Ancient Bible text found - poor minorities hardest hit

[Perd Hapley]

An ancient, possibly the most ancient known fragment of the New Testament is discovered, and all CNN can do is whine about it.
[redacted, per Mr. Irwin's comments.]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/living/gospel-mummy-mask/

Yeah, it's old news. I just came across it, because I keep checking to see if the fragment's been verified.

I get that there are some concerns with destroying masks, and with provenance, but they just seem to be going out of their way to make this into a mean people walking all over the poor, brown Egytptians story.

"We have to ask ourselves, do we value the cultural heritage of Egypt as something worth preserving in itself, or do we see it simply as vehicle for harvesting Christian texts?"

Well do you think maybe non-Christian texts might be discovered? (Hint: read the article) And do you think maybe the texts (Christian or not) might tell us more about the past than the paper masks? Not like there's a cut-and-dried answer, but there's more than Egyptian hurt feelz at play here.

/rant off


On a less grouchy note, here is an article about literacy in the ancient world, and why it may argue for an earlier date for the Old Testament.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/world/middleeast/new-evidence-onwhen-bible-was-written-ancient-shopping-lists.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1

[lee n. field]

News of the fragment first came to light in 2012 when its existence was (perhaps inadvertently) announced by Daniel Wallace, founder of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts at Dallas Theological Seminary.

I remember hearing this at the time. 

[Hawkmoon]

That is either a phenomenally poorly written article, or an article with a decided bias.

Or both.

[K Frame]

It is an op editorial, I believe.

And the guy is asking good questions that deserve good and considered answers.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[BlueStarLizzard]

It is an op editorial, I believe.

And the guy is asking good questions that deserve good and considered answers.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I hate to say it, but fistful has a point.

At the beginning of the article the author does point out that documents found in this method have come from multiple ancient cultures and traditions, including Egyptian. Yet, at the end he makes the implication that biblical scholars are running around Willy nilly and ripping up masks and the only ones interested in the potential documents found in those masks.

While the rest of the authors points are legitimate and ones all archeologist need to consider, the parting shot at the end was a low blow. Even the grocery lists have historical importance, and IMHO, probably more than the Gospel of Mark.

[freakazoid]

I hate to say it, but fistful has a point.

At the beginning of the article the author does point out that documents found in this method have come from multiple ancient cultures and traditions, including Egyptian. Yet, at the end he makes the implication that biblical scholars are running around Willy nilly and ripping up masks and the only ones interested in the potential documents found in those masks.

While the rest of the authors points are legitimate and ones all archeologist need to consider, the parting shot at the end was a low blow. Even the grocery lists have historical importance, and IMHO, probably more than the Gospel of Mark.

This.

"We have to ask ourselves, do we value the cultural heritage of Egypt as something worth preserving in itself, or do we see it simply as vehicle for harvesting Christian texts?"

It's like the author completely forgot about writing this section at the top.

Dismantling these masks yields a trove of ancient documents. Evans claims that in addition to Christian texts, hundreds of classical Greek texts, records of business transactions, and personal letters have been acquired. In the process, the mask itself is destroyed.

Any archaeological discovery usually involves the destruction of something.

[MechAg94]

I get the idea that if this had nothing to do with the Bible or this guy was actually getting funded by this research, his opinion would be different.  He is obviously an outsider in this and isn't being given access to the research so he is complaining about it and speculating that they are not doing proper due diligence. 

[KD5NRH]

An ancient, possibly the most ancient known fragment of the New Testament is discovered, and all CNN can do is whine about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/living/gospel-mummy-mask/

Yeah, it's old news. I just came across it, because I keep checking to see if the fragment's been verified.

Has it been photographed or even described by a reliable source in any useful manner beyond "a fragment of Mark?"  I mean, really; there's so much overlap between the Synoptic Gospels that it would have to be one of the undeniably unique short passages or a fairly significant amount of text to be sure of that...and even then it would have to be near identical with an existing chunk from that time to confirm that it's not an independent account from someone else entirely - maybe a bit from the journal of any of thousands of followers.  I haven't exactly dedicated hours to the search, but a few minutes of Googling turned up no photos claiming to be of the actual fragment in question, nor any description of what it says.  Add to that the fact that a lot of the people involved have connections to plenty of other mysterious fragments of the Bible that are never seen by the general public, never independently confirmed, etc. and it just seems way too fishy to me.

[MechAg94]

Has it been photographed or even described by a reliable source in any useful manner beyond "a fragment of Mark?"  I mean, really; there's so much overlap between the Synoptic Gospels that it would have to be one of the undeniably unique short passages or a fairly significant amount of text to be sure of that...and even then it would have to be near identical with an existing chunk from that time to confirm that it's not an independent account from someone else entirely - maybe a bit from the journal of any of thousands of followers.  I haven't exactly dedicated hours to the search, but a few minutes of Googling turned up no photos claiming to be of the actual fragment in question, nor any description of what it says.  Add to that the fact that a lot of the people involved have connections to plenty of other mysterious fragments of the Bible that are never seen by the general public, never independently confirmed, etc. and it just seems way too fishy to me.

If the group has a history of that sort of thing, it would have been a much better argument than what was said.

And the fragment would only need a few verses to match it up with the Book of Mark.  The aren't that identical. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

Has it been photographed or even described by a reliable source in any useful manner beyond "a fragment of Mark?"  I mean, really; there's so much overlap between the Synoptic Gospels that it would have to be one of the undeniably unique short passages or a fairly significant amount of text to be sure of that...and even then it would have to be near identical with an existing chunk from that time to confirm that it's not an independent account from someone else entirely - maybe a bit from the journal of any of thousands of followers.  I haven't exactly dedicated hours to the search, but a few minutes of Googling turned up no photos claiming to be of the actual fragment in question, nor any description of what it says.  Add to that the fact that a lot of the people involved have connections to plenty of other mysterious fragments of the Bible that are never seen by the general public, never independently confirmed, etc. and it just seems way too fishy to me.

This is why I am confused by the author of the articles choice of topic to be critical over if he wants to trash the organization or the guy who's making the claims.

The people who supposedly have this document have made pretty grandiose claims, yet have not proven they have what they say they have. If it was for real, you'd think they'd be shoving it under the nose of ANYONE who could refute it's authenticity. Plus, the lack of providence, which makes me hope some authority in the matter has gone to this person and said "you need to provide this information and do so right quick."

The author has more then enough to be critical over, and rightfully so, without making this an attack on Christian scholars. 

[Perd Hapley]

This is why I am confused by the author of the articles choice of topic to be critical over if he wants to trash the organization or the guy who's making the claims.

The people who supposedly have this document have made pretty grandiose claims, yet have not proven they have what they say they have. If it was for real, you'd think they'd be shoving it under the nose of ANYONE who could refute it's authenticity. Plus, the lack of providence, which makes me hope some authority in the matter has gone to this person and said "you need to provide this information and do so right quick."

The author has more then enough to be critical over, and rightfully so, without making this an attack on Christian scholars. 

While I don't know the details, it was my understanding that they've been shoving it under noses for authentication for the past few years. Then again, this is the first time I've read about any controversy over it, so there's probably quite a bit I don't know.

Has it been photographed or even described by a reliable source in any useful manner beyond "a fragment of Mark?"  I mean, really; there's so much overlap between the Synoptic Gospels that it would have to be one of the undeniably unique short passages or a fairly significant amount of text to be sure of that...and even then it would have to be near identical with an existing chunk from that time to confirm that it's not an independent account from someone else entirely - maybe a bit from the journal of any of thousands of followers.  I haven't exactly dedicated hours to the search, but a few minutes of Googling turned up no photos claiming to be of the actual fragment in question, nor any description of what it says.  Add to that the fact that a lot of the people involved have connections to plenty of other mysterious fragments of the Bible that are never seen by the general public, never independently confirmed, etc. and it just seems way too fishy to me.

Well, if you'd like to speculate, it could also be a label from a bottle of Tide. [shrug]

Also, if first-century "journals" had been found from any of Christ's followers, that might be an even more significant find. So far as I know, the Four Gospels are the only first or second-hand accounts that have ever been found. (Though others have been claimed.)

[K Frame]

I hate to say it, but fistful has a point.

At the beginning of the article the author does point out that documents found in this method have come from multiple ancient cultures and traditions, including Egyptian. Yet, at the end he makes the implication that biblical scholars are running around Willy nilly and ripping up masks and the only ones interested in the potential documents found in those masks.

While the rest of the authors points are legitimate and ones all archeologist need to consider, the parting shot at the end was a low blow. Even the grocery lists have historical importance, and IMHO, probably more than the Gospel of Mark.

I'm not saying that Fistful doesn't have a point.

I'm saying that the author of the editorial opinion has asked some very good questions, questions that should be asked, and which should be answered, but which aren't yet being answered.

What it's not is an example of media bias furthering their love of brown men of ancient times or whatever.

It's an OP/ED. Those frequently come with disclaimers about the opinions expressed in the article, such as this one...

Joel Baden is professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Candida Moss is professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. The opinions in this column belong to them.

Which is to be found right above the opening lines of the OP/ED in question.

OP/EDs aren't hard news coverage. They're people editorializing about their opinions.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm not saying that Fistful doesn't have a point.

I'm saying that the author of the editorial opinion has asked some very good questions, questions that should be asked, and which should be answered, but which aren't yet being answered.

What it's not is an example of media bias furthering their love of brown men of ancient times or whatever.

It's an OP/ED. Those frequently come with disclaimers about the opinions expressed in the article, such as this one...

Joel Baden is professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Candida Moss is professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. The opinions in this column belong to them.

Which is to be found right above the opening lines of the OP/ED in question.

OP/EDs aren't hard news coverage. They're people editorializing about their opinions.

So, we can't be critical of his opinion since it's just his opinion?

This is the new rule? No body can be critical of opinions, just biased hard news coverage?

SCORE!!! YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE ME ANYMORE!!! MUWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *goes running willy nilly all over the board* Where do I start!!?!?!

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not saying that Fistful doesn't have a point.

I'm saying that the author of the editorial opinion has asked some very good questions, questions that should be asked, and which should be answered, but which aren't yet being answered.

What it's not is an example of media bias furthering their love of brown men of ancient times or whatever.

It's an OP/ED. Those frequently come with disclaimers about the opinions expressed in the article, such as this one...

Joel Baden is professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Candida Moss is professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. The opinions in this column belong to them.

Which is to be found right above the opening lines of the OP/ED in question.

OP/EDs aren't hard news coverage. They're people editorializing about their opinions.

As I mentioned in my OP, yes, I understand the concerns raised about artifacts being destroyed. Of course the questions should be asked. My complaint was that they were skewing the story in a certain way, and a way they know (or should know) is misleading. They speak about it as if texts written in Egypt are not important parts of Egyptian history and culture, but the masks are. As if anything Christian is foreign to Egypt, or to its history. As you and I know, Egypt (like much of North Africa) was an important part of the early Christian world, and one of the major Biblical "text-types" is named after Alexandria, Egypt.

Thank you for pointing out that the authors are not, apparently, CNN employees. I amended the OP accordingly.

[Hawkmoon]

So far as I know, the Four Gospels are the only first or second-hand accounts that have ever been found. (Though others have been claimed.)

But the four Gospels themselves are not really first- or even second-hand accounts. They are compilations from other, older sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels

Hypothesized sources of the synoptic gospels
Main articles: Two-source hypothesis and Four-document hypothesis

    Cross Gospel – John Dominic Crossan's proposed source of the Passion narrative in Mark (and in the Gospel of Peter; see below)
    Q source – Q is material common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark
    M Source – M is material unique to Matthew
    L Source – L is material unique to Luke

And remember, John is pretty much a different track entirely. Only Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptic. There is a fair amount of debate among Christian scholars as to whether or not some of the other gospels, particularly the Gospel of Thomas, should be included as a canonical text. And some scholars believe that the Gospel of Marcion was earlier than and was the source document for the Gospel of Luke.

[Perd Hapley]

But the four Gospels themselves are not really first- or even second-hand accounts. They are compilations from other, older sources.

That is the opinion of some, yes. Your quotation lists "hypothesized sources." They may exist. They may not. Do you want to tear up more artifacts, in order to find them? 

And remember, John is pretty much a different track entirely. Only Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptic.

Yes, John drew different things from the life of Christ that the other three Evangelists had not plumbed, or had not emphasized as much. How do you think that applies here?

There is a fair amount of debate among Christian scholars as to whether or not some of the other gospels, particularly the Gospel of Thomas, should be included as a canonical text. And some scholars believe that the Gospel of Marcion was earlier than and was the source document for the Gospel of Luke.

As I said, "others have been claimed." This stuff is all out there, and people have a lot of theories about it.

[K Frame]

So, we can't be critical of his opinion since it's just his opinion?

This is the new rule? No body can be critical of opinions, just biased hard news coverage?

SCORE!!! YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE ME ANYMORE!!! MUWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *goes running willy nilly all over the board* Where do I start!!?!?!

I'm not even sure why you're thinking or imagining that to be the case, or that I'm even suggesting it.

I said that the editorial asked some good questions, and raised valid concerns. I didn't say all of the concerns raised were valid. I didn't address HOW those concerns were raised, or the framework outside of those concerns.

Not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.

[K Frame]

"My complaint was that they were skewing the story in a certain way, and a way they know (or should know) is misleading."

HOLY HELL! YOU'RE RIGHT!

THAT'S THE FIRST TIME AN EDITORIAL HAS EVER DONE THAT, ANYWHERE! ON ANY SUBJECT, BY ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO HOLDS AN OPINION ABOUT ANYTHING!

 

[Perd Hapley]

"My complaint was that they were skewing the story in a certain way, and a way they know (or should know) is misleading."

HOLY HELL! YOU'RE RIGHT!

THAT'S THE FIRST TIME AN EDITORIAL HAS EVER DONE THAT, ANYWHERE! ON ANY SUBJECT, BY ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO HOLDS AN OPINION ABOUT ANYTHING!

 

In the future, I'll refrain from pointing out anything that's been done before. 

[K Frame]

In the future, I'll refrain from pointing out anything that's been done before. 

That would be for the best.

[KD5NRH]

Yes, John drew different things from the life of Christ that the other three Evangelists had not plumbed, or had not emphasized as much. How do you think that applies here?

Actually, if one wanted to pick a Gospel that doesn't quite fit, my choice would be Luke, for the simple reason that everybody mentions Simon Peter cutting off Malchus' ear, (though whether either is named varies by Gospel) but only Luke mentions the memorable part; Christ healing Malchus.  Anybody can chop a guy's ear off, and apparently it wasn't that uncommon at the time, but when another guy puts it back on, that's newsworthy.  Why would all the others gloss over that bit?

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, if one wanted to pick a Gospel that doesn't quite fit, my choice would be Luke, for the simple reason that everybody mentions Simon Peter cutting off Malchus' ear, (though whether either is named varies by Gospel) but only Luke mentions the memorable part; Christ healing Malchus.  Anybody can chop a guy's ear off, and apparently it wasn't that uncommon at the time, but when another guy puts it back on, that's newsworthy.  Why would all the others gloss over that bit?

When you consider that Jesus was, ya know, resurrecting the dead, healing cripples, restoring sight to the blind, healing one ear boo-boo is not all that critical to the story. Also, I think the writers were more impressed with the fact that he didn't attempt to fight the men coming to put him on death row.

[KD5NRH]

When you consider that Jesus was, ya know, resurrecting the dead, healing cripples, restoring sight to the blind, healing one ear boo-boo is not all that critical to the story.

Maybe not, but why tell the whole story except for a clear miracle, no matter how small?  It's like mentioning that Jesus showed up on a boat but forgetting to specify that he walked on the water to get there.

[Hawkmoon]

That is the opinion of some, yes. Your quotation lists "hypothesized sources." They may exist. They may not. Do you want to tear up more artifacts, in order to find them? 

Well, that IS the point of the article that started this thread, isn't it?

I confess to being firmly on the fence. On the one hand, I am very interested in anything that advances our knowledge and understanding of the origins of the Bible and early Christianity. On the flip side, I look at deconstructing ancient death masks and then I look at American laws prohibiting desecration of graves, and I have to wonder why it's okay to do it in Egypt but it's not okay to do it in Akron, Ohio.

On balance, I'm inclined to think that we should let the dead rest in peace. Keep looking and hoping for another Dead Sea scrolls find, but leave the dead alone.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, that IS the point of the article that started this thread, isn't it?

I confess to being firmly on the fence. On the one hand, I am very interested in anything that advances our knowledge and understanding of the origins of the Bible and early Christianity. On the flip side, I look at deconstructing ancient death masks and then I look at American laws prohibiting desecration of graves, and I have to wonder why it's okay to do it in Egypt but it's not okay to do it in Akron, Ohio.

On balance, I'm inclined to think that we should let the dead rest in peace. Keep looking and hoping for another Dead Sea scrolls find, but leave the dead alone.

Archaeology is pretty much based on disturbing the slumber of the dead. They've done autopsies on mummies, right? We treat the ancient dead much differently than we do the recent dead. Are you opposed to that, in general?