From a recent post on the blog of Brice Jones a short video of Craig Evans:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Looks like this short video was uploaded to youtube back in July, but Dr. Evans does say he was going to have part of the fragments they’ve discovered released by the end of the year (2014), but I guess that didn’t happen. For some reason I had pictured this fragment of Mark being more substantial, but all it’s going to be is a single piece of papyrus (maybe more than one) used on a paper mache Egyptian funeral mask. Sounds like there will a number of fragments of various religious and secular/documentary types released as used papyrus is what was used for funeral masks since it was cheaper than new papyrus.
Here’s another story from the same blog from last May. If what is described here is true it’s a real shame that something this important is being handled in the way in which it is.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Also, the G. Matthews in the comments of that blog isn’t me 
“Ancients apparently used various papyrus documents to create mummy masks—including what may be the earliest known fragment of a New Testament gospel,** you do not have permission to see this link ** reports. Confirming a three-year-old leak, professor Craig Evans says he’s among researchers who unwrapped a mummy mask and discovered a Gospel of Mark fragment dating to 90AD or earlier. That’s at least a decade older than any known gospel copy, so the fragment could show how the gospel was changed over time. The find will be published this year, but Evans won’t say more because he’s signed a non-disclosure agreement.” (from Newser)
What’s the straight skinny on this?
As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I am curious to know if the Tetragram appears in this manuscript rather than the abbreviated “nomina sacra”. We suppose that sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century the divine name was removed from the NT.
See also my discussion on B-Greek:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
tslawson1 said
As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I am curious to know if the Tetragram appears in this manuscript rather than the abbreviated “nomina sacra”. We suppose that sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century the divine name was removed from the NT.See also my discussion on B-Greek:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What is the scholarly basis for believing that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the earliest manuscripts of the NT? I was not aware that the Tetragrammaton ever appeared in any or our earliest manuscripts of the NT. Also, as a side question, why do Witnesses use the name “Jehovah” when scholars have shown that “Jehovah” is not only a mis-translation of “Yahweh”, but a completely made up name with no solid, scholarly basis? Bart himself pointed this out in one of his blog entries a couple months ago.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)