I will be participating next week in a conference at the University of Toronto entitled Erasure History:Approaching the Missing Sources of Antiquity (see HERE for more information). I will be responding to James Corke-Webster's paper "History without the Historian: Removing Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History from the Archive." I'd better brush up on my Bauer.
Alin Suciu has two recent posts on new Coptic manuscripts relating to the Encomium on the Twelve Apostles and the Dormition of the Virgin.
Brent Landau passed on to me a few notes regarding the find:
"Cool things I learned at Dirk Obbink's lecture in Oklahoma City this evening" (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)
1) The new "unknown gospel" from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (mentioned in THIS news report) that was mentioned in press releases in connection with the ancientlives.org project has Jesus performing an exorcism on the Gerasene demoniac…BUT, there's no herd of swine! The demons just go away. No pigs were harmed in the performing of this miracle.
2) On the other side of the "unknown gospel" fragment are several sayings of Jesus about acknowledging him as Lord that resemble (but are not identical to) logia found in the Synoptics and Thomas. So apparently this gospel alternates between narrative and sayings, but with less of the transitional material found in the Synoptics.
3) The "unknown gospel" will be published in vol. 77 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.
4) A new fragment of the beginning of the Gospel of Mark has been identified, which was probably enclosed in an amulet and likely dates to the third century. Like several other important witnesses, it lacks the phrase "Son of God" after "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." But, unlike any other manuscript, it has the definite article "tou" before "Christou."
5) Oxford University has developed a portable multi-spectral scanner that is inexpensive enough to be purchased by both institutions and individuals. I don't know what the exact cost is, or whether it is available for purchase yet, but Dr. Obbink said it was in the price range "of a high-end laptop computer." See HERE for their info page.
Allan Pantuck has contributed another article (HERE) to the ongoing discussion on Secret Mark at the Biblical Archeology Review page. The article is a response to the handwriting analysis of Agamemnon Tselikas. Tselikas has, in turn, added a (rather weak) response to Pantuck (HERE).
And James McGrath has entered into a discussion with Craig Evans about his recent post on Secret Mark on the Bible and Interpretation blog. McGrath’s response can be found on Exploring Our Matrix, and Evans has, in turn, responded on Near Emmaus. And McGrath again back on Exploring Our Matrix.
Craig Evans has a post on Secret Mark at the Bible and Interpretation. He mentions his involvement in the York Christian Apocrypha Symposium and summarizes several of the points of his paper (via Paleojudaica).
Roger Viklund and David Blocker have posted an article suggesting an interesting link between the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew incorporated in Even Bohan and the Secret Gospel of Mark.
Larry Hurtado has an interesting post on his blog entitled "Hoaxes From the Past (That Keep on Re-appearing)." He discusses briefly (essentially presenting an overview of the contents of Edgar J. Goodspeed's Famous Biblical Hoaxes, or, Modern Apocrypha) a number of modern apocryphal texts, including The Aquarian Gospel of Christ (see this previous post on a handy source for such texts). The overview raises for me an issue over the appropriate use of the term "hoax." What is it that divides these modern apocryphal texts from ancient apocrypha? Or, in some cases, from pseudepigraphical canonical texts? The writer of the introduction to the Apocalypse of Paul, for example, claimed to have found this text hidden away beneath his house in the fourth-century. Clearly Paul did not write the text and it was likely written in the fourth-century by the text's "discoverer." A similar "discovery" in the nineteenth-century, such as The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ, is not much different, is it?
I understand the hostility some may feel toward modern apocrypha, but I don't feel the same way about ancient apocrypha. Is the difference solely of time and distance? Or is there something else that is different about the origins of these texts? Are modern apocrypha just as valid an area of study for 19th and 20th century developments in Christianity as ancient apocrypha for medieval Christianity?
Mark Goodacre drew my attention this recent piece by Bart Ehrman in The Huffington Post.
Mark Goodacre presented a paper at last year's SBL with the provocative argument that the "cross that spoke" in the Gospel of Peter is an element that derives from a scribal misunderstanding of the nomen sacrum ΣΤΑ (thus reading "cross" instead of "crucified one"). I missed the paper at SBL, but Mark has two posts describing his argument (start HERE) and these have sparked some fruitful discussion.
Reading the posts I was reminded of a few instances in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas manuscripts in which the same nomen sacrum has led to some corruptions in the text. The first is in the 11th-century Sabaiticus 259 (=Gs). In 6:2b we have the reading "…and that you may bear the name of salvation." Other Mss have instead "When you see my cross which my father mentioned to you…" The Gs reading seems to have arisen from a misreading of ΣΤΑ (cross) as "salvation." Another corruption appears in 6:2a where we have "Do not consider him to have the worth of a small man (ANOU)." The early versions have "small cross"; so perhaps our scribe (or an earlier one in the chain of transmission) misread ΣΤOU as ANOU.The only Ga Ms to have this chapter (Vienna, Cod. hist. gr. 91) is also corrupt (for microu staurou it reads mikroterou). The Gd Ms Cod. Ath. gr. 355 has the correct reading, but not as a nomen sacrum.
Timo Panaanen of Salainen evankelista (HERE) has posted a transcription of his interview with Quentin Quesnell on his viewing of the Secret Mark manuscript in 1983.
In related news, Biblical Archeology Review has posted Agamemnon Tselikas' handwriting analysis report (and a helpful summary) on the Secret Mark manuscript (HERE). Look for a response on this soon from Allan Pantuck.