http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24890#p24890
I liked that there was a picture of the fragment, however; I could have done without the anti-Christian rhetoric.
Thanks much, George! I enjoyed perusing the links!
*smile*. Peace to you! Peace to all! And..... Always Joy in the Lord!
Isaiah 55:12
While refraining from calling this a fraud, Dan Wallace does have questions regarding it.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/7044
I just got done watching the complete debate. While there is nothing significantly new to learn in this debate (that you can't read in any good book on textual criticism and the NT anyway), I have to admit that Dan did a very good job at succinctly making the case for the trustworthiness of the NT text. Bart on the other hand takes up the side of absolutism, which is somewhat ironic coming from a liberal.
As for this supposed early piece of Mark - it was such a non-issue during the debate that I almost missed it when Dan briefly brought it up.
I just got done watching the complete debate. While there is nothing significantly new to learn in this debate (that you can't read in any good book on textual criticism and the NT anyway), I have to admit that Dan did a very good job at succinctly making the case for the trustworthiness of the NT text. Bart on the other hand takes up the side of absolutism, which is somewhat ironic coming from a liberal. As for this supposed early piece of Mark - it was such a non-issue during the debate that I almost missed it when Dan briefly brought it up.
It is not at all clear that the fragment I linked was the one Wallace referenced (doubtful), but in any case, it is too early to say anything very definitive until it has been studied further. My guess is that this is the reason Wallace didn't make much of it. You must remember that Bart is a "reformed" Fundamentalist. There is nothing so negative on smoking as a reformed smoker so I suspect this is the reason he takes such negative positions. For the most part he is correct in what he says, but he phrases it in the most negative way possible. I think he was extremely disappointed—one might say "traumatized."
There is nothing so negative on smoking as a reformed smoker
perhaps a poor choice of words [:)]
There is nothing so negative on smoking as a reformed smoker perhaps a poor choice of words
perhaps a poor choice of words
No, it's quite precise.
