Gospel of Mark in a Mummy mask from AD 80s?

[sandwiches]

Anyone got a take on this, which is suddenly cropping up in reports (with much criticism of Craig Evans):

facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/mark-strikes-back-mummy-cartonnage-and-christian-apologetics-again/

In a YouTube video published on 24 July 2014 (below), Craig Evans, professor of New Testament at the Divinity School of Acadia University, reports on a fragment of Mark, allegedly dating to the 80s of the first century AD and in course of publication, retrieved from a mummy mask. In the PowerPoint slide he is commenting on, you can see a mummy mask, although we are not told if the above mentioned papyrus comes from that specific one; any other useful information on the papyrus location and the owner (a private collector?) are as well lacking.
This seems to be the same fragment mentioned in the past by Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, although we cannot be 100% sure because nobody answers questions with any clarity. (Sometimes I feel I am talking to members of a gnostic sect rather than Protestant scholars…)

Personally I always kind of hope a pristine edition of The Gospel of Mark will emerge from Pompeii or Herculaneum:

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2918524/X-rays-unlock-secrets-ancient-scrolls-buried-volcano.html

[evangelion]

Jan 20, 2015 22:06:58 GMT sandwiches said:

Anyone got a take on this, which is suddenly cropping up in reports (with much criticism of Craig Evans):

facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/mark-strikes-back-mummy-cartonnage-and-christian-apologetics-again/

In a YouTube video published on 24 July 2014 (below), Craig Evans, professor of New Testament at the Divinity School of Acadia University, reports on a fragment of Mark, allegedly dating to the 80s of the first century AD and in course of publication, retrieved from a mummy mask. In the PowerPoint slide he is commenting on, you can see a mummy mask, although we are not told if the above mentioned papyrus comes from that specific one; any other useful information on the papyrus location and the owner (a private collector?) are as well lacking.
This seems to be the same fragment mentioned in the past by Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, although we cannot be 100% sure because nobody answers questions with any clarity. (Sometimes I feel I am talking to members of a gnostic sect rather than Protestant scholars…)

Personally I always kind of hope a pristine edition of The Gospel of Mark will emerge from Pompeii or Herculaneum:

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2918524/X-rays-unlock-secrets-ancient-scrolls-buried-volcano.html

Sounds very promising but as usual we can only speculate until it's published.

[peteri]

Jan 20, 2015 22:06:58 GMT sandwiches said:

Anyone got a take on this, which is suddenly cropping up in reports (with much criticism of Craig Evans):

facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/mark-strikes-back-mummy-cartonnage-and-christian-apologetics-again/

I have no idea how secure the dating of this papyrus is, but there is not really any doubt that the Gospel of Mark predates AD 80, so it is really nothing earth-shattering if it turns out to be definitely from the first century. It would be interesting sure, but none of the early fragmentary bits of papyrus are actually important for establishing the text of the NT.

When P52 was discovered there was a minority position among higher critics that the Gospel of John dated from the later part of the second century. The fact that P52 is most likely from the early second century counted as a major strike against radically late dates for John, and by extension the other gospels. But practically nobody dates Mark from much after the fall of Jerusalem.

Peter.

[evangelion]

If it's dated to the 80s I reckon that gives credence to a pre-60s GMark, which would surely be quite a game changer.

[timoneill]

Jan 21, 2015 4:04:53 GMT evangelion said:

If it's dated to the 80s I reckon that gives credence to a pre-60s GMark, which would surely be quite a game changer.

How does that work? Why does it give any more credence to a pre-70 AD date rather than a post-70 AD one?
As for what significance it would have, I regularly come across Mythers who claim we have no reason to think the gospels are any older than the mid-second century. Not that actual evidence is likely to convince those guys.

[evangelion]

Jan 21, 2015 10:06:55 GMT timoneill said:

Jan 21, 2015 4:04:53 GMT evangelion said:

If it's dated to the 80s I reckon that gives credence to a pre-60s GMark, which would surely be quite a game changer.

How does that work? Why does it give any more credence to a pre-70 AD date rather than a post-70 AD one?
As for what significance it would have, I regularly come across Mythers who claim we have no reason to think the gospels are any older than the mid-second century. Not that actual evidence is likely to convince those guys.

I didn't say it gave any more credence to a pre-60s gMark than a post-70 one. Either is fine with me. I'm just saying it gives credence to an early gMark.

[wraggy]

From this article it appears that nothing definitive can really be said about the text until it is published and scholars in the relevant fields can study it.

It is unclear why anyone would start talking about a text like this, a year, indeed now at least two years, in advance. The most important established fact about this papyrus, at this point, is that it has not yet been published—which is to say, only a small handful of individuals have seen the text and are able to say anything at all about it.

As Roberta Mazza, an ancient historian and papyrologist from the University of Manchester in England, told us, the academic community has not "been given access to firm information and images on the basis of which could eventually say something."

In other words, this sort of notice really serves mostly to remind us of just how little we know about this purported discovery. Here, for example, are five key, unanswered questions.

1. What is the actual text on the papyrus?
2. Is the handwriting consistent with the supposed dating?
3. Is the ink or papyrus itself consistent with the supposed dating?
4. Who owns the papyrus, or the mask from which it was taken, and from whom was it purchased, and when?
5. Who has seen the text, who has verified it, and who has studied it?

By Joel Baden and Candida Moss, special to CNN

Updated 2321 GMT (0721 HKT) January 21, 2015

edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/living/gospel-mummy-mask/index.html

[sandwiches]

Jan 21, 2015 2:00:45 GMT peteri said:

Jan 20, 2015 22:06:58 GMT sandwiches said:

Anyone got a take on this, which is suddenly cropping up in reports (with much criticism of Craig Evans):

facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/mark-strikes-back-mummy-cartonnage-and-christian-apologetics-again/

I have no idea how secure the dating of this papyrus is, but there is not really any doubt that the Gospel of Mark predates AD 80, so it is really nothing earth-shattering if it turns out to be definitely from the first century. It would be interesting sure, but none of the early fragmentary bits of papyrus are actually important for establishing the text of the NT.

When P52 was discovered there was a minority position among higher critics that the Gospel of John dated from the later part of the second century. The fact that P52 is most likely from the early second century counted as a major strike against radically late dates for John, and by extension the other gospels. But practically nobody dates Mark from much after the fall of Jerusalem.

Peter.

But practically nobody dates Mark from much after the fall of Jerusalem.

Yes, I have always vaguely accepted the dating of Mark as around 70A.D.(or 70CE if one prefers).

I note James Dunn in "Christianity in The Making" Volume 1 - Jesus Remembered - states p146 - "A very large concensus of contemporary scholarship dates Mark somewhere in the period 65-75 CE. The ancient tradition (from Papias) that the Gospel was composed by Mark, from his recollections of Peter's preaching fits to some extent with other references and makes better sense in the context of oral transmission than most seem to appreciate but the evidence is too sparse for sound hypothesis building...So far as the value of Mark is concerned we shall have to be content with the firm consensus that Mark is the earliest written Gospel to have survived intact, that it appeared about 40 years after Jesus' death and that it contains traditions about Jesus which must have circulated in the generation prior to that date."

Some though do date it much earlier (and not all "conservative" scholars) e.g. the late Maurice Casey; Jesius of Nazareth p65:
"There are two different conventional dates in scholarship. Some scholars, especially in Europe date it c.65-69 CE, not long before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, whereas others, especially in the USA, date it c.75 CE, not long after the same event...Earlier dates have occasionally been suggested by scholars whose conservative convictions were strong enough to damage the plausibility of their arguments. All this should now be changed in the light of a brilliant book by James Crossley, "The Date of Mark's Gospel". Crossley has proposed a date of c.40 CE."

Casey concludes p78:
"Mark's Gospel was written by an unknown Christian called Marcus. He wrote in Greek for Greek-speaking churches about c.40 CE, and he used Aramaic sources, some of which were abbreviated but in all other respects literally accurate accounts of incidents from the life of Jesus and sayings which he spoke."

Much perhaps hinges on the prophesy by Jesus of the destruction of the Temple in Mark, though that prediction seems not to have been entirely accurate in a literal sense, but fits in perhaps with the expectation of a Jewish eschatological prophet speaking in the AD 30s and expecting the man-made Temple in Jerusalem to be replaced with a divinely-made one with the arrival of The Kingdom of God?

Perhaps Mark deserves an earlier date?

[timoneill]

Jan 25, 2015 13:33:38 GMT sandwiches said:

Much perhaps hinges on the prophesy by Jesus of the destruction of the Temple in Mark, though that prediction seems not to have been entirely accurate in a literal sense, but fits in perhaps with the expectation of a Jewish eschatological prophet speaking in the AD 30s and expecting the man-made Temple in Jerusalem to be replaced with a divinely-made one with the arrival of The Kingdom of God?

The "Abomination of Abominations" reference in Mark 13:14 refers to the Temple being profaned in a very specific way - one that we know happened in 70 AD. The guarded and oblique way this is referred to, with the cryptic emphasis on the reader understanding what is being referenced here, also indicates it being written and read in a time when people had to be cautious about what they said about the Jewish revolt. These things indicate a date soon after 70 AD.

[peteri]

Jan 25, 2015 19:29:11 GMT timoneill said:

Jan 25, 2015 13:33:38 GMT sandwiches said:

Much perhaps hinges on the prophesy by Jesus of the destruction of the Temple in Mark, though that prediction seems not to have been entirely accurate in a literal sense, but fits in perhaps with the expectation of a Jewish eschatological prophet speaking in the AD 30s and expecting the man-made Temple in Jerusalem to be replaced with a divinely-made one with the arrival of The Kingdom of God?

The "Abomination of Abominations" reference in Mark 13:14 refers to the Temple being profaned in a very specific way - one that we know happened in 70 AD. The guarded and oblique way this is referred to, with the cryptic emphasis on the reader understanding what is being referenced here, also indicates it being written and read in a time when people had to be cautious about what they said about the Jewish revolt. These things indicate a date soon after 70 AD.

What do you have in mind for the abomination of desolation?   According to Mark 13:14 it happens when there is still time to flee Jerusalem. So I think it improper to shoehorn in what the Romans did just before destroying the Temple.

It seems to me that Jesus' prediction in Mark 13 is for a war that starts as a result of the Romans putting an idol in the Holy Place or Most Holy Place in the Temple.  The war and the destruction of the temple certainly happened, but as I understand it the war did not start with anything that could be called a desolating sacrilege.   

It does seem to me that it isn't all that unlikely a prediction for someone to make if they:
    - Think a Roman emperor is bound to order that a statue (possibly of himself) be placed in the Jerusalem temple sooner or later.
    - Think that this will mean an inevitable terrible war
    - Think that the Romans will win, and will flatten the temple

All three seem to me to be pretty good bets.

Peter.

[timoneill]

Jan 25, 2015 20:16:44 GMT peteri said:

What do you have in mind for the abomination of desolation?  

Titus raising his standards in the Temple court and sacrificing to them.

According to Mark 13:14 it happens when there is still time to flee Jerusalem.

It talks about "those in Judea" fleeing, not those in Jerusalem.

It seems to me that Jesus' prediction in Mark 13 is for a war that starts as a result of the Romans putting an idol in the Holy Place or Most Holy Place in the Temple.  The war and the destruction of the temple certainly happened, but as I understand it the war did not start with anything that could be called a desolating sacrilege.

The idea that this is a reference to a war that starts with this "Abomination" is not in the text. That's something you've introduced. All the text says is that this "Abomination" was a sign of the coming apocalypse, which will follow soon afterwards. That fits the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem and sacrifice to pagan images in the Temple perfectly. Thus the generally accepted post-70 AD date for gMark.

[jamierobertson]

Jan 25, 2015 22:41:11 GMT timoneill said:

Jan 25, 2015 20:16:44 GMT peteri said:

What do you have in mind for the abomination of desolation?  

Titus raising his standards in the Temple court and sacrificing to them.

Tim, what do you think of the suggestion (based on Josephus, IIRC) that the abomination was the Zealot seige in AD68, and the subsequent bloodshed in the temple? Surely this would both be seen as sacrilege by the Jews at large? It would also function well as a precursor, though not necessarily a direct cause, of the AD70 events.

[timoneill]

Jan 26, 2015 10:31:32 GMT jamierobertson said:

Jan 25, 2015 22:41:11 GMT timoneill said:

Titus raising his standards in the Temple court and sacrificing to them.

Tim, what do you think of the suggestion (based on Josephus, IIRC) that the abomination was the Zealot seige in AD68, and the subsequent bloodshed in the temple? Surely this would both be seen as sacrilege by the Jews at large? It would also function well as a precursor, though not necessarily a direct cause, of the AD70 events.

It's possible, but I don't think it fits the Daniel reference anywhere near as well. There had been bloodshed in the Temple before. But the standards being sacrificed to represented a special horror for Jews and connects directly to what the whole "Abomination" term refers.