Mummy Mask Deconstructed to Reveal Oldest Gospel Text?

a reply to: LABTECH767

I tend to agree that the destruction of artifacts can be justified if doing so reveals useful texts. I am however concerned if it's done for the express purpose of hunting down early versions of Christian gospels. I think it's something best done with already heavily damaged artifacts by people with a purely objective approach. I'd wonder if we don't already have technology that could be adapted to reveal the text within the cartonnage without destroying the artifacts.

My only other thought was that it's somewhat concering that rather than releasing the information for peer review, they're going straight to publishing a book. That's typically not a good sign.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: N3k9Ni

If they do do you think we'll ever find out? Not a chance.

This must be one of the most casually ignorant posts I have ever read on Above Top Secret.

You have absolutely no idea how these things work, do you? You're so wrapped up in your conspiracy-myth you don't bother to compare what you think with information from the real world any more.

Textual scholarship and criticism of the Bible based on scientific methods began in the early 1800s. That's two hundred years ago. It began in Germany, and the English-speaking world became conscious of it in about 1830; a few years more and everybody was doing it. They've been at it ever since. We know that large chunks of the New Testament were added to the script in the third century and after; the works of the Old Testament have been analyzed and prised apart to reveal when they were written, by whom and under what conditions.

Biblical scholarship works like the rest of academia. Researchers produce papers, peers review them, they are published for all the world to see. This stuff is common knowledge to anyone who has been paying attention.

Evidently you have not been. Let's hope you learn something from this thread.

Oh, please. Get off your high horse. The question was if there is any difference between these texts and the Gospel as we know it. If there is any significant difference between these texts and the biblical version, it won't be widely publicized and the general population will remain unaware . The Catholic Church did not get to the position that it is in today by pointing out discrepancies in the gospel and I don't believe most people are inclined to sift through scholarly papers inin search of it.

originally posted by: N3k9Ni

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: N3k9Ni

If they do do you think we'll ever find out? Not a chance.

This must be one of the most casually ignorant posts I have ever read on Above Top Secret.

You have absolutely no idea how these things work, do you? You're so wrapped up in your conspiracy-myth you don't bother to compare what you think with information from the real world any more.

Textual scholarship and criticism of the Bible based on scientific methods began in the early 1800s. That's two hundred years ago. It began in Germany, and the English-speaking world became conscious of it in about 1830; a few years more and everybody was doing it. They've been at it ever since. We know that large chunks of the New Testament were added to the script in the third century and after; the works of the Old Testament have been analyzed and prised apart to reveal when they were written, by whom and under what conditions.

Biblical scholarship works like the rest of academia. Researchers produce papers, peers review them, they are published for all the world to see. This stuff is common knowledge to anyone who has been paying attention.

Evidently you have not been. Let's hope you learn something from this thread.

Oh, please. Get off your high horse. The question was if there is any difference between these texts and the Gospel as we know it. If there is any significant difference between these texts and the biblical version, it won't be widely publicized and the general population will remain unaware . The Catholic Church did not get to the position that it is in today by pointing out discrepancies in the gospel and I don't believe most people are inclined to sift through scholarly papers inin search of it.

It's already publicized, man.

Sort of shoots that whole idea of sweeping it under the rug down, doesn't it?

If it differed significantly from Mark, it wouldn't be recognized as Mark. I said this before.

Also, are you suggesting that any "new" Gospel would go unpublicized?

Ever heard of the Gospel of Judas?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall a big sensation when that was publicized in 2006.

Harte

DP

tp

a reply to: N3k9Ni

I don' t think the catholic church owns this fragment. You can see a translation of the oldest mark which is in the Sinaiticus codex. I'm in a car so can't Link it but easy enough for you to look up. No idea who this guy is, but hopefully it gets submitted for peer review otherwise he is a man with an agenda.

That said how wonderful to find all these ancient writings.

ETA here is the Codex Sinaticus you can punch in which verse you want and it translates it for you. Nifty. I read somewhere and it fails me, the original scribes weren't brilliant, but the conservators who restored it did a bang up job.
www.codexsinaiticus.org...

I just read an article from today at Live Science about how researchers are using x-rays to read the contents of charred scrolls from Herculaneum that were far too delicate to be unrolled.

New Tech Could Reveal Secrets in 2,000-Year-Old Scrolls

So the team looked to a similar technique, called X-ray phase-contrast tomography. Because the letters on the papyrus are slightly raised in height, the waves of X-rays that hit the letters would be reflected back with a slightly shifted phase, compared with the waves that hit the underlying material. By measuring this phase difference, the team was able to reproduce the shape of the letters inside the rolled scrolls.

So far, the team has analyzed six scrolls that were given to Napoleon Bonaparte as gifts and are now housed at the French Institute in Paris. They have deciphered some of the Greek letters and words written inside the rolled-up, burned, smushed scrolls.

Still, deciphering the words in the innermost layers was extremely challenging, the authors wrote in their paper.

I wonder if the technique could be used to at least peak at the contents of the cartonnage to make a determination about whether the artifacts contain papyri that are likely to be valuable enough to archaeology to warrant destruction of the artifact?

a reply to: N3k9Ni

i think astynax is right. if there is anything that is different, it'd be proclaimed from the highest roof top.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

oooo research materials! star fer yew.
i don't believe i've ever seen this codex before.

a reply to: theantediluvian

This is pretty cool, thanks. I think would be super interesting to see what kinds of papers people threw away back then!

Throughout history later generations have recycled earlier texts. This was common up until paper was easy to acquire. Book binders in the 17th and 18th centuries would recycle earlier pieces of paper, and some amazing discoveries have been made because of this. Take the Shakespearian play Love's Labour's Won, which was discovered in a book that was made using an inventory list from a bookseller. Even though no copy of the play has ever been discovered, we know that such a play must have existed because of this piece. Either the play is missing or is synonymous with a known play. We can eliminate many possibilities due to the other inventory listings on that piece of paper. For instance, it was not a mistaken recording of Love's Labour's Lost since it is also on the list.

Now I must agree that whoever used the gospel text in this fashion would have had little reverence for the writings, considering they essentially destroyed them. There are various reasons for such an action, but the most obvious reason is that it was practical. They needed paper, or papyrus, and the Gospel of Mark was handy. It is likely that whoever did this was neither Christian or Jewish, but a follower of the Egyptian religion . There were certainly numerous Christian sects directly after the time of Jesus. There were probably multiple sects while Jesus was alive. I think the most important question is obvious...how does this version of Mark compare with later versions? I mean 90 AD is only decades after the death of Jesus, and it is quite likely that the gospel was old at that time. It would be more likely for someone to destroy older texts as opposed to newer texts, at least in my opinion, so this version was probably decades old when it was used to make this figure. That is debatable of course.

It would be wise to discuss what was going on in Egypt around this time. Rome gained control of Egypt around 30 BC, and by 50 AD Christianity had taken hold there. The polytheism of ancient Egypt actually continued up until it was purged around 400 AD or so, so during the first century AD there were many Egyptians still practicing the religion of their ancestors. Therefore it is plausible that the Gospel text was destroyed because the person or people making the Egyptian figure did not care for it. There was some effort made to convert the Egyptians to Christianity around this time, but it was not mandatory, and certain protections were given for multiple religions. Anyway, I am mostly interested in what the gospel text says. The earlier gospels will be more accurate in my opinion, or will be closer to the original teachings of Jesus. It is possible that the text could still be skewed from the true teachings of Jesus, again because of multiple sects who all interpreted the teachings differently, and added their own beliefs, but generally speaking the earlier texts will be more accurate. We can also compare the various versions and draw conclusions from their similarities and differences. I am excited to learn what is contained in this version.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes, it's a particularly fraught question because Mark 16:9-20 is among the texts on which the doctrine of Christ's resurrection is based (as I'm sure you know).

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes, it's a particularly fraught question because Mark 16:9-20 is among the texts on which the doctrine of Christ's resurrection is based (as I'm sure you know).

Are you suggesting that a little bit missing from the end of the book of Mark, calls the resurrection of Jesus into doubt?

Other sections of Mark which, we do have early manuscripts of, make reference to the resurrection, as do most of the accounts and letters of the New Testament.

I hardly think that it is possible to say it casts doubt when there is such a wealth of documentary evidence available.

a reply to: chr0naut

I am not suggesting anything. I am stating a fact.

a reply to: chr0naut

It is unfortunately a fundemental tenet of the Islamic faith that they do not believe in the resurrection actually saying christians are in error though there religion was only born in the seventh century and not even related to christianity drawing much of it's inspiration form the native pagan religions of Arabia and also Judaism though Muhammen being a salesman before he married his boss a widow of a merchant knew of christian faith as well as the other cultures of the foreign that then frequented mecca to buy frankincense and trade in spices and silk's.

So as well as the atheist fraternity there are those who take a religious point of opposition to the resurrection, We believe it and know it to be true they do not and that is arguing with a brick wall I am afraid.

The tomb was empty.

He appeared to many after his resurrection.

He also appeared in a way that they did not recognize him until he uncovered there eye's.

Many dead righteous rose and were seen in the city (these sound more like resurrected soul's than there physical body's and that goes in line with his own statement that in the resurrection you recieve a new celestial/heavenly/universal or spiritual body - He that believeth in me though he were DEAD shall live and he that believeth in me and live's shall never die - but they shall have a new body when this one gives up the ghost).

He ascened with cloud's or a like mist.

We know he is real and we know that he live's but to those who do not believe, My own shall come unto me.

In a similar vein-ish, more access to read ancient works, Ancient scrolls blackened by Vesuvius are readable at last
X-ray scans can just tease out letters on the warped documents from a library at Herculaneum.

The lavish villa sat overlooking the Bay of Naples, offering bright ocean views to the well-heeled Romans who came from across the empire to study. The estate's library was stocked with texts by prominent thinkers of the day, in particular a wealth of volumes by the philosopher Philodemus, an instructor of the poet Virgil.

Blackened and warped by the volcanic event, the roughly 1,800 scrolls found so far have been a challenge to read. Some could be mechanically unrolled, but hundreds remain too fragile to make the attempt, looking like nothing more than clubs of charcoal. Now, more than 200 years later, archaeologists examining two of the scrolls have found a way to peer inside them with x-rays and read text that has been lost since antiquity.

Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com...

I say its fake!
them christians will do any thing to make people believe.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

I am not suggesting anything. I am stating a fact.

Consider this analogy then; if I tore the end off a newspaper account of a department store burglary and discarded it, could the damaged newspaper account be used in a court of law as proof that the burglary never happened?

Don't think so.

That "fact" is somewhat nebulous in the light of reason.

a reply to: chr0naut


No one can definatiively argue that the long ending was original to the Mark gospel. No scholar has yet managed that. The contention comes from the long winded (non greek style) ending that does not appear in the earliest known and best manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Early manuscripts which do contain the long ending contain original indicators marking that is disputed.

The earliest manuscripts seem to have evolved from containing no ending to a short ending and long ending.

There are arguments that the long current ending shoud be considered original to mark, but I am pointed to structural coherence and the stylistic clues to say it was not original. The author of Mark has a distinctive Greek style, and the long ending does not match this style in the body of Mark.

The variations in the Mark Scripture won't alter the Jesus story in such a way for Christians to consider discarding resurrection.

Most anti christians will imply the resurrection isn't mentioned in the earliest versions, that is not that the case, rather the meeting of Christ with the Apostles in Galilee is omitted and the flowery 'he rose up to heaven' ending is missing. That part is undoubtedly not original . But the implication he was risen is there in brown and black.

a reply to: chr0naut
But there's no reason to assume that those verses were originally on there so it wouldn't be like ripping the end off of a newspaper. It would be like looking at copies of the same newspaper and seeing that the older copy does not have the extra sentences like the newer copies.