More on the Early Manuscript of Mark

Dan Wallace has posted a bit more on the potential discovery of a first-century manuscript fragment of the Gospel of Mark:

On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!

10 thoughts on “More on the Early Manuscript of Mark

  1. Pingback: Patience, Not Undue Skepticism, Appropriate Regarding Early Mark Manuscript Claims « Exploring Our Matrix

  2. Love your comments about the papyri and the textual readings.

    Much more balanced and realistic than Ehrman’s ranting.

  3. Tim, I’m curious. Given the discoveries of early manuscripts that have happened within the last 100 years, and the ongoing archaeological excavations in similar locations, what would happen if, for instance, one of the “lost” letters of Paul were found and authenticated? Would there be calls to re-open the Canon?

    • This gives the idea that God wouldn’t be able to keep his word with his people…so we will NEVER find a GENUINE letter of Paul’s that is not already known.

  4. I suppose that some people would want to include a “lost” letter of Paul in the canon. Others would disagree, on the basis that it hasn’t been part of the church’s faith throughout its history. What do you think?

  5. Why wouldn’t a lost letter from Paul be considered for inclusion in the Canon — if we could be fully convinced of its validity?

    On the other hand, the discovery of genuine letter of Paul wouldn’t seem to justify re-opening the Canon in the sense some people talk about that nowadays.

  6. The way the Church Fathers judged canonicity varied, although three criteria were usually used to varying degrees: 1) apostolicity; 2) orthodoxy; and 3) continuous acceptance by the Church. The discovery of a “lost” letter of Paul’s would clearly do well in the first two categories, but fail the last miserably. Sure, a good case could be made for including such a letter, but I’m not sure what it would accomplish. It would be tied into all sorts of ecclesiastical issues, too. Which church body could make such a decision? I suppose each denomination/branch could give their own judgment.

  7. Pingback: The Oldest Manuscript of Mark? Round Two « Euangelion Kata Markon

  8. Pingback: Is This a Photo of the Earliest NT Manuscript? | Earliest Christianity


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