International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Mummy Mask May Reveal Oldest Known Gospel
Source:
livescience.com
URL Source: http://www.livescience.com/49489-oldest-known-gospel-mummy-mask.html
Published: Jan 18, 2015
Author: Owen Jarus
Post Date: 2015-01-18 18:39:21 by Fibr Dog
Keywords: None
Views: 69563
Comments: 202
A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published. At present, the oldest surviving copies of the gospel texts date to the second century (the years 101 to 200). This first-century gospel fragment was written on a sheet of papyrus that was later reused to create a mask that was worn by a mummy. 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. Given how expensive papyrus was, people often had to reuse sheets that already had writing on them. In recent years scientists have developed a technique that allows the glue of mummy masks to be undone without harming the ink on the paper. The text on the sheets can then be read. The first-century gospel is one of hundreds of new texts that a team of about three-dozen scientists and scholars is working to uncover, and analyze, by using this technique of ungluing the masks, said Craig Evans, a professor of New Testament studies at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. "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," Evans told Live Science. The documents include philosophical texts and copies of stories by the Greek poet Homer. The business and personal letters sometimes have dates on them, he said. When the glue was dissolved, the researchers dated the first-century gospel in part by analyzing the other documents found in the same mask. One drawback to the process is that the mummy mask is destroyed, and so scholars in the field are debating whether that particular method should be used to reveal the texts they contain. But 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. Some are not masks at all but are simply pieces of cartonnage. Evans told Live Science, "We're not talking about the destruction of any museum-quality piece." The technique is bringing many new texts to light, Evans noted. "From a single mask, it's not strange to recover a couple dozen or even more" new texts, he told Live Science. "We're going to end up with many hundreds of papyri when the work is done, if not thousands." Debate Scholars who work on the project have to sign a nondisclosure agreement that limits what they can say publicly. There are several reasons for this agreement. One is that some of the owners of these masks simply do not want to be made known, Evans said. "The scholars who are working on this project have to honor the request of the museums, universities, private owners, so forth." The owners of the mummy masks retain ownership of the papyrus sheets after the glue on them is dissolved. Evans said that the only reason he can talk about the first-century gospel before it is published is because a member of the team leaked some of the information in 2012. Evans was careful to say that he is not telling Live Science anything about the first-century gospel that hasn't already been leaked online. Soon after the 2012 leak, speculation surrounded the methods that the scholars used to figure out the gospel's age. 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. Destruction of mummy masks The process that is used to obtain the papyri, which involves the destruction of the mummy masks, has also generated debate. For instance, archaeologist Paul Barford, who writes about collecting and heritage issues, has written a scathing blog post criticizing the work on the gospel. Roberta Mazza, a lecturer in Classics and Ancient History at the University of Manchester, has blogged her concerns about the text as has Brice Jones, a doctoral candidate in religion at Concordia University. When the texts are published the debate is likely to move beyond the blogosphere and into mainstream media and scholarly journals. Biblical clues Although the first-century gospel fragment is small, the text will provide clues as to whether the Gospel of Mark changed over time, Evans said. His own research is focused on analyzing the mummy mask texts, to try to determine how long people held onto them before disposing or reusing them. This can yield valuable information about how biblical texts were copied over time. "We have every reason to believe that the original writings and their earliest copies would have been in circulation for a hundred years in most cases — in some cases much longer, even 200 years," he said. This means that "a scribe making a copy of a script in the third century could actually have at his disposal (the) first-century originals, or first-century copies, as well as second-century copies." Set to publish Evans said that the research team will publish the first volume of texts obtained through the mummy masks and cartonnage later this year. It will include the gospel fragment that the researchers believe dates back to the first century. The team originally hoped the volume would be published in 2013 or 2014, but the date had to be moved back to 2015. Evans said he is uncertain why the book's publication was delayed, but the team has made use of the extra time to conduct further studies into the first-century gospel. "The benefit of the delay is that when it comes out, there will be additional information about it and other related texts."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Fibr Dog, *Religious History and Issues*, *Science and technology* (#0)
VERY cool!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Good find.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Indeed, that is very cool. It makes sense that it is from the Gospel of Mark, since according to tradition he traveled to Egypt and evangelized there.
Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?
LOL doubtful. The NT books were complete long before Nicea. Only Dan Brown and his publishers believe Nicea was about the canon. What this fragment will do is confirm one of the many families of manuscripts we already have.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea? IMO that is a toal game changer.....not to mention very solid support for my position about the possible lack of fidelity of Scripture as we know it today. OTOH if documents written less than 40 years after the death of Christ, especially by those that had firsthand contact with Him, indicate fidelity of versions relied upon hundreds of years later then I most certainly will have to reconsider my position.
Or rather, resemble a very small portion of some of the existing manuscripts. Doesn't sound like there's much text here.
BTW I do not believe that the PTB will allow this to happen. There is too much power and money on the line. At best we will likely get a Shroud of Turin type of situation ot yes it is, no it ain't.....if anything at all.
"You left enough".
OTOH if documents written less than 40 years after the death of Christ, especially by those that had firsthand contact with Him, indicate fidelity of versions relied upon hundreds of years later then I most certainly will have to reconsider my position. It won't be clear-cut. It'll be a small fragment. There will be some differences between it and other manuscripts and fragments - every manuscript is different from every other one. Those who put their trust in absolutely faithful transmission of everything will hail the similarities as proof that we have the pure text. Those who doubt the validily of everything will say that the differences proves that Scripture is a crock. And then there'll be every variance of opinion in between. Many will wait to hear what their official religious leaders officially say, and then believe that.
No. The Church preceded the New Testament, as testified by Scripture itself. Most of Paul's Epistles are written to already existing Churches. "to the Church that is in Corinth", Galatians, Ephesians, etc. Most of those Churches have never ceased to exist -- the ones above are parts of the Greek Orthodox Church, for example. It was the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which decided the Canon of Scripture. And in the same way the Church cast out heretics in the Ecumenical Councils.
No. Ah, I love an open minded person. Don't worry, the religious establishment has your back.
Exactly which Church was that? The Roman Catholic? The Pro-testants (each and every one of them)? The Greek Orthodyx? The Armenian Orthodox? etc., etc., etc.
LOL. I love it when the first thing someone who is not a traditional Christian says is that I'm close-minded. That way you don't even have to pay attention to the premise that I posted. The Church determined the Canon of Scripture, not the other way around. That's just historical fact.
Yes, I would bet on that.
Do you know something that God doesn't, i.e. that I am not a traditional Christian?
About 100-150 years before Nicea we had early church fathers who quoted and commented on the NT we have today. Some theologians in the 19th century claimed if we took all the writings of the early theologians we could transcribe the same NT today. So the actual 27 books of the NT were not hotly contested (unless you count the east with Revelation); but spurious books and writings with unconfirmed apostolic origins. So this fragment will not be as earth shaking as some think it will be. It will either confirm the Alexandrian text we have today or be deemed an unconfirmed source. What the fragment can confirm is that books about Jesus Christ were in wide circulation prior to the close of the 1st century AD. Which would put to rest the Jewish conspiracy theories that Jesus Christ was a second century machination of heretics.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Of course by my moniker it is obvious that I would argue that the Orthodox Church is the truest representation of the original. Roman Catholics would argue for their Church. But both the Romans and Orthodox know that we were both the same Church for over a thousand years, that split apart in the Great Schism. We do not disagree with each other greatly concerning Scripture or the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Protestant Churches, of course, did not exist until the time of Luther. Our many Protestant posters can argue their position if they choose to do so. But as an example of an amusing episode I had years ago, I visited a Protestant Church that had a pamphlet about the Book of Revelation. The pastor there had visited the historic locations where the Churches addressed in the seven letters to the Churches in that book historically existed. Except in the case where the city no longer existed (Laodecia) the pastor had the same hilarious remark about each site. He wrote that all he could find was a Greek Orthodox Church there, the original Church had vanished! Since he couldn't find someone in an auditorium in an American 3-piece suit waving an English Bible around, he didn't see the forest for the trees.
If you are a traditional Christian, then why would you argue to replace an Ecumenical Council? It's funny, literally this very day the Orthodox Church commemorates Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, who expressed the Orthodox doctrine in two of the Ecumenical Councils. Are you arguing that Athanasius should be cast out if a few words on some mummy wrappings do not support his defense of the Divinity of Christ? You do understand, don't you, that the Church rejected various "Gnostic Gospels" that taught things contrary to what they had received from the Apostles?
Skeptics, heretics and atheists will always make hay out of finds like this. Just look at the article. The researchers are not trying to confirm the veracity of the inerrancy of scriptures but trying to find discrepancies. They are looking for stupid kooky CT Dan Brown stuff like Jesus had a wife and kids and Mary Magdalene was calling the shots. Their liberalism has become strong delusion and blinds any professional ethics remaining.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Nice find.
You want to put some money on it?
I have to say your anecdote was hilarious:)
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
As you likely recall, I've posted articles on these mask fragments over the last few years. It is very exciting to finally see them and hear what the scholars have to say. I know Gary must be as impatient as a kid on Christmas morning, waiting for these fragments to finally be presented to the public. The scoffers among the textual critics will finally have to shut up and stop saying that none of the Gospels could have been written in the first century. For those with an interest in ancient manuscript families, this is very exciting.
Good point. I would add, however, they argued more specifically for the Deity of Jesus Christ, Son of God.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
As should all diligent bible students. The Orthodox do cultivate a very long memory. I recall my shock one Sunday when some mention was made of the early canon and I mentioned Athanasius and they all looked at me like they'd never heard of him. Sadly, they probably hadn't because they were too busy collecting the 17 volumes of Left Behind books. I never comprehend how some Christians seem to have no detectable interest in scripture. In a Catholic, well, maybe since they rely on tradition. But how can a Prot or Baptist be so uninterested when the basic facts are not difficult to grasp? It baffles me.
Yeah FB is a good pick up off LP waivers:)
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Of course they did. But doing it vs. claiming it are two different things. "So this fragment will not be as earth shaking as some think it will be. It will either confirm the Alexandrian text we have today or be deemed an unconfirmed source." That is what I am betting. "What the fragment can confirm is that books about Jesus Christ were in wide circulation prior to the close of the 1st century AD. Which would put to rest the Jewish conspiracy theories that Jesus Christ was a second century machination of heretics." I would venture to say that that would be earth shaking to those Jews.
ping #8. Do you want to put money on that?
Since it came up, here is a small smattering of the hymns sung to commemorate those two Egyptian Bishops who defended traditional Christianity in the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus: Ss. Athanasius and Cyril (Men. Jan. 18, Vesp.) Verse 4: From the morning watch until night, from the morning watch let Israel trust in the Lord. Persecutions didst thou endure; many perils didst thou abide, righteous Athanasius, thou man of speech divine, until thou hadst banished far off the godless error of Arius and hadst saved the faithful flock from his grievous impiety, when with right belief thou didst teach that the Son and Spirit both are one in essence with the Father, O sacred minister blessed of God. Verse 3: For with the Lord there is mercy and with Him is abundant redemption, and He will deliver Israel from all His iniquities. With thy preaching’s bright lightning-bolts, thou didst drive all deception out, and thou didst enlighten them that were in the dark, when for the Faith, thou didst cast thyself in dangers, O most renowned, as a firm foundation-stone and true shepherd of Christ God’s Church. Wherefore, we rejoice as we gather to honor thee with songs, O steadfast Father Athanasius, on this, thy holy memorial. Verse 2: Praise the Lord, all ye nations. Praise Him, all ye people. In thy doctrines, which breathe with fire, all the substance of heresies is burnt up like sticks in the flame, O man most wise; the host of godless and disobedient foes drowneth in the depths of thy knowledge and thy thoughts; but the Church of the faithful is ever fair arrayed with thy doctrines of wisdom, O blessed Cyril, as it crieth with a great voice and giveth honor and praise to thee. Verse 1: For His mercy is great towards us, and the truth of the Lord endureth forever. With the eloquence of thy words all the Church is made beautiful, O most sacred Cyril; and with great reverence she doth rejoice in thy doctrines as in beautiful ornaments and doth honor sacredly thine auspicious and holy feast, O most glorious, thou great boast of the Orthodox and leader of the Fathers at the Council, the holy Virgin’s brave champion. Tone 6 Doxasticon for Ss. Athanasius And Cyril (Men. Jan. 18, Vesp.) Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Come, O ye feast-lovers, and as we gather, let us extol with spiritual praises those chiefs of hierarchs and pinnacles of patriarchs, the all-bright luminaries of the whole world, and expositions of the mind of Christ, and let us say: Rejoice, O wise Athanasius, namesake of immortality, who with the sling of thy divinely-wise doctrines didst hurl from Christ’s flock the trifler Arius as a wolf. Rejoice, O all-blessed Cyril, star bright with all splendor, champion of the Ever-virgin, who with stentorian voice in the midst of the sacred assembly at Ephesus didst illustriously proclaim her to be the Theotokos, and didst refute the nonsense of Nestorius. Rejoice, ye well-springs of theology, everflowing rivers of the wisdom of God, and gushing fountain of divine knowledge. O thrice-blessed Fathers, cease not to intercede with Christ for those who celebrate with faith and love your all-sacred and divine festival.
Hopefully those of us who do take an interest in these matters will keep the fires kindled here. I also cannot wait for these fragments to determine Scriptures before the close of the first century. All those Talmud fairy tales will be put to rest along with reams of 19th century liberal junk theology.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Thanks! The pastor there has become a friend, and I still enjoy kidding him about it. ;)
Indeed so, even He who is one is essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
I recall my shock one Sunday when some mention was made of the early canon and I mentioned Athanasius and they all looked at me like they'd never heard of him. Sadly, they probably hadn't because they were too busy collecting the 17 volumes of Left Behind books. I never comprehend how some Christians seem to have no detectable interest in scripture. In a Catholic, well, maybe since they rely on tradition. But how can a Prot or Baptist be so uninterested when the basic facts are not difficult to grasp? It baffles me. Very well said, and I agree. Especially for a Protestant, if their Church declares the Nicene Creed (and the overwhelming majority do indeed do that) then I would think that they would wish to read the source materials for themselves.
Actually, I would say that the Orthodox and the Roman Churches are both true representations of their originals. The East was ALWAYS like that, because the East is so many ancient cultures, with so many languages and really old cultures, living cheek-to-jowl, that it was inevitably ethnic and local. The West was conquered by Rome in two big gulps: the Carthaginian wars swallowed a ramshackle slave empire whole, and the conquest of Gaul and southern Germany and Britain essentially unified all of the Celts under Roman rule. So in essence the West, by the time of Nicaea certainly, really had a common culture, a common language, and a common gov't. There were local variations, but the west was civilized and only became literate for the first time under Rome. The West was very deeply and profoundly Latin, essentially a monoculture until the Germanic barbarians came, and the Germanic barbarians, though tribal, were themselves one broad culture too. So, in the West, the Latin Church really was LATIN, in every sense, because the whole Roman West was Latin. The East - a completely different story. In the East, a distant Roman overlordship ruled the provinces of a conquered set of ramshackle Greek imperial states that were themselves haphazardly imposed atop of really ancient cultures and languages that go all the way back to the times of the Torah. Egypt, Babylon, Canaanite, Assyrian, Phonecian, Hittites, Armenians. Governments changed, and languages evolved, but these people were always different cultures, markedly so, and all of the empires organized themselves on cultural lines. Sure, in the West everybody knew that Gaul was full of Gauls, and Italy, Italians, and they were "different", but they only ever knew the Roman alphabet, only ever read in Latin, only ever were organized under Roman law...Celt and Italian are like Sumerian and Babylonian - two different tribal sorts of Chaldean, but ultimately civilized under the same long empire from the beginning of literacy. And the Church in the First Century came into those different places, and shaped to them. Orthodoxy fits the East, with its smaller units, it's really different and historically resistant cultures, its communalism. Catholicism fits the Imperial West that Rome as THE city from which the alphabet and literacy itself had come into lands that were organized for the first time and had paved roads put through them the first time by literal Romans, from Rome. Eastern "Romans" were mostly local Greeks, or Greek-speaking Jews like Paul: locals of citizenship, but of neither Latin culture nor language. Looked at this way, the Eastern Orthodoxies, and the Oriental Orthodoxies, and Latin Catholicism, are all completely authentic - they reflect their original root structures and they all grew organically and embellished along the lines of their tendencies. Easterners are mystics, and Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy are heavily steeped in mystery and the glory of God. Westerners are Romans at root, and Romans were engineers par excellence, law-makers, and militarists, accustomed to vast armies and linear lines of authority. Eastern Empires were historically characterized by centrifugal force - they tended to fly apart on ethnic and cultural and linguistic lines. Eastern Christianity survived that force intact, but did it through almost complete subsidiarity, with lots of small patriarchates and deep local organization. The Latin West was characterized by centripetal force: all roads led to Rome - literally - and having an Imperator and Pontifex Maximum ruling as unitary head of vast areas of small cities and wide farms and wild hinterlands was the norm. Also, the East was characterized by security until the Muslims showed up. It's a geographic cul-de-sac, with desert walls to the South and East, the Black Sea to the north, and Constantinople as a Minas Tirith-like bottleneck against any invader from the West. And so the Empire in the East endured, and protected, the Churches within for centuries and centuries. The West was half wilderness, and across the frontier of the wild were...Wildlings...wild, violent savages in warbands, Vikings, really. The frontier was too long to guard without breaking the bank, but it had to be guarded or the barbarians WOULD come. There were a lot of them. Eventually, they broke the bank and the government and conquered, but they couldn't rule. So the Roman Church continued on, the only civilized and literate force, and it had no Emperor to either protect it OR to limit it from becoming the centralizing force. So it did. I'd say that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are both completely authentic, and completely sincere, and they both really reflect the conditions of their respective regions when they were born. And that makes unity hard. When there was a central emperor to hold it all together, it held. But when that was broken, unity held while the West was in disarray and foundering and floundering, while the East remained with the Emperor. But once the West found its feet again, without Emperor, tensions multiplied. Take the filioque controversy. My own view, having listened carefully to both sides, is that theologically BOTH are absolutely right: they're each focusing on a different meaning of the same words. But then you come to the structural issue of operating in common, and neither side CAN surrender what it knows to be true. But each has seen the other, at various times, as having nefarious motives. And frankly, at various points in the past, there WAS nefarious motive. Today, there's still theological tension between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but not very much of it. What there is is greatly exacerbated by long memories of wrongs, and by a view of the other as obdurate. Animal spirits operate to cause people to not WANT to move towards unity on anything but their terms (because the other side is WRONG, and deep down must KNOW IT, because both sides are so similar). It's not Cain and Abel (though at times it looked like it might become that). It's Jacob and Esau. The good news is that Jacob and Esau did finally reconcile completely, in brotherly love, their old father Isaac lived to have the joy of their reunion, and ultimately the two brothers buried their father together and remained united until the end of their days. It was not until hundreds of years later that their respective heirs fought again. So there is hope of reunion, someday, maybe even before the end of the world.
As is often the case, well said Vicomte.
And here is the Epistle Reading that is for the commemoration of Ss. Athanasius and Cyril today: St. Paul's Letter to the Hebrews 13:7-16 Brethren, remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their lives, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents. We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come. Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
Easy. In which language the New Testament was written? Latin? German/English/Swedish? Greek? Armenian?
Athanasius led a great Christian life, a titan of the ancient church. In many ways, more admirable than Augustine and some others of considerable reputation. Too bad they couldn't include a reference to Athanasius' fiery defender, Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari. Not a mousy guy. If the emperor killed him for it, he was going to say what he passionately believed. He had much of the stuff of the early martyrs of the church: "Here I stand, I can do no other" as Martin Luther would say. He had the kind of passion that characterizes some of Paul's best writing. As much as scripture councils us to be obedient to secular authority, these early Christians went well beyond what most would imagine. It is a challenge to see them as living out their ordinary daily lives as these events unfold. Christianity was revolutionizing Roman society. We find it difficult to grasp what a profound change this was to a Roman empire mired in paganism and philosophy. Athanasius had to have been a man of considerable personal charisma as well as being a practical bishop, a man who possessed a shrewd and subtle view of the conflicts of his era and the future of the church as a state religion.
Athanasius had to have been a man of considerable personal charisma as well as being a practical bishop, a man who possessed a shrewd and subtle view of the conflicts of his era and the future of the church as a state religion. Your own summary probably reveals why Athanasius was canonized as a Saint and Lucifer of Cagliari was not. While Athanasius unquestionably did not give a weak defense of Orthodox doctrine, even though he was often treated cruelly and spent much of his life in exile, he reportedly was so kind to his opponents when he was reinstated that even they could make few criticisms of him. Of course, that isn't to say that even amongst the canonized Saints they did not have moments of losing their temper... reportedly St. Nicholas of Myra (that's right, the original Santa Claus) was so upset when he first heard Arius declare his heretical teaching that he went up and punched him in the face. Nicolas was a simple rural Bishop with a poor vocabulary as well, so after he punched Arius he was removed from the Council and briefly deposed from office. Reportedly, a number of Bishops then had a dream on the same night where they saw Jesus Christ handing Nicholas his Gospel Book back and Mary handing him his Bishop's vestments. They decided to give St. Nick another chance, and the rest is history. ;)
Comments (41 - 202) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIn recent years scientists have developed a technique that allows the glue of mummy masks to be undone without harming the ink on the paper. The text on the sheets can then be read.
#2. To: Fibr Dog, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, listener, SOSO, liberator (#0)
#3. To: Fibr Dog (#0)
#4. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, listener, Liberator (#0)
Although the first-century gospel fragment is small, the text will provide clues as to whether the Gospel of Mark changed over time, Evans said.
#5. To: SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa (#4)
Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?
#6. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13 (#5)
The NT books were complete long before Nicea.
#7. To: redleghunter (#5)
What this fragment will do is confirm one of the many families of manuscripts we already have.
#8. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13 (#6)
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea? IMO that is a toal game changer.....not to mention very solid support for my position about the possible lack of fidelity of Scripture as we know it today.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
Doesn't sound like there's much text here.
#10. To: SOSO (#6)
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea? IMO that is a toal game changer.....not to mention very solid support for my position about the possible lack of fidelity of Scripture as we know it today.
#11. To: SOSO (#4)
Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?
#12. To: Orthodoxa (#11)
Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?
#13. To: Orthodoxa (#11)
It was the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which decided the Canon of Scripture.
#14. To: SOSO (#12)
Ah, I love an open minded person. Don't worry, the religious establishment has your back.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
It won't be clear-cut.
#16. To: Orthodoxa (#14)
I love it when the first thing someone who is not a traditional Christian
#17. To: SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator (#6)
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea?
#18. To: SOSO (#13)
Exactly which Church was that? The Roman Catholic? The Protestants (each and every one of them)? The Greek Orthodox? The Armenian Orthodox? etc., etc., etc.
#19. To: SOSO (#16)
Do you know something that God doesn't, i.e. that I am not a traditional Christian?
#20. To: SOSO, Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#8)
BTW I do not believe that the PTB will allow this to happen. There is too much power and money on the line. At best we will likely get a Shroud of Turin type of situation ot yes it is, no it ain't.....if anything at all.
#21. To: Fibr Dog (#0)
#22. To: SOSO (#6)
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea? IMO that is a toal game changer
#23. To: Orthodoxa (#18)
#24. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fibr Dog, BobCeleste, Orthodoxa (#2)
#25. To: Orthodoxa (#19)
Are you arguing that Athanasius should be cast out if a few words on some mummy wrappings do not support his defense of the Divinity of Christ?
#26. To: Orthodoxa, redleghunter (#19)
It's funny, literally this very day the Orthodox Church commemorates Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, who expressed the Orthodox doctrine in two of the Ecumenical Councils.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#21)
#28. To: redleghunter (#17)
Some theologians in the 19th century claimed if we took all the writings of the early theologians we could transcribe the same NT today.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#22)
You want to put some money on it?
#30. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#26)
#31. To: TooConservative (#26)
#32. To: redleghunter (#23)
I have to say your anecdote was hilarious:)
#33. To: redleghunter (#25)
Good point. I would add, however, they argued more specifically for the Deity of Jesus Christ, Son of God.
#34. To: TooConservative (#26)
As should all diligent bible students. The Orthodox do cultivate a very long memory.
#35. To: Orthodoxa (#18)
Of course by my moniker it is obvious that I would argue that the Orthodox Church is the truest representation of the original. Roman Catholics would argue for their Church. But both the Romans and Orthodox know that we were both the same Church for over a thousand years, that split apart in the Great Schism.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
#37. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, Vicomte13, SOSO (#30)
#38. To: SOSO (#13)
(Edited)
Exactly which Church was that? The Roman Catholic? The Pro-testants (each and every one of them)? The Greek Orthodyx? The Armenian Orthodox? etc., etc., etc.
#39. To: Orthodoxa, redleghunter, GarySpFc (#30)
until thou hadst banished far off the godless error of Arius and hadst saved the faithful flock from his grievous impiety, when with right belief thou didst teach that the Son and Spirit both are one in essence with the Father, O sacred minister blessed of God.
Lucifer of Cagliari's surviving writings, all of which date from the period of his exile, are directed against Arianism and reconciliation with heresy. His works are written in the form of speeches delivered directly to Constantius and repeatedly address the emperor in the second person throughout. His main writings are Moriundum esse pro Dei filio (It is Necessary to Die for the Son of God), De non conveniendo cum haereticis (On not meeting with heretics), De regibus apostaticis (On apostate kings), De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus (On not forgiving those who transgress against God) and the two books of Quia absentem nemo debet iudicare nec damnare, sive De Athanasio (That no one ought to be judged or damned while absent, or On Athanasius). His texts quote extensively from the Bible and so are useful as sources for the Vetus Latina. Also extant is a pair of letters which are allegedly correspondence between Lucifer and the emperor's secretary Florentius on the subject of some of Lucifer's inflammatory works that he had sent to Constantius.
#40. To: TooConservative (#39)
Not a mousy guy. If the emperor killed him for it, he was going to say what he passionately believed. He had much of the stuff of the early martyrs of the church: "Here I stand, I can do no other" as Martin Luther would say. He had the kind of passion that characterizes some of Paul's best writing. As much as scripture councils us to be obedient to secular authority, these early Christians went well beyond what most would imagine. It is a challenge to see them as living out their ordinary daily lives as these events unfold. Christianity was revolutionizing Roman society. We find it difficult to grasp what a profound change this was to a Roman empire mired in paganism and philosophy.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]