|Nicely-combed hair and best |
Christian smile of Craig Evans
"We're recovering ancient documents from the first, second and third centuries. Not just Christian documents, not just biblical documents, but classical Greek texts, business papers, various mundane papers, personal letters," [...] by using this technique of ungluing the masks. [...] We're going to end up with many hundreds of papyri when the work [sic] is done, if not thousands."It is nice to see that Mr Jarus has been reading this blog (such as this text about Prof. Evans: PACHI Monday, 24 November 2014, 'Dr. Craig Evans on First Century Fragment of Mark') and noticed that several folk take a rather dim view of destroying artefacts for trophy papyri - because that seems to me from the way they present it to be exactly what the mummy-mask crumblers are doing and why. Professor Evans seems aware that there are critics and imagines he is going to assuage our doubts like this:
"Evans emphasized that the masks that are being destroyed to reveal the new texts are not high quality ones that would be displayed in a museum [...] "We're not talking about the destruction of any museum-quality piece."Which basically tells us he's not the foggiest idea what the problem is. The article is about the by now infamous this scrap of the Gospel of Mark reportedly dated to the 90s. This was supposed to be published in 2013, then 2014... and we are still waiting.
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.
|Mask formerly in private collection|
This is from somebody's grave.
I think we may all be a bit wary of what these people are claiming bearing in mind the caption to the picture of the worried-looking mask over on the right (I'd be worried too if I'd known my mortal remains would be getting into the hands of this crowd of wreckers). The caption reads: "This mummy mask was one of the masks that the researchers took apart to reveal ancient papyri. This mummy mask is similar to the one that contained the first century gospel fragment. Credit: Courtesy of Prof. Craig Evans". First of all, I would not agree that this mask is not of museum quality. I think there are many museums that would gladly augment their research collections, if not display with this object. It is really rather a nice displayable thing, isn't it? Who on earth would sacrifice something like this in the search for "first century papyri", especially as, typologically, this is quite clearly a type which is Ptolemaic. I think part of the reason for their value assessment being somewhat kilter is a lack of knowledge. We are told these people think: "Although the mummies of Egyptian pharaohs wore masks made of gold, ordinary people had to settle for masks made out of papyrus (or linen), paint and glue". Ptoleomaic, Prof Evans. Look at a book or two about the archaeology of Ptolemaic Egypt - it's not really the same as the Eighteenth Dynasty... duh. The fact this mask is not made of gold does not mean it has no significance, cultural, archaeological or any other. The Egyptians would like it back, especially if its foreign owner does not like it and is not going to treat it with respect. Trashing something to see what is inside is not responsible curation.
Now, frankly I do not care if Mr Green has a bit of papyrus which his paid team of academics tells him is thirty years older than its rival. I bet they both say exactly the same as the other older versions - which is basically, isn't it, what we have today printed in our Bibles. That, after all, IS the point that the apologists are using these "earliest known texts" for. What I do care about, and I think we all should, is these self-absorbed people buying up artefacts and trashing them to fulfil some perverse desire to have something nobody else has got. Destroying these "edifices of polytheism" in the pursuit of their own interpretation of the early Christian writings, they are no better than the Islamist grave desecrators I wrote about a few hours ago.
[UPDATE * Roger Smith has doubts "random thought: would washing a papyrus in dish soap have an effect on later C14 dating of same?". It depends what was in the soap, and what cleaning methods were used on the sample. Any hydrocarbons from fossil fuel will be more or less C14 'free', but other organic compounds added to 'Palmolive' not].