It would only add evidences for what many scholars on textual criticism affirm, namely, that Mark was the earlier Gospel, and that it was most probably written after or around 70 A.C.
Biblical scholar claims to have found the oldest known Gospel — inside a mummy mask
by opusdei1972 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
opusdei1972
-
opusdei1972
.....so it does not prove that the Gospel of Mark tells us accurate facts. -
cofty
It will be interesting to see if there are any textual differences with other manuscripts.
-
Half banana
Tantalising information opus dei, slightly marred by poor reporting in the press (‘Biblical proportion’ used instead of ‘portion of the Bible’).
There are two considerations when approaching this information, firstly the only interpreters at the moment are theologians. Theologians are people who study myth as if it is factual, especially the primary belief in God, who lies outside of the perception of the five senses.
The second caveat is that the gospels are clearly the summaries of prevailing beliefs edited by deletions and insertions to fit the intentions of the cult leadership which promoted them. It would not be surprising to find an even earlier copy of what has become the Book of Mark from the end of the first century BCE.
Nevertheless it is interesting information to find such documents and proper scholarly research will no doubt yield more light on the beliefs and social practice of the period, whatever it proves to be. The use of mummification is clearly not a part of “Jesus” Christianity, how did the documents end up in the face mask? And critically when?
-
Phizzy
Don't get too excited, I found this from the article to be pertinent " Evan’s findings have neither been published nor subjected to the rigors of peer review."
I am going to keep an eye on this though, it may prove interesting.
-
sir82
The use of mummification is clearly not a part of “Jesus” Christianity, how did the documents end up in the face mask? And critically when?
Here is what the article says on that:
Mummy masks if you were the pharaoh, were made out of pure gold. If you were a wealthy person, it would be neatly carved, and then perhaps covered with gold leaf and a few jewels. But if you weren’t wealthy … the mummy mask that covered your face would be made out of papier mache.”
But even that was expensive, he said. So many deployed used paper, almost how someone would wrap a present in newspaper. “And that’s the best kind, if you’re a scholar, because we want to find old paper with writing on it. … And if you’re a pagan with no respect for the Christians, you use their writings as trash and you make papier mache masks out of their stuff. And their new stuff includes the New Testament.”
-
opusdei1972
...As I said before, it does not prove that Mark told us accurate facts...... -
Half banana
The slur of paganism was not in use by Christians in the first century when the gospels were supposedly written. Most of those who the Romans would have called “followers of Christ cults”at that time would have been pagans. The word pagan has the most literal translation meaning ‘villagers’ (pagus in Latin=village) in the sense that they would not naturally have been educated, our best equivalent would be ‘rustic’. The term came to be used disparagingly by Roman Christianity in the fourth century to distance their state sponsored, urban and therefore sophisticated, high status religion, from the uneducated country dwellers.
The irony is that the Gospels and consequently the Christian church was indeed informed almost entirely by pagan folk tales and superstitions. It was the Roman Church that made sure that the rustic origins were concealed and that attention was drawn to the magic properties of holy saints and other types of miraculous charlatanry to keep the masses in awe and contributing to the funds.
If I’ve appeared to digress, it is to say that the news information on the Mark texts has to be carefully examined without reference to the received traditions of hopelessly biased Bible scholars. The real evaluation will be made by historians and textual scholars.
-
freemindfade
This is very interesting. If it uses the Greek word for 'God' as do later versions that have clearly been altered in the orgs opinion,( but of course nothing else except taking out gods name). That would essentially prove that in the original version they in fact did not use the name 'jehovah'. -
Phizzy
ffFade, if this is proven to be a very early copy of Mark, the JW Org will still claim that the name of Big J was removed.
You could find a copy written half an hour after the original and they would claim it was this copyist that left the name out.
I have doubts this will prove to be very old, or even genuine.
But then, I am on old cynic. I do actually hope it is very early though, as it will prove embarrassing to the JW Org, it will show for sure there was no early tradition of the virgin birth, or the resurrection !