Dan Wallace, in part, writes,
We have as many as eighteen second-century manuscripts (six of which were recently discovered and not yet catalogued) and a first-century manuscript of Mark’s Gospel! Altogether, more than 43% of the 8000 or so verses in the NT are found in these papyri. Bart had explicitly said that our earliest copy of Mark was from c. 200 CE, but this is now incorrect. It’s from the firstcentury. I mentioned these new manuscript finds and told the audience that a book will be published by E. J. Brill in about a year that gives all the data. (In the Q & A, Bart questioned the validity of the first-century Mark fragment. I noted that a world-class paleographer, a man who had no religious affiliation and thus was not biased toward an early date, was my source. Bart said that even so, we don’t have thousands of manuscripts from the first century! That kind of skepticism is incomprehensible to me.)
…“This papyrus fragment—just like the other new discoveries that we are preparing for publication—strongly confirms what most scholars have already said is the original text.”…
So a book is coming out in a year which purports to relate a manuscript of Mark which predates P52, dated roughly between 100 and 150. If this manuscript is really before that, we can expect some rebuttals, although as they usually are, nonsensical, from the mythicists. How will this affect my thesis work? Not sure. First, we have to see if it is a complete Mark and, then, what the date is.
Dear Lord, what an exciting time!
- Is the New Testament reliable? (christopherlazo.com)
- Who Wrote Mark’s Gospel? (smoodock45.wordpress.com)
- Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? (str.typepad.com)
- The Significance of the Sinai Texts for New Testament Study (capthk.wordpress.com)
- How Historians Work – Lessons for historical Jesus scholars (vridar.wordpress.com)