Craig Evans talking about Wallace's mummy mask Mark fragment

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Mummy Mask May Reveal Oldest Known Gospel

I'm like 99% sure this will turn out to be bullshit.

Evans says that the text was dated through a combination of carbon-14 dating, studying the handwriting on the fragment and studying the other documents found along with the gospel. These considerations led the researchers to conclude that the fragment was written before the year 90. With the nondisclosure agreement in place, Evans said that he can't say much more about the text's date until the papyrus is published.

This sounds tendentious and strained to me, and it doesn't help that the "scholars" involved are agenda driven fundies. If they ever publish this, I expect to see it torn to shreds by real scholars.

[John T]

Of course the so-called real scholars like Richard Carrier et al. will want to tear it (figuratively and literally) to shreds.

If the story is true, then the mythicists got a lot of explaining to do or they are out of business.

I have always believed that sooner or later someone (Bedouin grave robbers most likely) are going to open up an ancient grave and the truth that Jesus was a real person will finally be verified.

John T

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi John T,

I agree that Jesus was a real person has not been verified.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Of course the so-called real scholars like Richard Carrier et al. will want to tear it (figuratively and literally) to shreds.

If the story is true, then the mythicists got a lot of explaining to do or they are out of business.

I have always believed that sooner or later someone (Bedouin grave robbers most likely) are going to open up an ancient grave and the truth that Jesus was a real person will finally be verified.

John T

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Of course the so-called real scholars like Richard Carrier et al. will want to tear it (figuratively and literally) to shreds.

If the story is true, then the mythicists got a lot of explaining to do or they are out of business.

I have always believed that sooner or later someone (Bedouin grave robbers most likely) are going to open up an ancient grave and the truth that Jesus was a real person will finally be verified.

John T

This really has no bearing on mythicism, or anything really. All it would show is that Mark was written in the 1st Century, which everybody already accepts. It wouldn't move the ball in any way in terms of mythicism and wouldn't affect any established scholarly consensuses. The only hypothesis it might affect is Detering's notion that the Olivet Discourse better fits the Bar Kochba revolt.

This is only supposed to be a fragment anyway, so it might not be that helpful or identifiable.

[John T]

Of course the so-called real scholars like Richard Carrier et al. will want to tear it (figuratively and literally) to shreds.

If the story is true, then the mythicists got a lot of explaining to do or they are out of business.

I have always believed that sooner or later someone (Bedouin grave robbers most likely) are going to open up an ancient grave and the truth that Jesus was a real person will finally be verified.

John T

This really has no bearing on mythicism, or anything really. All it would show is that Mark was written in the 1st Century, which everybody already accepts. It wouldn't move the ball in any way in terms of mythicism and wouldn't affect any established scholarly consensuses. The only hypothesis it might affect is Detering's notion that the Olivet Discourse better fits the Bar Kochba revolt.

This is only supposed to be a fragment anyway, so it might not be that helpful or identifiable.

Sure, it could all be a hoax. But if real, I'm sure it will get a lot of attention on this forum and rightly so.

Thanks for sharing.

John T

[ficino]

The claim that other documents in the mix are dated, and that they're dated to 1st cent., is the most important. Dating of biblical papyri by style of handwriting has come under the gun as often circular. That's because many of the samples, against which they are dated, are themselves biblical papyri and not dated. So many papyri dated 2nd cent. may well be third or fourth. So argues Roger Bagnall, a world-class papyrologist, as well as Brent Nongbri.

But dated documents used as part of the mummy mask would be very significant, playing a role a bit analogous to the role of watermarks to help date late medieval and Renaissance manuscripts.

One potential snag may be doubts over whether a given dated, documentary papyrus fragment was in fact part of the material of the same mask that also contained the Mark fragment, and not for some other mask. I presume the researchers will observe methods that will obviate such doubts.

[John T]

The claim that other documents in the mix are dated, and that they're dated to 1st cent., is the most important. Dating of biblical papyri by style of handwriting has come under the gun as often circular. That's because many of the samples, against which they are dated, are themselves biblical papyri and not dated. So many papyri dated 2nd cent. may well be third or fourth. So argues Roger Bagnall, a world-class papyrologist, as well as Brent Nongbri.

But dated documents used as part of the mummy mask would be very significant, playing a role a bit analogous to the role of watermarks to help date late medieval and Renaissance manuscripts.

One potential snag may be doubts over whether a given dated, documentary papyrus fragment was in fact part of the material of the same mask that also contained the Mark fragment, and not for some other mask. I presume the researchers will observe methods that will obviate such doubts.

One thing we do know is you can't use carbon dating to pin-point the year (not even the decade) that the ink was put to papyrus paper. Remember how mad Spin got when he found out that the margin of error for carbon dating was so wide that some of the Dead Sea scrolls could have been written during the time of Jesus?

Outside of a seal of a notary-public on the mask, people are right to have doubts about the actual age.

John T

[toejam]

Of course the so-called real scholars like Richard Carrier et al. will want to tear it (figuratively and literally) to shreds.

If the story is true, then the mythicists got a lot of explaining to do or they are out of business.

Carrier dates Mark c.70-90CE, so the discovery of a copy of Mark from the 80sCE would do nothing to his thesis.

[outhouse]

I'm like 99% sure this will turn out to be bullshit.

.

Why?

Evans has done some great work in the past.

[Peter Kirby]

So who's taking bets?

I'll pay you $2 for your $1 that the dust settles and an early second century date is as plausible as a late first century one.