You are super coolmaryhelena wrote:Wow - Having lived in Africa (East and South) for over 50 years - I must be super cool .......Stephan Huller wrote:Trobisch is cool. He was raised by missionary parents in Africa. Anyone from Africa is cool. African 'coolifies' people.
New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
To Africa that made me super coolKunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:You are super coolmaryhelena wrote:Wow - Having lived in Africa (East and South) for over 50 years - I must be super cool .......Stephan Huller wrote:Trobisch is cool. He was raised by missionary parents in Africa. Anyone from Africa is cool. African 'coolifies' people.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
W.B. Yeats
-
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
He was also recently named as one of about 5 or 6 editors of the next UBS edition. Does seem like an odd mixture.Blood wrote:Must be a seriously mixed blessing for Trobisch. He was undoubtedly lured away from academia with a lot of cash, and he gets to work with ancient texts.
-
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm
-
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am
Re: New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
I'm uneasy about some of the criticism. Whoever heard of people complaining about dismantling cartonage until now? It's been a standard technique to retrieve papyri. So I fear the complaints are motivated by envy or spite.
-
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm
Re: New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
I actually agree with you Roger. An early gospel fragment is worth more than a dummy mummy mask. I am baffled with how we can possibly know it is from the first century and not the early second century. But I guess we will find out soon enough.
-
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am
Re: New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
Agreed. Although the date of the artefact must be an end point.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
If I understand correctly, then there are techniques in which the mask can be saved. The problem seems to be that there are few experts who master this technique. Against this background, I find the criticism justified.
Re: New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
My take on this is that the value to humanity of finding (and reading/publishing) new mss fragments from the Roman period and before far outweighs that of the mask itself. There are literally thousands of mummy masks, and unless it was believed to have been covering a pharaohs' face or the face of an important historical figure (Marc Antony, Antony's girlfriend Cleopatra, etc), their value as archaeological artifacts will not be as important as the value they would have as literary relics. We simply have far fewer literary than non-literary relics. I bet every museum in the world has several such masks in storage and will likely never ever display them. There are also many in private hands displayed on mantle tops.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:If I understand correctly, then there are techniques in which the mask can be saved. The problem seems to be that there are few experts who master this technique. Against this background, I find the criticism justified.
Maybe this is the crowd which howls when a mask is disassembled for the mss inside it. Perhaps ... just perhaps ... they fear the mummy police will come to call on their castle, rappelling down like commandos, as they do, from their black unmarked helicopters.
DCH
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am
Re: New Fragment of Mark! Dated 1st century!
An excellent, scholarly article.Stephan Huller wrote:http://michaelwholmes.com/posts-and-comments-2/
The Executive Director of the GSI makes clear his reasons for not telling anybody a single word from this manuscript.
We have to be sure of the dating. Is it really a canonical document? Does it really date from the 1st century?
These are difficult questions , which take time to answer.
Hence the delay,of 2 years or more since it was broadcast to the world that there would be a book in 2013 about it.
It is obviously going to take a bit of time to date the work and make sure it is a canonical document.
Until that is done,all that can be said is that it is a fragment of Mark from the 1st century.