Craig Evans talking about Wallace's mummy mask Mark fragment

[Stephan Huller]

I just like that Craig Evans is getting some of the shit that he gave to Morton Smith. It's easy to be the critic. Harder to be the person doing stuff. Everyone second guesses you.

[outhouse]

I just learned from another forum (which references a post that Craig Evans made on Bart Ehrman's blog) that the fragment will not be published this year nor perhaps for several years. It's going to be bundled together with a number of other fragments and published years from now.

Candida says 2017 in the link previous to your post.

[Stephan Huller]

Funny how Evans and Company blamed Morton Smith for being up to something when he took less time to publish his discovery. Bunch of jackasses.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Candidas take on it all.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/livin ... ummy-mask/

Essentially, this papyrus is the scholarly equivalent of "my girlfriend who lives in Canada."

Nailed it.

[toejam]

Evans sent Ehrman a few paragraphs trying to defend the destruction of the masks (something Ehrman has been quite critical of). Ehrman (with Evans' permission) posted it on his blog. Worth a read. Says it won't be published for a few more years and hints that they may have discovered some more 2nd century manuscripts. And the end of the day, it's simply a value judgement. What do we value more? An ancient mask? Or texts used to make it? It's a subjective call. Everyone will have a different opinion.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I admit that I am more interested in the texts than the masks. Right or wrong, I'll own it.

But Mazza says the texts can be read without destroying the masks anyway.

[stevencarrwork]

Evans sent Ehrman a few paragraphs trying to defend the destruction of the masks (something Ehrman has been quite critical of). Ehrman (with Evans' permission) posted it on his blog. Worth a read. Says it won't be published for a few more years and hints that they may have discovered some more 2nd century manuscripts. And the end of the day, it's simply a value judgement. What do we value more? An ancient mask? Or texts used to make it? It's a subjective call. Everyone will have a different opinion.

Won't be published for a couple more years?

Is Evans too busy doing YouTube videos?

[toejam]

^It's not up to him, apparently.

[MrMacSon]

Evans sent Ehrman a few paragraphs trying to defend the destruction of the masks (something Ehrman has been quite critical of). Ehrman (with Evans' permission) posted it on his blog. Worth a read. Says it won't be published for a few more years and hints that they may have discovered some more 2nd century manuscripts. And the end of the day, it's simply a value judgement. What do we value more? An ancient mask? Or texts used to make it?

As with any research - archaeological, scientific, historical, or whatever - a significant issue is not publishing negative findings.

ie. the with-holding of information that does not favour the information-holder or, in the case of archaeological or historical research, destruction of information (in this case the papyri, not the mask, is of primary interest).

In this case, they almost also have an obligation to publish the analysis of the papyri and allow independent analysis of them, given the destruction of the masks to obtain them.

[stevencarrwork]

^It's not up to him, apparently.

It's just up to him to announce all these results, literally YEARS in advance of when anybody can check what he says for accuracy.

They have done all the C-14, paleography research etc etc etc, All done, all dusted, all totally satisfactory. No problems that need to be checked.

I guess they are now just having trouble finding a good typist.


Or perhaps it is a question of ownership. These mummy masks they are destroying are valuable, don't you know. They need to sort out ownership.