For some time now, the blogosphere has hosted occasional buzzfests surrounding an alleged 1st century fragment of the gospel of Mark.
There have been, as of this posting, no scholarly publications on the fragment, much less photos, expert dating, or any other useful information; but if you know anything about the handling of ancient artifacts, you might be disturbed by this photo, presented by Josh McDowell, purportedly documenting the process being used to "pull apart" ancient papyrus manuscripts from the presumably unimportant Egyptian mummy masks in which they are embedded. Of course, the masks themselves are completely destroyed. The process, according to McDowell, involves bare, unwashed hands and Palm Olive soap.
Now a 1st century fragment of Mark would certainly be a thrilling museum find, though, if the fragment is as small as reported, it will have a minimal effect on New Testament textual/historical studies, except to confirm what most scholars already believe - that the gospel was written within the 1st century.
And, certainly, archeology is sometimes an invasive undertaking, in which scholars must weigh the value of destroying certain artifacts in order to reach older or more historically significant artifacts beneath or inside.
But scholars are expressing a number of concerns about the way this "research" is being conducted. I'll provide links to some of their comments on the subject at the bottom of this post.
But first, you might want to take a look at this segment of a Josh McDowell video, in which he seems to delight in distressing scholars with his bare-handed approach to handling artifacts:
There have been, as of this posting, no scholarly publications on the fragment, much less photos, expert dating, or any other useful information; but if you know anything about the handling of ancient artifacts, you might be disturbed by this photo, presented by Josh McDowell, purportedly documenting the process being used to "pull apart" ancient papyrus manuscripts from the presumably unimportant Egyptian mummy masks in which they are embedded. Of course, the masks themselves are completely destroyed. The process, according to McDowell, involves bare, unwashed hands and Palm Olive soap.
Now a 1st century fragment of Mark would certainly be a thrilling museum find, though, if the fragment is as small as reported, it will have a minimal effect on New Testament textual/historical studies, except to confirm what most scholars already believe - that the gospel was written within the 1st century.
And, certainly, archeology is sometimes an invasive undertaking, in which scholars must weigh the value of destroying certain artifacts in order to reach older or more historically significant artifacts beneath or inside.
But scholars are expressing a number of concerns about the way this "research" is being conducted. I'll provide links to some of their comments on the subject at the bottom of this post.
But first, you might want to take a look at this segment of a Josh McDowell video, in which he seems to delight in distressing scholars with his bare-handed approach to handling artifacts:
I was dumbfounded by McDowell's hubristic glee over the careless handling of these artifacts, and I felt the need to transcribe this excerpt:
"Now, what you do, you take this mask ... oh ... [giggle] Scholars die when they hear, but we own 'em so you can do it. You take these manuscripts, we soak them in water. There is a process we use with huge microwaves to do it, but it's not quite as good ... we take ... show it ... we put it down into water ... can you put it up here too? We put it down into water at a certain temperature, and you can only use Palm Olive soap, the rest will start to destroy the manuscripts ... Palm Olive soap won't. And you start massagin' it for about 30, 40 minutes. You'll pull it up, wring it out -- literally wring it out! These are worth millions! And then you put it back in for about 30, 40 minutes. And then you pull it out, and this is what it'll look like, just like a gob ... next one ... a gob ... it looks like a cattle ... uh ... a cow's head. But that's all papyrus manuscripts, folks. Over 2000 years old."
"And you start pulling it apart. Say what?! Yep. They're layered on top of each other. You start pulling 'em apart ... keep going .. see there? You put 'em right ..."
"See most scholars have never touched a manuscript, you have to have gloves on and everything ... [giggle] ... We just wash 'em and hold 'em in our hands. We don't even make you wash your hands before. See? This is a manuscript right there. See? A manuscript, by definition, is not an entire book; it's a portion of the book. It could just be a little piece to ... to ... we have one now that's 38 pages on Corinthians, probably greater discovery than the dead sea scrolls. And ... uh ... keep going here. This is all ... now ... see my hand up in the right hand, that's a pair of tweezers ... and you take those tweezers, and you start pulling the layers of manuscripts off."
"I was so scared the first time I did it. It was last January ... I mean I was ... er, no, it was ... little bit before then ... I was so scared bec- ... what if you tear it? And they say, well, you tear it. Since we own it, it's OK."
"And you start pulling it apart. Say what?! Yep. They're layered on top of each other. You start pulling 'em apart ... keep going .. see there? You put 'em right ..."
"See most scholars have never touched a manuscript, you have to have gloves on and everything ... [giggle] ... We just wash 'em and hold 'em in our hands. We don't even make you wash your hands before. See? This is a manuscript right there. See? A manuscript, by definition, is not an entire book; it's a portion of the book. It could just be a little piece to ... to ... we have one now that's 38 pages on Corinthians, probably greater discovery than the dead sea scrolls. And ... uh ... keep going here. This is all ... now ... see my hand up in the right hand, that's a pair of tweezers ... and you take those tweezers, and you start pulling the layers of manuscripts off."
"I was so scared the first time I did it. It was last January ... I mean I was ... er, no, it was ... little bit before then ... I was so scared bec- ... what if you tear it? And they say, well, you tear it. Since we own it, it's OK."
*** Update ***
Classics and ancient history Professor Roberta Mazza has now posted this video with interesting additional comments about the provenance of ancient artifacts on her blog, Faces and Voices:
https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/destroying-mummy-masks-since-we-own-its-ok-maybe-not/
For more opinions on this topic:
http://www.bricecjones.com/blog/the-first-century-gospel-of-mark-josh-mcdowell-and-mummy-masks-what-they-all-have-in-common
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/living/gospel-mummy-mask/index.html
https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/mummy-masks-papyri-and-the-gospel-of-mark/
Classics and ancient history Professor Roberta Mazza has now posted this video with interesting additional comments about the provenance of ancient artifacts on her blog, Faces and Voices:
https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/destroying-mummy-masks-since-we-own-its-ok-maybe-not/
For more opinions on this topic:
http://www.bricecjones.com/blog/the-first-century-gospel-of-mark-josh-mcdowell-and-mummy-masks-what-they-all-have-in-common
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/living/gospel-mummy-mask/index.html
https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/mummy-masks-papyri-and-the-gospel-of-mark/