that people who are not fully informed have tried to suggest that the methods used by religious scholars exploring ancient Christian truths are sub-standard and non-scientific, as if "science" were the key to all truths. Remember a certain anonymous blogging campaign concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibitions traveling around the US, which have given us so many truths about the world Jesus came from? If not, see:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080430220643/www.nowpublic.com/culture/did-christian-agenda-lead-biased-dead-sea-scrolls-exhibit-san-diego

And we know what happened to the author of that campaign, don't we? Ha, still fighting for "free speech" and "satire" after five years! See the documentation at:

http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

1/22/2015 03:50:38 am

Quixote, I just read your 2 links, and I do not see what that has to do with this issue.

I don't know enough or care enough about the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, and there seems to be a strong anti-christian bias in that story as well.

The beauty of DSS scholarship is that MANY MANY people studied the scrolls, from religious jews to secular jews, christians from many denominations, agnostics and atheists.

What stunk about DSS scholarship is that it took FOREVER for many scholars to publish.

I care very little about one particular exhibit and don't think it is particularly relevant to the Mark.

As for the trial blog, it sounds like Golb pretended to be someone he wasn't, and sent out emails in that person's name. Even if it was done in jest, it is wrong. Nobody thinks the Onion or Saturday night live are real, but sending out emails in someone's name is a different thing. I will admit, I don't know anything about that trial, except what I skimmed in your blog, and again, I don't see what it has to do with the Mark fragment.

But anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to read those 2 links.

1/26/2015 06:20:03 am

Joe Thomas:

With your second point, I could not agree more: it is inappropriate for an amateur writer, or even someone who is not an amateur, to use another's name and engage in deadpan parody concerning an academic dispute, and it should be of little or no concern to the academic community that he is arrested, jailed, subjected to criminal prosecution, convicted on felony charges that are later thrown out by the highest court of New York, convicted of harassment under a statute that is held unconstitutional by the same court on the grounds that it criminalizes speech that is merely "annoying," and so on and so forth.

The "dissenting" opinion by the chief judge of that court concerning the remaining charges should be of even less concern, especially insofar as he foolishly asserts that “the use of the criminal impersonation and forgery statutes now approved amounts to an atavism at odds with the First Amendment and the free and uninhibited exchange of ideas it is meant to foster.”

I would, in fact, even go further, and suggest that the eventual decision of the federal courts in the same case should, at most, be rapidly skimmed by legal specialists. This is obviously not a matter of concern to academics working on early Christian history.

With your first point, however, I must just as strongly disagree. Here everything depends on one's perspective. Seen from a slightly different angle than the one you propose, I submit that in both instances accusations are being lodged to the effect that distinguished Evangelical scholars are engaged in "unscientific" practices for the purpose of pushing a "religious" agenda. In fact, it seems to me that these matters were already explicitly tied together by the same New York individual, as part of the same outrageous Internet campaign that was fortunately criminalized. See his diatribe on what he calls the "peddling of religious sensationalism in America" at:

https://charlesgadda.wordpress.com/jesus-judas-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls-peddling-religious-sensationalism-in-america-dec-10-2007/

Again, I must insist that the posting in question is, at bottom, a scurrilous piece of mud-raking, and I would even recommend not reading it, or skimming it at most, as rapidly as possible. At least it will serve to remind some readers that such matters are best left to specialists in the field, and that when others engage in hurtful and offensive campaigns that invoke so-called "Enlightenment" or "philological" principles, the police can always be called in to investigate.

spiker

10/11/2016 04:40:58 pm

"This, of course, is not the first time that people who are not fully informed have tried to suggest that the methods used by religious scholars exploring ancient Christian truths are sub-standard and non-scientific, as if "science" were the key to all truths."

And How is McDowell a "religious scholar"? When have experts allowed members of the general public to be involved in their work?

David

10/11/2016 07:59:08 pm

Spiker,

Science is not the key to all truth. But simply because science is not the key to all truths does not negate the fact that it does discover some truths. I think the point is that McDowell is not a scholar in terms of papyrology and the fact that a non-expert is involved in such a way is a problem.

Greg Given

5/5/2014 01:51:31 am

I note that Dirk Obbink and Jerry Pattengale will be giving a talk on Dec. 16th at the "Passages" Springfield Speakers Series (http://explorepassages.com/speakerseries) titled, "Unveiling Cartonnage: The Practice and Value of Dissolving Reused Papyri Manuscripts for Biblical Studies." The title is a bit confusing--I can only imagine that they're "dissolving" the cartonnage containing "reused papyri manuscripts," not the manuscripts themselves. But I wonder if they will discuss the process that we're hearing about from Carroll and McDowell in these videos?

Steff link

5/5/2014 04:49:15 am

I was thinking of Obbink and the 'new' Sappho fragments while reading this. Since scholars like Obbink legitimize the practice of taking apart cartonnages to get at papyri by publishing privately owned papyri obtained that way, what's to stop people like McDowell from doing this?

10/12/2016 04:36:37 pm

David

Perhaps you'll take notice of the quotation marks. I was quoting Quixote.
"I think the point is that McDowell is not a scholar in terms of papyrology and the fact that a non-expert is involved in such a way is a problem."
I hope I am reading that right. First I would say McDowell does not have any expertise and no credentials let alone in ANY of the requisite areas. The whole science is not a key to all truth seems
to swing wide of the mark. In this case we are not speaking generally or abstractly: We have someone without any credentials
participating in this process merely because of his apologetic reputation. The question isn't about when is science a key to knowledge, but when lack of expertise and, I think a good bit of bumbling, is seen as the alternative.
My sense is the whole science isn't the key is more a way to dismiss conclusions one dislikes than epistemic insight.
Y2k was a much more scientific prediction than McDowell could possibly make here

Darrell

5/5/2014 01:51:59 am

Very disturbing. As I read this, the thought kept coming to me that I wanted to shout "drop what you are doing and step away from the artifacts!"

5/6/2014 02:39:55 pm

Darrell, Why?

Do you think the mask is more valuable than first century MSS of Homer and the Bible? Personally, I would rather have either of those MSS than the mask.

If you are taking exception to his palmolive methodology, well, maybe that is a good point. It seems to me that water is not the friend of ancient papyrus, but this is not my area of expertise.

I think that ancient MSS are of much greater interest archaeologically than ancient masks. Don't you?

Spiker

10/11/2016 04:49:44 pm

"Do you think the mask is more valuable than first century MSS of Homer and the Bible?"
1.) There was no way they new what was in the mask so there
was no heart rending decision about which artifact to save.
2.) In the odd chance they did know, there's technology which
would have enabled them to get the data without wrecking the
masks so there wasn't even a need to "agonize" over what to
preserve. Both could have been preserved.

Matthijs den Dulk

5/5/2014 02:49:54 am

Very disturbing indeed. Thanks for reporting on this, Brice. The PowerPoint presentation is available on McDowell's website and contains more and higher quality images. I've uploaded it here (in case it's taken offline for some reason) along with the relevant pictures from his presentation: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/t7rwsfy1t07kttt/dxZX9ETDC2

Brice C. Jones link

5/5/2014 03:23:17 am

Dear Matthijs, This is indeed extremely helpful—thank you! At least one of those scripts is from the Ptolemaic era and a couple others may be also. One of the hands is evocative of those we find in the dossier on Zenon (note how the letters "hang" on the line and how nu's final hasta extends upward). I will have to look more closely at these tonight.

James Carvin link

11/4/2014 05:13:22 am

The Tau hangs to the left almost like a daleth, as well.

5/5/2014 03:13:05 am

Matthijs, thanks for the link to the images. Some of those are easy to read, so, assuming these are biblical text, I am going to have to start collating these to see what is there.

5/5/2014 03:57:09 am

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/t7rwsfy1t07kttt/dxZX9ETDC2

The Green Collection's fragment of 1 Corinthians 10:1-6 is shown here in the second row, forth image from the left. This image was part of their traveling exhibit, and they tentatively dated it to the 2nd century.

John C. Poirier

5/5/2014 04:52:28 am

Why do these apologists all lie about the views of "liberals" they have supposedly "debated"? Who in the world dates the Gospel of Mark to the end of the second or beginning of the third century? Or who ever suggested that Romans is post-Paul?

5/6/2014 11:23:00 am

Actually John, you might be surprised to hear that many people today still try to date the NT documents quite late, in spite of the evidence for first century dates. Perhaps most knowledgeable scholars don't, but I have heard people with PhDs make that claim. The fact that millions of people think that "The DaVinci Code" is a documentary instead of a novel feeds that kind of thinking.

I understand people being upset about relics being destroyed to get at papyri. But archaeologically speaking, first and second century NT manuscripts are more rare and more valuable than first and 2nd century masks.

My hunch is the biggest objection to McDowell for many folks is not the destruction of the masks, but the fact that his agenda is christian apologetics. As an apologist myself, I have found that some atheists are as blinded by their preconceived prejudice against the NT as some believers are blindly prejudiced in its favor.

I am all for finding early NT MSS. Like McDowell, I am not an expert in how to handle 2-millenia-old papyri, but soaking them in palmolive and handling them with unwashed hands doesn't sound right to me. Nor does "tearing them because we own them."

I think collectors of artifacts owe the world the courtesy of doing everything in their power to handle them with care. I would not be happy if John Rylands was passing around P52 to all of his buddies at a beer bash - even if he does "own it."

Anyway, I have been waiting a long time to find out if there is really a first century fragment of Mark or not. I wish they would hurry up and publish so the critics could do their job, and we could find out who is right.

5/6/2014 03:04:46 pm

Exactly!

10/13/2016 12:28:11 pm

John C. Poirier

Not sure that lie is the right word here. It is more a device for dismissing, out of hand, things you don't like. So if, for example the evidence against the Lukan census shows that Galilee-and hence Joseph and Mary, was not subject to the empire wide census- the mere mention of liberals makes it all go away.

Jeff

5/5/2014 07:10:18 am

Brice, in light of your findings on this, I googled around for some more videos of McDowell talking about this. Just 2 weeks ago (dated Apr 23, 2014), evidently he spoke at Wheaton Bible Church and the video is posted here:
http://vimeo.com/92964208

About 1:03:00 into the video he starts talking about NT mss. Too many interesting comments to mention them all. But you can easiliy see how exaggerated and inflated the claims become in this more recent video. In the video you posted (Gracespring church dated 1 year ago), he claimed that the early copy of Romans was 125 years earlier than any other, and then that was superceded soon thereafter by another discovery 25 years earlier than that. But now in this newer video, the claim is that the copy of Romans was 150 years earlier than any other and it was superceded by another discovery 50 years earlier than that. So the dates for each grew by 25 years (50 years total).

At 1:12:40 in this Apr 23 video he mentions the early fragment of Mark... and that it's from Mark chapter 1. Prior to this, I don't think which passage in Mark had ever been mentioned (but maybe I'm wrong on this). He claims it's dated to 85 AD and then says "right between 80-98 AD" without saying how or why.

At 1:14:00, he goes on to talk about fragments that include passages of Matt 6:33 and 7:4 (front and back)... allegedly the oldest fragments of parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Also he talks about fragments of Gal 4:19; 1 Jn 2:21; and Jn 18:24 (??).

And again, we have this gleeful disregard of scholarship and procedures that is quite disturbing.

james barlow

5/22/2014 11:01:34 am

"About 1:03:00 into the video he starts talking about NT mss. Too many interesting comments to mention them all. But you can easiliy see how exaggerated and inflated the claims become in this more recent video. In the video you posted (Gracespring church dated 1 year ago), he claimed that the early copy of Romans was 125 years earlier than any other, and then that was superceded soon thereafter by another discovery 25 years earlier than that. But now in this newer video, the claim is that the copy of Romans was 150 years earlier than any other and it was superceded by another discovery 50 years earlier than that. So the dates for each grew by 25 years (50 years total)." Changes like the number of angels at the tomb, doesnt it? hehe

Stephen

5/5/2014 07:23:17 am

Oh, you know, John...all of us wicked "liberal" scholars are "out to discredit the Bible" (whatever that means). Doubtless we move on from 3rd century Mark to teaching our students that Constantine and his fellow conspirators (Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius?) all sat in a Masonic chamber, smoking cigars and "choosing" the New Testament. Never mind the dating and other obvious issues...this is simply what we teach. Aren't these matters standard parts of your classes too? ; )

Brice,
Thanks for all these posts about Carroll, McDowell, the Green Scholars Initiative, etc. I hadn't even heard of the GSI until a week or so ago. Your descriptions and suggestive analyses are very helpful.

5/5/2014 08:30:06 am

Here is how I see the visible letters in the fragment showing words from 1 Corinthians 9:27 - 10:6

μαι ου θελω (v. 9:27, 10:1)
νεφελην η (v. 1)
η εβαπτι (v. 2)
ευματικον (v. 3)
ν γαρ εκ π (v. 4)
εν τοις πλ (v. 5)
ω ταυτα δ (vv. 5-6)
κακων κ (v. 6)

There is a reflection on the glass blocking some of the fragment on verse 4, but I supplied what was missing from the transcription I did when I saw this fragment in person a year ago.

Rick Hubbard

5/5/2014 11:25:06 am

I wonder what would be the outcome if the same intensive testing that was applied to the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" papyrus fragment was to be applied to these artifacts?

Oingo Boingo

5/5/2014 03:47:23 pm

Wouldn't a big difference be provenance. We have no idea where the Jesus Wife fragment came from, but at least in the case of these papyri, we know who owns them and where they came from (to some extent).

5/6/2014 01:34:05 pm

Apples and wrenches, comparing Mark or 1 Corinthians with "the gospel of Jesus' wife."

No serious scholar questions Mark or 1 Cor as mid to late first century documents, and they are well attested.

"Wife" on the other hand, is a single fragment with absolutely no context, and no complete sentences. It is 5 centuries after Christ. It is an interesting fragment, and merits discussion. I'm sure the National Geo channel will hail it as the greatest thing since the Big Bang, but serious scholars will take it for what it is - a single, late artifact. Interesting, but not very important in the discussion of biblical scholarship.

5/5/2014 03:40:45 pm

Watching the video, one of the things you have to keep in mind is that McDowell is a non-expert speaking to a lay audience in what appears to be a church. Since he's talking to a lay audience, he's using a lot of pastor-like, sensational story telling techniques. I think Jones is taking a bit of that storytelling element too seriously. The implication I got from the video is that McDowell is far from a key handler. He was just lucky and excited to be there to witness the process at some point...maybe get a little hands-on experience with guidance by a credible professional.

5/5/2014 04:10:32 pm

Oingo, this has nothing to do with "sensational story telling techniques." McDowell is speaking of historical artifacts and his audience is being fed very inaccurate information, and they believe him. You call this "storytelling"; I call it misleading discourse. And McDowell says himself that he handled these mummy masks so he certainly was not just a witness. There are too many problems to list.

5/5/2014 05:52:47 pm

I understand your concern, and I think its well placed, but anyone who's seen a pastor/preacher speak like this knows to expect a bit of...well...I wouldn't call it lying, but as I say....sensationalizing.

McDowell is admittedly not an expert. He doesn't really sound like he knows what he's talking about. He knows that some scholars date some books of the New Testament to the 2nd century, and its very possible that he mistakenly thinks Mark is sometimes one of those late dated books. Same's true for a number of his other silly statements. Don't attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by ignorance. Mostly McDowell just sounds like he's excited to have been a part of something so groundbreaking. He was able to handle rare fragments that presumably no one's seen in thousands of years.

I think good reasons to beleive he's not "one of the main persons dismounting mummy masks" is that in the second video that Jeff pointed out (http://vimeo.com/92964208), McDowell repeats the same story almost word for word. Seems unlikely he would detail the exact same experience if he was regularly doing the dismounting. He probably wasn't one of the main people pulling apart the masks. He was probably invited one day, under the guidance of professionals, to view the process, and do some supervised handling for a couple hours (if that long). In that second video he says he was under supervision of scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and Baylor. Who knows how much of that is true, and how much he's misremembering. Till we more information, this might not be very professional, but it also might not be as bad as it first appears.

David B

1/8/2015 01:19:37 am

Because he's a pastor, he gets a free pass for providing misleading and inaccurate information? I argue the opposite. Because he is speaking to a lay audience, who we can presume are not up-to-date on scholarship, is exactly why he should be criticized. I don't think most lay people expect "sensationalism" from pastors. And, even if they do expect it, they are unlikely to know fact from fiction, or at least hyperbole. His actions are disingenuous in the least.

1/8/2015 04:02:09 pm

Hi David B.

1. McDowell is not a "pastor." He is an author who specializes in apologetics (he's written about 100 books, including the best-selling apologetics book of all time)

2. It seems that he is not an expert in ancient papyri. Hopefully, the scholar(s) who were supposed to publish this are expert(s). They are already more than a year past the date that Dr Wallace claimed they would publish.

3. We don't know if he is being misleading or disingenuous yet because the papyri (supposedly one of Mark and one of 1 Corinthians) have not yet been published or subjected to peer review. Maybe what he is saying is true; maybe it is not. (ok, we know his dating if 1 Corinthians is wrong because he seems to be dating it before the time of Christ, so his math is wrong, or he misspoke, or he is not aware of the earliest Pauline epistles, which I seriously doubt)

Bottom line, we are all waiting impatiently for the book to be published so we can find out if this is really a first century fragment of Mark or not. McDowell's motives are clear - he is a Christian apologist, and it trying to verify an early date to Mark. As to whether he is being deliberately dishonest, I seriously doubt it. But we don't have enough information yet to know if he is lying, truthing, exaggerating, or mistaken.

1/9/2015 02:25:07 am

Joe,

I do stand corrected. You are right, McDowell is an apologist, not a pastor. However, my point still stands. In fact, my point is further emphasized. Because McDowell is an apologist, he should be held to a higher standard and should not be given a free pass for inaccuracies. My comments about him being disingenuous were not in relation to the supposed Gospel of Mark manuscript. Rather, my comments were in relation to inaccurate statements he has made about "liberal" scholars and how they date various books of the bible. I know of no liberal scholar that dates the Gospel of Mark to the late second or early third century. The only people who do this are Jesus mythicists who are far from being scholarly. McDowell's comments are inaccurate, but it involves facts that any legit apologist should know. So, either McDowell is not a good apologist or he is being disingenuous. Furthermore, just because McDowell has sold and written a lot of books does not necessarily make him a good apologist.

1/9/2015 02:57:27 am

Good points, David B.

I guess it comes down to who we call a scholar. If you listen to Dan Brown (certainly NOT a scholar) or National Geographic channel, then there are people dating the gospels in the 2nd and 3rd century.

Real scholars, even "liberal" and atheistic scholars like Bart Ehrman, do not date them late.

There are some wacky people out there who believe things that no serious scholars believe. And some of them are members of the Jesus Seminar. For example, Dr Robert Price (and others) claim that Jesus didn't even exist. That is WAY outside the mainstream, but someone gave him a PhD and let him into the Jesus seminar, so that makes him a "scholar." Bart Ehrman, an atheist and "liberal" says that no serious historian believes that Jesus did not exist. And yet plenty of people are claiming that now.

No serious scholar would believe that the gospels were written in the 2nd-3rd century, but I have read MANY who are claiming exactly that.

So I don't think McDowell is as off-base as you might think. Now he does have an agenda, of course (we all do). But I don't think he is fighting a straw man per se. The "liberal scholars" he is fighting are in the minority, but represent a growing number of people.

You would be surprised how many people I have encountered who have spouted the "facts" from a Dan Brown novel as if they were true.

anyway, you and I mostly agree here. Thanks for your comments.

5/6/2014 02:39:26 am

Brice, here's another McDowell video (dated 11 months ago, so maybe May-June 2013? but is that the filming date or the upload date?):
http://vimeo.com/66244999

In this one, he says less about NT mss and the mummy masks than the other videos, but a few more details are mentioned:

At 15:18 or so, he says "it will all be released and documented about Nov 28" (but no publications have been released yet).

Beginning at 24:00, he starts talking about the mummy masks and papyri. He says he wished he owned one [mummy mask? papyrus manuscript?]. He says there are only 1300 [mummy masks? papyri?] in the world and 1100 are in Turkey and they'll never be gotten out. And "we will not buy anything that is not legal. We will not black market anything. And the problem is the prices are shooting sky high now. I bought this one for $35,000, you can't touch it for $75-80,000 now. And it will go up to a million eventually. . . . We did this two separate times, once at Baylor University in one of their labs and then in my office in one of the big conference centers. . . ."

At 29:00, he indicates that the dating is based on the masks being from 150 BC to 125 [AD]. (Of course, McDowell's dates should not be taken as hard and fast because other dates he mentions change from video to video.)

5/6/2014 02:59:50 am

Thanks, Jeff (Cate, I presume). This is all very interesting. In fact, it is too much to keep up with! I think McDowell is giving the same talk everywhere he goes, but indeed the details change from video to video, as you say.

In the video you posted yesterday (https://vimeo.com/92964208), McDowell implicates himself further when he says: "I was able to acquire two of them from a couple Muslim men that didn't know what they had and I didn't tell them what they had. And bought two of these."

In that same video, he says, "The databank is so huge...you put it in there and in 3 mins it kicks out what you got." A magical databank that spits out dates of papyri--incredible!

James Snapp, Jr. link

5/7/2014 09:53:44 am

Brice,
Probably McDowell incorrectly expressed something that can be restated correctly. The database of the contents of compositions of antiquities is so exhaustive that McDowell's colleagues can enter a few legible words from the extracted documents, and in very little time, the text of the fragment can be identified. Not the /date/ of the papyri, but the /contents/.

5/6/2014 03:38:39 am

Just a heads up. Daniel Wallace has blogged a bit about his (non) participation in all of this, this morning:

http://danielbwallace.com/2014/05/06/josh-mcdowells-discover-the-evidence/

Jordan Wilson

5/6/2014 12:52:25 pm

I assume you've seen this?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7b0hyAxHx-M&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7b0hyAxHx-M

5/6/2014 01:47:20 pm

No, Jordan—this one is new to me. Thanks for sharing!

anonymous

5/6/2014 05:09:21 pm

The video has been removed by the user. What was it?

Ted

5/6/2014 07:06:31 pm

This video is no longer on YouTube!

5/6/2014 11:45:51 pm

Yes, it appears that someone took it down. Did anyone download it? If so, I would be very grateful if you could please send it to me.

5/6/2014 02:53:28 pm

Brice, thanks for this interesting post. I have been following the Daniel Wallace thread for a while. My hunch is the Wallace Mark fragment is the same as the McDowell Mark fragment.

What I do not understand is your strong opposition to this. I think you are being unfair in some of your criticism. First of all, he accurately defines a manuscript as a hand-written copy of a document, then later says that it can be a part of a document, not the entire document. He is NOT re-defining MS.

Secondly, why would you assume that a first C mask is more valuable than a first C copy of the Iliad or the New Testament? In my thinking, those MSS are of greater interest archaeologically than the mask is. I think the majority of folks would agree that “freeing” the repurposed papyri supercedes saving the mask.

Also, I don’t think he was being flippant about “I own it” - he was quoting someone else, and he was trying to be funny.

I do share your concern about water and palmolive soap. I am no expert in ancient papyrus, but I understand that moisture is the enemy of ancient documents. Perhaps the fact that it has been laminated together for 2000 years makes it sturdier. Personally I would like to see his process vetted better, to see if there is a better way to separate the papyri from one another. But, as he said, I don’t own the mask - he does.

Also, you are correct that he was wrong for using the plural (papyri) when discussing p52, the John Ryland papyrus. Big deal. This guy know the difference - anyone can screw up in a live talk.

The real issue is - are people opposing this because they are pro-mask, or anti-bible? I think that is an important question to ask. McDowell may be overstating his case against “liberal theologians” but he is correct that there are a great number of people, scholars and laymen, who have a vested interest in NOT finding older NT MSS. I’m just sayin’.

Again, thanks for an excellent blog.

James Snapp, Jr.

5/9/2014 11:04:43 am

Rylands.

5/6/2014 03:31:37 pm

Joe, As a papyrologist, I am concerned with a variety of issues stemming from these videos. It is clear that McDowell is misleading the public (perhaps unintentionally) by giving very inaccurate information. He is a non-specialist and so that is understandable. But there are deeper issues here related to the acquisition, dissemination, provenance, and use of historical artifacts. These are the questions in which I am most interested. In your last post (which I have chosen not to approve), you say, "I just listened to the whole thing...I didn't catch anything inaccurate in the hour he spoke." I would just say that, in addition to my brief comments above, many have also commented on the inaccuracies of McDowell's claims in the video above as well as others. Watch them all and consider carefully his words. If you have even a little knowledge of ancient manuscripts and scholarly dating of NT books, then the problems should be clear to you.

Kipp Davis link

5/6/2014 08:31:26 pm

So, just glancing at the picture provided by Matthijs den Dulk along with the corresponding passage from the Iliad, and I can't help but wonder if this is a fake. I not familiar with Greco Roman scribal practices in Hellenistic period, but is it common to block the text like this? Every one of the lines on the fragment begins precisely at the same place as in the transcribed passage. This seems suspicious to me; very similar to what occurred in the creation of the Wife of Jesus fragment.

James W Bennett link

5/7/2014 12:46:05 am

The masks are important artifacts as are the recovered manuscripts. But the masks and manuscripts themselves are not what is important. It is what we can learn from them that is important.
The problem with the process of disassembling these masks is not that the masks are lost. It is that information we might learn from the masks is lost. It is not possible to mine every piece of data from the masks that might be useful at some point in time. For one we do not know what information and parts of the mask might be needed for analysis by future technologies. For another we cannot even fully record that information. Technologies capable for doing that do not yet exist.
While I myself desire to see what manuscripts might have been re-purposed in these masks, I cannot in good conscience condone the destruction of these artifacts and the information they might have provided.
With that said, all archaeology is destruction of information to get at other information. It is just done (these days) responsibly (hopefully). An entire site is not excavated but only certain parts in the hope that future techniques and technologies might reveal information from the remaining parts of the site.
So if there are a large number of masks then dis-assembly of some might be warranted. But I believe it must be done in a controlled environment where data about construction, binding materials, pigments, etc are carefully recorded so that they can be later analyzed. The process described here (possibly as opposed to the process that actually took place) seems to me to be irresponsible.
Personally, I would like to see if some of the non-invasive imaging techniques, such as those developed at BYU, might reveal underlying texts in these masks without their destruction.

5/12/2014 04:27:05 pm

Thanks James. Great post, and good information. (and yes, it is Rylands, not Ryland, just a typo on my part).

I am not familiar with the non-invasive BYU technique. I will google it.

thanks. Joe

10/13/2016 12:50:29 pm

James W Bennett
"But the masks and manuscripts themselves are not what is important. It is what we can learn from them that is important.
The problem with the process of disassembling these masks is not that the masks are lost. It is that information we might learn from the masks is lost."

Loss of masks and manuscripts means loss of the information.
In the event of new technology, how can information be gotten from masks and manuscripts that were destroyed by a reckless apologist bent on proving his pet theory?

Chess

7/26/2014 02:29:20 am

I'm a little confused.

I was digging into what happened to the planned 2013 publication of the analysis of the fragment of Mark that might be from the 1st century and ran into your blog and some stuff about Scott Carroll, who apparently found it.

I naturally became curious about his creds.

This entry from an online school where he apparently teaches simply says he has a PhD from Miami University:

http://christiancourses.com/professors/dr-scott-t-carroll/

In this YouTube video he says he has a PhD in Mediterranean studies but seems -- only to to me I'm sure -- a little vague about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAnAKKJ7mCs

Yet this entry from Gordon Conwell Seminary says he has a "doctorate in ancient studies from Miami University of Ohio":

http://my.gordonconwell.edu/page.aspx?pid=564

But the closest program at Miami I noticed to ancient or Mediterranean studies was anthropology:

http://miamioh.edu/academics/majors-minors/majors-by-alpha.html

What am I missing?

Joe Thomas

9/15/2014 05:30:49 am

Chess, did you ever get any response to this inquiry?
JT

9/15/2014 05:29:18 am

I am still waiting to hear if this fragment has been published and/or peer-reviewed. Googling it is not helping - it just keeps sending me to old news like this particular blog, which has not been updated snice May.

Does anyone have later information on the alleged first-C fragment of Mark? I have also heard rumblings about first century fragments of Matthew and Luke - anybody know anything about those? the only places I am seeing discussion is here and on Dr Wallace's site, and both of those are from months ago.

thanks guys.

9/15/2014 05:32:44 am

Hi Joe, Sorry, no updates. The publication has, for whatever reason, apparently been delayed like crazy. With all the hype around this fragment, I can imagine that the editor(s) is taking extra care.

11/27/2014 01:25:57 pm

Hi Brice, it's been about 2 months since the last time I asked, so it's time for my "has anything been published?" question. anything new? Happy thanksgiving.

11/27/2014 01:28:06 pm

Hi Joe, the papyrus has not been published. We are still waiting patiently.

G. Matthews

11/27/2014 09:08:08 am

Ehrman says that Mark was probably written between 65-70 AD. If the Egyptian manuscript of Mark truly dates to 80 I think even Ehrman will have to push mark back to 40-45 AD. This could be huge if proven. However scholars will go over it with a fine tooth comb

11/27/2014 01:23:39 pm

G Matthews - 65-70 is a bit on the late side for Mark, I think. Internal evidence would date Luke at AD 62 at the latest (probably earlier), and if Mark is a source for Luke then it would be hard to date Mark later than 60. I think Mark dates to the 50s. I have not heard of any scholars that would date Mark earlier than 48.

I have not seen anything about an egyptian manuscript dated to the 80s. Has something been recently published? I know that McDowell says he has mss recovered from Egyptian masks, but as far as I have seen, nothing has been published.

Even if a manuscript from the 80s surfaced, why would that push Mark to 40-45? I'm not sure that is the logical conclusion. It would not necessarily take a long time for the gospel to get to Northern Africa.

thanks for your input. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
Joe

Luke Neubert

12/1/2014 08:41:41 am

Dear Readers,
who dates luke to 62 at the latest? Koester writes: "was er hier sagt, passt gut zu einem Schriftsteller aus dem Anfang des 2.Jh." Page 750-751. He is referring to the Prologue of Lukes Gospel. How is 65-70 a bit late for Mark? There are a few scholars who date it to 41 or so and Winn after the destruction of the temple, ca. 73.

BTW thanks for all the posts. I think McDowell is involved because of his influence in the Christian world, but I sure wish they would have assembled a team that could publish these faster, I mean as long as the text is known, it should not take too long.

LUKE NEUBERT

10/14/2016 01:22:55 pm

"G Matthews - 65-70 is a bit on the late side for Mark, I think. Internal evidence would date Luke at AD 62 at the latest (probably earlier), and if Mark is a source for Luke then it would be hard to date Mark later than 60. "

This is a curious conclusion and some shaky reasoning. 65-70 is
the consensus view. for Mark. Merely declaring your disagreement
doesn't even begin to make a dent .
Now I am guessing here that G. Matthews probably meant to say 60 instead of 80. You also missed the point. He said IF the manuscript dated to 80 (read 60) meaning that no manuscript (more precisely fragments) had been dated. In other words, he is addressing a hypothetical encouraged by the claim
that the fragments were from the first century.
As to the logical
nature of the conclusion, I'm thinking he wasn't writing a syllogism: In other words, the argument is not A +B = C
or necessarily detailing an argument. MY suspicion here is this conclusion is based on an understanding of various arguments about dating Mark: We are safe in assuming that a copy of Mark
would not exist prior to its autograph and that dating a copy before its generally accepted dating can only mean it was written earlier. Thus, arguments for an earlier dating (40 to 45) become more plausible.
Now since you seem to accept the fifties as a credible timeframe,
I'm not sure how you find the forties improbable, given the vagaries of dating manuscripts

12/1/2014 04:49:14 pm

Luke,
you are correct that some people date Luke as late as AD 80, and some even date Mark after AD 70, and a few date Mark very early (I will be honest; this is the first time I have heard of anyone dating Mark prior to AD 45).

Here is internal evidence why I think we need to date Luke a lot earlier than AD 80.

1. Both Luke and Acts (the sequel to Luke) contain no mention or even hint of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Hard to believe that would not have been at least alluded to. That moves the date for Luke/Acts to 69 at the latest.

2. Both Peter and Paul were martyred during the Neronian persecution in AD 64-67 (probably closer to 64), and Acts completely ignores that important detail. That moves Luke/Acts to 67 at the latest.

3. The narrative in Acts ends with Paul under Roman house arrest (AD 60-62). That moves Luke/Acts to 62 at the latest.

4. Paul quotes and paraphrases Luke twice in his epistles. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes Luke 10:18. Most scholars date 1 Timothy to AD 62 (and certainly no later than 65). This also puts Luke no later than AD 62-65.

5. Paul uses language in describing the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 that comes from Luke 22:19 (and is not found in any of the other gospels). This indicates that Paul had access to a copy of Luke (or at least proto-Luke) when he wrote 1 Corinthians. Even liberal atheistic scholar Bart Ehrman considers 1 Corinthians to be an authentic letter of Paul and dates it (as most scholars to) to about AD 55. This pushes the date for Luke back to AD 55 (at least a working copy of Luke, if not the finished copy).

6. Nearly all scholars consider Mark to be one of Luke’s sources. Therefore, I would date Mark to AD 55 at the latest.

I don’t have a strong reason to date Mark any earlier than 55. I prefer a date later than AD 48, simply because I don't know of any serious scholars that date it earlier than that. I would like to believe Mark dates earlier, but I have no solid reason to believe that. Because Mark almost certainly pre-dates Luke, (as nearly all scholars agree) I would date Mark between AD 48-55.

You could make the argument that the oral gospel was the source of Paul’s quotes from Luke, and that is possible. Surely the gospel story was told orally between AD 30 and when the 4 gospels were written, and that could possibly explain the reference in 1 Corinthians 11. The problem I have with that theory is that the passage in 1 Timothy is written as specifically quoting scripture. Secondly, since the wording in 1 Corinthians 11 is uniquely specific to Luke, it seems that if it were the oral tradition, it would much more likely follow the wording in Matthew and Mark.

Obviously, this is not an exact science. We may never know for sure.

12/3/2014 12:23:25 am

Joe,

There are a few assumptions in your dating, which are interesting. Which scholars do you follow? Is this the thinking in the American University?
I will reply thus:
The pastoral epistles are not from Paul.
The Gospel of Matthew does not mention the destruction of the temple, except maybe 22,6-7 but when do you date it? For Hebrews the lack of mentioning this is significant but how so for Luke Acts?
Luke could have learned his version of the last supper from Paul, not the other way around, or maybe they are both citing an earlier tradition. The end of the acts is notorious, see Lichtenberger, 2 Macc Judas and the end of Paul, or something similar. This is no argument, 2Macc does not mention the death of its hero Judas. I think Paul being martyred at Rome undermines what Luke is getting at, Christianity is a valid subdivision of Judaism for wealthy romans. When its Roman citizen missionary was killed by Rome, then this does not bid well.

12/3/2014 08:08:08 am

Hi Luke, thanks for your reply.

Most American Universities are quite liberal in their theology, and would land a lot closer to Bart Ehrman than to myself or others who hold to the NT as a set of authentic documents.

Yes, some people claim the pastoral epistles are not authentic. I do not agree with that assessment. I think the german school is overly biased in its view of scripture. (by the way, I do not speak german beyond a dozen or so basic words) I accept 1 Timothy as Pauline.

However, virtually all scholars, liberal and conservative, accept 1 Corinthians.

It is certainly possible that Luke got his version of the Last Supper from Paul, but even then, Paul got his from someone else. Remember, Paul was not around at the time of the Last Supper. I really don’t think Paul is a source for Luke (of course, he would be for Acts, as Luke and Paul were both part of the action). I think it is more likely that Luke’s sources were the other 11 apostles and early witnesses, not Paul (who was only a witness to Christ through visions.)

The primary purpose of Acts is to show the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, and from a primarily Jewish church to a Gentile/Jewish church. The death of Paul might possibly be omitted (but I find that very hard to swallow) but the destruction of the temple? I can’t imagine that being omitted as it would totally fit the theme of Acts and add to its theological point.

Since Luke ends with the ascension of Jesus, of course the destruction of Jerusalem would not be specifically mentioned, but I would think that it would be alluded to. Matthew 24 and its parallel passage in Luke 21, which both predict the destruction of Jerusalem (referring back to Daniel’s earlier prophecy) – would they not say something like “and Jesus was proved right when the temple fell?” or at least imply it? Of course this is speculation on my part.

I do not think that Luke’s intention is to prove that “Christianity is a valid subdivision of Judaism for wealthy Romans.” On what do you base that idea? Luke is filled with language that would repel the rich. 1:53, 6:24, 12:16-31, 14:12-ff, 16:1-14, 16:19-31, 18:24-27, 21:1-4. Except for mentioning Joseph of Arimathea, nothing positive is ever said about a wealthy person. And Luke does not say Joseph was rich; it is only implied by the fact that he was a council member and owned a rock-tomb.

Acts says good things about some rich people (but not others), but it is hardly making a case to wealthy Romans. The apostles were poor, and often in trouble with Rome. Luke/Acts were a unit, so I doubt wealthy Romans would have been particularly excited about the message in Luke.

As for the dating of Matthew, I would date it in the 60s, probably. Certainly before AD 70. I tend to think 60-65 is the most likely date, for similar reasons for my dating of Luke early. Before the Roman war, after Mark.

thanks for a lively discussion.
Joe

Steven Avery link

1/18/2015 08:06:14 pm

Thanks, Joe.

That is a good list of reasons for a more traditional dating of Mark, in the 40s or 50s. And I suggest you examine the Theophilus proposal, with Luke writing to Theophilus the high priest, which is in harmony with the above.

Luke's gospel would be no later than 41 AD, Acts in the early 60s. Then Mark could have its traditional early date (40-45 AD) in Rome with Peter, perhaps writing in Latin, before modern scholars started moving dates way back. And yet still not precede Luke, which is unlikely by textual interrelationships. Remember too that the author of Redating the New Testament, J. A. T. Robinson, took the position of Johannine priority.

Personally I believe that all the gospels were written by 50 AD, Luke was definitely c. 41 AD (ie. truly eyewitness testimony, not modern English scholar pseudo-eyewitness). In fact Luke may have been one of the great company of priests:

Acts 6:7
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Clearly, if the gospels are written 40-50 AD, there should be little surprise in finding some fragments around 100 AD in Egypt. All this hand-wringing and posturing between apologists and skeptics is not particularly relevant if we accept the early NT date.

These issues are the type of discussion we like to have on the PureBIble forum on Facebook.

Steven Avery

1/19/2015 02:04:31 pm

Steven, I am curious as to how you date Luke at AD 41. Considering that he was a Gentile convert who traveled with Paul at a date much later than that, I'm not sure how you get such an early date.

If Mark (as the "memoirs of Peter") prep-dates Luke, you would have to date Mark at AD 40 at the latest. I don't know of any conservatives who date it that early.

I am not sure what you mean by "modern English scholar pseudo-eyewitness." Also, Luke was a gentile, so I am not sure why you would think of him as a priest.

Do you have a web site where I can study your line of thinking?

I am not familiar with Theophilus as priest. the name means "lover of God" and I have always leaned toward Theophilus as not a real person (few people agree with me - most favor him as a God-fearer or gentile christian).

thanks for your input - I look forward to reading your stuff. I will try to find the purebible forum on facebook.

joe

1/19/2015 02:16:39 pm

Steven, I just googled the "theophilus proposal." i was not familiar with it before now.

Wiki states "Theophilus was the High Priest in the Second Temple in Jerusalem from AD 37 to 41 according to Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. He was a member of one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish families in Iudaea Province during the 1st century. A growing but still uncommon belief points to this person as the person to whom the Gospel of Luke is addressed, but Theophilus is a common enough name that there are many other possibilities for the addressee of Luke's Gospel and Acts."

It also says "Archeological evidence confirming the existence of Theophilus, as an ossuary has been discovered bearing the inscription, "Johanna granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest".} The details of this ossuary have been published in the Israel Exploration Journal. Therefore Theophilus had at least one other son named Jonathan, father to Johanna. The name Johanna appears twice in the New Testament in the Gospel of Luke. First as one of women healed by Jesus who travels with Jesus and the disciples to Jerusalem. Her second appearance also in the Gospel of Luke is on Easter Sunday when she and other women visits the empty tomb. It is uncertain, however, whether the Johanna in the Gospel of Luke is the same Johanna as the one mentioned on the ossuary. According to Richard Bauckham, Johanna was "the fifth most popular woman's name in Jewish Palestine," and the Johanna of the Gospel of Luke was likely from Galilee, not from Jerusalem"

No way to know. Even if this were indeed the Theophilus that Luke was writing to, there is no reason to date the gospel to the time during his reign as high priest. He could have written to him after his reign.

Interesting theory, but can't know for sure.

thanks for the input.

Joe

1/19/2015 04:35:35 pm

When Luke addressed Theophilus as "most excellent" that was because he was, at that time, the high priest. Maimonides even tells us that he was addressed in that manner. Thus 40-41 AD for the gospel account.

If you reject ultra-late skeptic and mythicist dating, then there is only one known Theophilus who fits the Lukan Prologue.

The web of consistency of the Theophilus proposal is compelling ... and more. A point is reached where the interconnectedness of evidences simply calls for one result.

Clearly, though, the Luke as a Gentile concept has to be reexamined and discarded. See David Allen Lewis, and Rick Strelan who wrote Luke the priest. In addition to the Theophilus proposal writers (Richard Anderson joined by John Lupia and Lee Dahn and others). A whole range of writers have properly understood Luke as a Hebrew. Look how comfortable he was with what would be arcane to a gentile, like the priestly reading, the course of Abijah in Luke 1:5. I really think that Luke may have been one of these gentlemen:

Acts 6:7 (AV)
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

And thus he was one of the eyewitnesses to events, as long as the Lukan Prologue is not mistranslated that is quite sensible.

Before the buffeting of the German liberals and skeptics, early dating was understood as a necessary part of New Testament consistency. Thus, the learned Johann Michaelis accepted the Theophilus proposal. It got lost in the shuffle of 19th century unbelief and then Richard Anderson brought it forth in his paper. Ironically, he was not familiar with the earlier history.

Steven

1/20/2015 05:49:47 am

Steven, this is interesting. I am not convinced, and I am far from a subscriber to the liberal German school. I see it as possible, but not compelling.

"Most excellent" - certainly a term of respect, used by Paul in his defenses in front of Felix and Festus. It might refer to the high priest, but I am not prepared to make that assumption. Even if it were, it does not necessarily mean that he was STILL the high priest at the time of writing. We refer to ex-presidents, ex-senators, etc by their titles all the time.

Just because we only know of one person with that name does not mean that is who this is about. So many people who we don't know.

I have not studied the evidence for Luke as a Jew, so I will hold off on commenting until I study it out.

I do not understand why you think Acts 6:7 makes Luke an eyewitness. Luke very clearly distinguishes between first and 3rd person to indicate when he enters (Acts 16:10) and leaves (Acts 16:40) the narrative.

anyway, I really appreciate learning a new viewpoint, and I will definitely study this out further.

thanks
Joe

1/21/2015 07:00:07 am

And I do think you will find those studies edifying.

The Prologue I believe places Luke as one of many eyewitnesses that informed his account.

Acts 6:7 is simply a conjecture that Luke was being a tad ironic, and it would be consistent with the general depth of knowledge that Luke shows of Hebraic techie stuff. Maybe Rick Strehan covers that Acts 6:7 question, I should check.

Steven

10/17/2016 03:22:08 pm

Joe Thomas

The list of reasons are highly speculative and a built on shaky, if not dubious, claims

Most scholars accept the date range of Luke/Acts between 80-130. It's an oversimplification to say that "some people" do.

1.) The dating of a particular manuscript can't simply be changed
due to lack of expected information. This argument assumes
that a given source would always make the right decision which usually means whatever the commentator thinks the author should have decided; a bit of backseat driving. More importantly, how, for example are Mark 13:2, Mat 24:2 AND Luke 21:9 not allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem?

2.) Martyrdom of Peter and Paul. There's simply no evidence whatsoever about Peter's fate. Also you're confusing narrative and compositional timelines. There's absolutely no reason to assume that Luke, like some sort of journalist, was writing at the scene sending out daily dispatches.

3.) What's hard to believe is that the author of Acts knew of Paul's imprisonment, but considered his fate unimportant.There are any
number of reasons for thinking the books were composed much later:

"The author of Luke in the prologue indicates that he wrote his great work at a time that was (1) at the prompting of Theophilus, likely his patron and (2) when "many" had already written accounts, which Luke would like to set in order and (3) after carefully investigating everything as handed down by the servants of the word. This fits best a time after which Luke had settled down to do teaching of his own, not when he was waiting on the results of the trial of his mentor Paul.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

4.) Actually, "most scholars" consider first Timothy to be pseudepigrapha that is, not written by Paul. So the idea that Paul is quoting and paraphrasing Luke, is highly dubious.

5.) Here you seem to be using the widely accepted authenticity of
First C to support your claim that Paul uses language that comes from Luke 22:19. It's equally possible that Luke is using language that comes from Paul. However, as Geza Vermes noted, language directing Jews (which presumably includes Paul and Jesus) even metaphorically to drink blood would have made them sick to their stomachs.

6.) The dating of Mark is based on evidence independent of Luke so even if you could put Luke as early as the fifties, the assumption that would have to change is that Luke used Mark as a source. Unless of course, you could show how Mark was incorrectly dated.

10/17/2016 05:48:47 pm

Hi Spiker, thanks for your comments.

70-80 is the consensus date for Luke/Acts. Name one serious scholar who dates them later than 90. I do not know of any. I think there is good evidence for the early 60s date for the reasons I already listed. You can’t seriously date Acts later than 64-66, as he does not mention the deaths of the 2 main characters (peter and paul who both died in Rome between 64-66) or the siege on Jerusalem. Nor does he describe Paul’s journeys past the house arrest which ended in 62. If Mark is a source for Luke, and nearly everyone agrees it is, then you must date Mark earlier than that.

responding to your 6 points below

1)
They clearly are. But why would you assume they are post-hoc descriptions and not prophetic, as portrayed in the gospel accounts?

2)
There are early (second century) references to the martyrdom of Peter under Nero. Many of the martyrdom stories of apostles are legendary, but Peter’s is pretty much accepted, as is Paul’s and James brother of Jesus..

You are correct. Luke COULD have chosen to end his narrative in AD 62, but it doesn’t make sense. Literarily, Luke’s goal is to get the gospel from Jerusalem (Jews) to Rome (Gentiles). You could argue that Paul’s house arrest there accomplished that goal. But he recorded the deaths of other lesser significant figures (James son of Zebedee, Herod, Stephen). You can say this is an argument from silence, but it makes more sense that they had not happened yet. If Jerusalem had been besieged, mentioning that would have served his plot arc to complete the transfer of the center of Christianity from Jews only to both Jews and Gentiles. Additionally, the martyrdom of James brother of Jesus (AD 61-62) is well-attested and yet omitted by Luke.

3)
Where do you get that his writing was PROMPTED by Theophilus? The text does not indicate that. It is one possibility that Theophilus was a patron, or someone who requested it. He could be a friend, a non-believer, or he might not even exist. Theophilus means “god-lover” so it could be a term to refer to his audience of potential converts.

Yes, Luke was not an eyewitness to the gospel events, and he WAS an eyewitness to much of the second half of Acts. He used written sources and eyewitness interviews. So what? Why does that mean it was done at a later date? Those interviews could have happened in the 40s or the 90s.

4)
It is true that First Timothy is not accepted by critical scholars as one of the 7 “authentic” letters of Paul. I disagree, but for the sake of argument, WHOEVER wrote First Timothy quoted Luke as scripture. If it was not Paul, then you are correct – we can’t be sure of the date being prior to AD 64.

5)
Yes, it is possible that Luke was not being quoted in 1 Corinthians, and that Paul had independent knowledge of that language and shared it with Luke, who used it in his gospel. But how? Paul was dependent on others for the words of Jesus. He was not an eyewitness of any of it. Okkham’s razor suggests to me that the simplest solution is that Paul had access to at the very least a working copy of Luke’s gospel. And virtually all scholars, including Ehrman, accept 1 Cor as legitimately Pauline.

6)
The reasoning for dating Mark late is not based on good evidence, but a desire to date it late, in my view. Yes, it is dated later (usually 60-65, sometimes as late as 70, rarely after 70). Most scholars accept Markan priority and a few Mattean, but nobody dates Luke first that I am aware of. I do not think Luke was necessarily completed and circulating in AD 56, but I think Luke had all of his material by then, with a working copy that he shared with Paul as they were traveling companions, thus the reference in 1 Cor.

Again, thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your knowledge and level of detail.

Joe

10/20/2016 01:01:42 pm

Joe Thomas

Thanks for your response. I think you may have missed the point: The accepted consensus is not "some people" as you indicated.
The range of dates I gave was obtained from Early Christian writings http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

For the purpose of accessability consider the following from Wikipedia:
"The earliest possible date for the composition of Acts is set by the events with which it ends, Paul's imprisonment in Rome c.63 AD, but an early date is now rarely put forward. The last possible date would be set by its first definite citation by another author, but there is no unanimity on this – some scholars find echoes of Acts in a work from c.95 AD called I Clement, while others see no indisputable citation until the middle of the 2nd century.The majority of scholars date Luke–Acts to 80–90 AD, on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source and looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the century); if, however, it does show awareness of Paul and also of Josephus, then a date early in the 2nd century is more likely. In either case there is evidence that it was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century"

1.) What clearly are? Are you responding to the idea that Mark 13:2, Matt 24:2 AND Luke 21:9 are allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem? If you concede that, it's hard to credit your claim that there aren't any allusions or hints to the destruction of Jerusalem. Moreover, we haven't even taken into consideration that Chapter 21 of Luke's Gospel is titled "The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times" . Thus, not only do we have allusions, but also an entire chapter of Luke explicitly dedicated to that topic so you can see why it is increasingly difficult to accept the assertion that "Both Luke and Acts :..contain no mention or even hint of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

As to "assuming"

I'm a bit confused here are you saying that prophetic foresight is not an allusion? However, Since we are discussing history, we are also talking about probability, that is to say what is most likely to be the case. I'm not sure how you're using the expression "post hoc", but let me lay out some rough, working assumptions: That Luke and others may have selected their data based on current events. This is to say, if the temple had been destroyed before Luke wrote, he might be inclined to find certain sources more credible if they alluded to that event. 2 Jesus certainly may have made such a claim,but it is more likely that this was in the same vein as, say, people predicting the decline of the west in the last century. I'm completely willing to accept that Jesus may have thought the temple was corrupt and that destruction of the temple would be completelyconsistent with his apacalyptic views.

2.) Indeed, they are legendary meaning they aren't really evidence
Not sure I argued that Luke chose to end his narrative in 62 so
much as I argued that your assertions were highly speculative
and shaky. In this particular case, there's really no reason to
assume that the narrative and compositional timelines are
the same. That's the issue you need to address. As for Luke's
goal, I would have to take his word that he has set himself to
write an"orderly account... so that you may know the
certainty of the things you have been taught."
This is to say, Luke was setting out to investigate and verify
what Theophilus had been taught, meaning the events in
question had already passed.
Now that brings up your question concerning why I think Theophilus was Luke's patron. First, let me say your skepticism of the "Theophilus proposal" is well placed. The argument offered was very thin. Sure a high priest in the early first century sharing the same honorificfits, but that certainly isn't much to go on.
That being said, That Theophilus is a person's name is the
simplest (Occam's razor)reading of Luke's prolouge. If we are going to seriously consider whether this means “god-lover”, I think we would have to ask whether there are other instances of this sort of convention. How often did authors, at this time, use a similar convention? Also, if Luke meant god lover's as in his prospective audience, why not simply say that?
As for "Where do you get that his writing was PROMPTED by
Theophilus?" I gave my source and I would argue that Luke's prologue establishes just that. However, if Theophilus was not a patron but just someone who requested it, a non believer, a friend etc, that doesn't alter the point that his work was prompted by Theophilus

"Yes, Luke was not an eyewitness to the gospel events,"
Yea, I don't think that was an argument I made.

Point 4 and 5 That's all I need to establish speculative a

10/26/2016 04:18:24 pm

Joe Thomas

Just a much shorter version of my rambling previous post

As for The dating of Luke-Acts. According to Jospeh B. Tyson, Professor emeritus of Religious Studies Southern Methodist University, The date range for Luke Acts lies between 60 and 150. Tyson discusses three possible periods, Early (58-60), Intermediate (80-90) and late (110-120)
Tyson gives 3 reasons for the latter: That Acts seems to be unknown before the last half of the first century. Second, the author of Acts may have been acquainted with some materials written by Josephus, who completed his Antiquities of the Jews
in 93-94 CE. third that "Convincing arguments have been made especially in the case of Galatians by scholars who are convinced that the author of Acts not only knew this Pauline letter but regarded it as a problem and wrote to subvert it.
https://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml

Tyson, himself, argues that Acts answers Marcion "point by point"
Now as to the question of bragging rights or the idea that if these authors wrote after Jerusalem were destroyed, why wouldn't they mention it as a fulfillment of prophecy? Just a couple of things to consider, if the destruction of the temple was
as significant as you think, why weren't Christian writers, writing about it and if they were, Why doesn't the NT include their writings?

Further, apart from the question of whether we can know what Jesus actually said, the destruction, I'm not sure how you think it confirmed prophetic expectations when the destruction of the temple was not accompanied by the return of the son of man. It did not inaugerate the arrival of God's Kingdom. Consequently if any of the evangelists were writing post destruction, it's understandable that they might not be bragging. It's also instructive that Luke tempers the apocalyptic expectations: Whereas Jesus and even Paul spoke in terms of the imminence of the coming kingdom, Luke sees a longer haul.

Izzyizzo

1/18/2015 10:52:01 am

Yknow, this is why people dislike Jesusfolk.

If you'd just leave the things alone for a couple decades more, there will almost certainly be a nondestructive scanning option available that will allow us to have our collective cake and eat it too.

I suppose the world can't wait if The Lord Is Nigh, though.

Rob

1/18/2015 11:56:25 pm

@Izzyizzo,

by that line of reasoning we should postpone all archaeological digs, etc.until we have nondestructive means to reconstruct history in a few decades time. Talk about double standards. So where do you draw the line here? People dislike "Jesusfolk"[sic] for any number of reasons. The taking apart of an old mummymask isn't top
of the list. Why should the world have to wait for a discovery which could be important? Just to satisfy the scoffers or naysayers, who really would look stupid, if earlier and earlier manuscripts showed up, proving the tenacity of scripture?

1/19/2015 02:26:03 am

@Rob,

>Postpone

The flying spaghetti monster has ordered exactly that. So which myth gets precedence?

nigel hill

1/19/2015 08:37:45 am

I don't see your problem we obviously have photos of them, maybe some 3d prints would have been useful but I got bored reading your argument of nonsense. At the end of the day we have further information there waiting to be revealed a normal person would gain as much info on the original state and then access the information. To argue against doing so it utter stupidity in my opinion.

Nick Laarakkers

1/20/2015 12:20:45 am

I consider myself to be a reasonably liberal (Dutch) Christian. McDowell is insulting (which is a trademark of fundamentalists) liberal theologians who are doing there work without a hidden apologist agenda. Of course there are some sensational theologians that consider themselves "liberal", but they should be ignored, just as we should ignore fundamentalists. I hope some moderate scholars will have the opportunity to do some research and not only evangelicals. It's time for moderate Christians to stand firm and to withstand the temptations of the fundies and evangelicals.

joseph thomas

1/20/2015 06:11:41 am

Nick, everyone is biased, liberal and conservative, believer and atheist. We all have agendas. You do as well, and so do I. To attack a person because they are a fundamentalist (or liberal) is committing the genetic fallacy - attacking the person rather than the belief.

I have enjoyed our discussions, which have stayed above that. let's argue against positions, not a person.

Joe

1/20/2015 06:15:11 am

Dear Joseph, Nick, Nigel and others: thank you for your interest in the blog. I would kindly ask, however, that you move the current discussions about fundamentalism, Luke-Acts, etc. to a new venue, since the post here is about a different issue altogether. Thanks, guys!

1/21/2015 07:29:57 am

Brice, I just went back and re-read the thread above. I think that the dating of Luke/Acts is relevant to this thread, since the thread is about the Mark manuscript and how it might impact the dating of the gospels. Considering that Mark is considered a source for Luke, the dating of Luke is relevant to the dating of Mark.

And the liberal theology commentary was introduced far up the thread in attacking McDowell for attacking "liberal theologians." So, I am not sure we were that far off the beaten path.

In any event, we are still waiting for publishing. I'm 55 years old. Not sure if I will be alive when Wallace and friends publish!

As always, thanks for your excellent blog.
Joe

1/20/2015 07:52:10 am

Brice, of course, you are correct. We have gotten off-topic. However, on every board where issues regarding potential evidence for or against Christianity is posted, the discussion usually gets off point. I will do my best to remain on the topic of the manuscripts in question.

Considering that many posts are attacking Wallace and/or McDowell BECAUSE they are "fundamentalist" or "conservative" Christians, it is difficult to ignore them when the genetic fallacy becomes an attack, in effect, on all of us who believe the NT is inspired scripture. I have tried to correct people and ask them to stick to the topic and not attack the person.

anyway, I will try to be good! Thanks for your blog and allowing us to participate.
Joe

1/20/2015 08:13:45 am

Hi Joe, I agree with you that everyone has an agenda. McDowell started bashing liberals. I am not a liberal per se, more a moderate to liberal Christian. But I am sick off all those persons blaming liberal Christians for everything that is going wrong in the churches.

1/21/2015 05:34:09 am

Interesting article regarding new technology, using x-rays, to read papyrus manuscripts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/ancient-scrolls-x-ray_n_6513862.html

1/21/2015 01:15:46 pm

Steven, Brice asked us to stop this discussion on his blog. if you email me at joespamjoe AT yahoo dot com I will give you my real email address so we can continue this discussion in another venue.
thanks
joe

Edward Richardson

3/5/2015 05:41:19 pm

I'm an atheist and to hell with the mummy, get the goddamn texts. Museum basements are loaded with mummies and their junk, does anyone have any idea of the rarity of 1 century classical manuscripts? These are DIAMONDS.

Who cares if they have an agenda, they are attempting to broaden the historical record beyond what we have from that period, which is virtually nothing.

Jero Jones link

9/6/2015 10:24:53 am

Hi Brice
After seeing the video’s on David B, MacDowell and those of Scott Carroll over the last couple of years, I believe these two have the same agenda, that is, to promoting their brand of Christianity on us all, and to inflate their superegos. I am appalled at what these two individuals are getting up to, destroying artifacts unscientifically for their Christian beliefs, over that of antiquity.
I have been waiting anxiously for the past couple of year for the publication (that never came), since Daniel B. Wallace stunned academia, as well as Bart D. Ehrman in 2012. The publication was postponed in 2013 until 2015, now I am told it is postponed once again until 2017! What are the waiting for, the ink to dry, and age their supposed manuscript! Know one can possibly date any mss to the date these two are stating, I bet Craig Evans and Daniel B. Wallace are sorry that they put their names to this so-called consortium.
Regards Jero Jones

9/7/2015 12:05:26 am

Hi Jero,
I;ve been following this for about 2 years now. I'd like to comment on your post.

1. I don't think it's appropriate to comment on their motives, especially accusing them of being super-egotistical. Josh McDowell is a Christian apologist, and so makes no bones about his motivation. He is defending the truth of Christianity. I have met McDowell and I do not doubt his sincerity at all. (I don't know the other guy).

2. not sure what you mean by "their brand of Christianity." McDowell is a bible believer.. You don't have to like him or agree with him, but his beliefs are very mainstream among evangelicals.

3. There are competing interests here. All archaeology is a destructive process. You destroy one layer to get to a deeper layer. You can argue that first century manuscripts of the bible or Homer are more important than a funerary mask (which is not that rare or important, in terms of ancient history.) People may disagree as to which is more important. personally, I am more interested to see if there is a first century fragment of Mark. Most historians probably would be.

4. we ALL agree that the publishing is WAY too show. Peer review and careful scholarship is one thing. But this was promised a long time ago, and the claim of a first C fragment of Mark was "leaked" by many Christian sources (in my opinion, inappropriately). Especially since it was used as a point in a debate. I am a Christian, but I have to admit that an unpublished fragment is NOT fair game in a debate.

So far, I have NOT heard Evans and Wallace (who are excellent scholars, by the way) claim that they regret reporting this. Personally, I wish they had not said anything. But that is just my opinion.

anyway, thanks for letting me weigh in. Look forward to hearing your thoughts in response.

I had NOT heard that publication is delayed to 2017. PLEASE tell me that it's not true! I am tired of waiting.

thanks
Joe Thomas

9/12/2015 11:52:37 pm

Mark, I think your DaVinci painting illustration is spot on. Destroy an artifact of lesser value to get to an object (or text) of greater value. A first century copy of any NT manuscript would be similar to (but not as monumental as) the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in my opinion.

JK Somma

10/15/2015 01:19:42 pm

I really don't get the criticism of Josh McDowell. Yes, he is an evangelical fundamentalist Christian apologist, but he is no lightweight, in graduating Magnum Cum Laude with a Master's of Divinity Degree from: Talbot Theological Seminary of Biola University, La Mirada, California. Biases work both ways. Publish the manuscripts and allow carbon dating of the mummy to see if these truly are 1st Century Gospel fragments or not. For the record, I am a Catholic, and do not have an ax to grind.

Timothy Hartley

4/25/2016 07:17:12 pm

I think that these finds are amazing. Let's just look at the evidence without putting our own agenda behind them.

Please, however, we must not hide these texts, but let all of them come out, be translated, and let the truth speak for itself.

Personally, I am interested in seeing how these texts compare to the critical text of the New Testament vs. the received text and see which set of texts they more closely match with.

All the best - may these discoveries go far and wide!

Charles May

6/4/2016 03:19:51 pm

I am really hoping this is a DSS moment for the NT. Perhaps it will consign a large amount of previous printed matter to the waste bin. I am holding out for a piece that shows verse 10 in Mark Chapter 16! I have tried to get publishing status out of Brill but to no avail.

6/29/2016 02:00:52 pm

Two of the biggest assumptions that many Christians make regarding the truth claims of Christianity is that, one, eyewitnesses wrote the four gospels. The problem is, however, that the majority of scholars today do not believe this is true. The second big assumption many Christians make is that it would have been impossible for whoever wrote these four books to have invented details in their books, especially in regards to the Empty Tomb and the Resurrection appearances, due to the fact that eyewitnesses to these events would have still been alive when the gospels were written and distributed.

But consider this, dear Reader: Most scholars date the writing of the first gospel, Mark, as circa 70 AD. Who of the eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus and the alleged events after his death were still alive in 70 AD? That is four decades after Jesus' death. During that time period, tens of thousands of people living in Palestine were killed in the Jewish-Roman wars of the mid and late 60's, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem.

How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus in circa 30 AD was still alive when the first gospel was written and distributed in circa 70 AD? How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus ever had the opportunity to read the Gospel of Mark and proof read it for accuracy?

I challenge Christians to list the name of even ONE eyewitness to the death of Jesus who was still alive in 70 AD along with the evidence to support your claim.

If you can't list any names, dear Christian, how can you be sure that details such as the Empty Tomb, the detailed resurrection appearances, and the Ascension ever really occurred? How can you be sure that these details were not simply theological hyperbole...or...the exaggerations and embellishments of superstitious, first century, mostly uneducated people, who had retold these stories thousands of times, between thousands of people, from one language to another, from one country to another, over a period of many decades?

Jimmy

11/6/2016 09:27:42 am

LOL. Once this 80's AD manuscript is published of Mark, that's going to push the date to the 40's or 50's AD of its composition. Not only that, but it wouldn't be the eyewitnesses that shut down the fakers, it would be the Jewish Sanhedrin. The Gospels are in fact written by the traditional authors, as overwhelming evidence has established.

John S

11/17/2016 02:18:35 pm

Ok it's going on 2 years now (or more?) since the big public announcement on this death mask and then complete silence. This is not good, it feels like a publicity stunt now and I'm feeling like a dope for buying into it. Someone give an update please of any kind. Is there a problem, was it stolen, is this all a hoax.

Jesse Stone link

7/7/2017 09:09:34 pm

Brice,

I recently did some more digging into this and discovered this video: https://youtu.be/j_gwgGcpD1M

Apparently many of these mummy masks were purchased for the Green collection. You can clearly see in the video the lack of care given to the manuscripts, proving that McDowell was not exaggerating when he made his comments in the video you link above.

It is unfortunate to see this, along with reading the recent news about the dubious manner in which some of the artifacts for the Green collection were acquired. Hopefully now that the Museum of the Bible's scholarly division is under the leadership of David Trobisch we will begin to see more care given to these important artifacts.

I really appreciate your post here.

-Jesse

Brice Jones link

7/7/2017 10:05:19 pm

Hi Jesse, Yes, I've seen that video before. It's been circulating for a while now. It's all discomforting but I do share your desire that things will turn around for the better.

alaamiahclean link

7/14/2017 08:10:45 am

Thanks a lot for the post.Much thanks again. Want more.

9/21/2017 12:35:43 am

The experts, New Testament scholars, believe that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses. Why do Christians insist that skeptics believe in the historicity of Jesus based on expert opinion, but then turn around and reject the opinion of these same experts on the authorship of the Gospels?

I have compiled a list of sources which confirm the majority expert opinion on this issue:

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/

1/3/2018 08:01:10 pm

Not only were the Gospels written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses, scholars suspect that fictional folklore are included in these books. The question is: Which stories are fiction, and which are fact?

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/bombshell-respected-christian-scholar-suspects-gospel-authors-included-fictional-folklore-in-their-gospels/

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

The 'First Century' Gospel of Mark, Josh McDowell, and Mummy Masks: What They All Have in Common

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories