Discovered: Earliest Manuscript of Romans?

John Byron shared the news that some are reporting the discovery of the earliest extant manuscript of Romans, claimed to be from the middle of the second century. To be more precise, it is a fragment of Romans 9-10, and it was allegedly discovered just this week. CNN has footage of it, but the camera is not close enough for me to discern the text well.

As is always the case with discoveries such as these, I want to wait for more experts to examine it before heralding it as the new “earliest” manuscript not only of Romans but of any Pauline letter. If I recall correctly, P46, which contains all or part of several Pauline epistles, is currently regarded as the oldest manuscript (ca. 200 C.E.) of any of Paul’s letters.

8 thoughts on “Discovered: Earliest Manuscript of Romans?

  1. Yes, P46 (c. 200) is normally cited as the earliest Pauline manuscript, but it will indeed be interesting to see what information might emerge on the text in the CNN spot from those who have seen it in person.

  2. Is it a part of the cartonage? “Pulling layers away” — binding? Too bad it’s upside-down to the camera.

    As for the logic that this is another brick of evidence, &c., ouch.

  3. Pingback: Earliest Manuscript from Romans Allegedly Discovered

  4. Pingback: Discovery of the Earliest New Testament Manuscript?!?! | Earliest Christianity

  5. I know its a fake if it contains Romans 9-10 because the original Romans did not. Keep trying Calvinists. We know Romans didn’t originally contain this. Trot out all the fake manuscripts you want.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s