From Christian Examiner. (H/T The Poached Egg)
Excerpt:
Following the discovery of a first-century fragment of Mark’s Gospel in the Middle East, more new information has emerged, along with two new claims.
Also found were an early sermon on Hebrews and the earliest known manuscripts of Paul’s letters.
Details about the finds will be published in an academic book in 2013, says Dallas Theological Seminary’s Daniel B. Wallace, a New Testament professor. Wallace started the buzz on Feb. 1 when, during a debate with author and skeptic Bart Ehrman, he made the claim about the Mark fragment, which would be the earliest-known fragment of the New Testament.
Wallace provided a few more details on his website and then a few more during a Feb. 24 interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, saying the fragments and manuscripts were found in Egypt.
The significance of all the manuscripts, Wallace said, would be on par with the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Mark fragment is “a very small fragment, not too many verses, but it’s definitely from Mark,” Wallace said. “… To have a fragment from one of the Gospels that’s written during the lifetime of some of the eyewitnesses to the resurrection is just astounding.”
To date, the earliest-known fragment of the New Testament is from John’s Gospel and dates from around 125 A.D.
The Mark fragment, Wallace said, will affirm what is already written in that portion of Mark’s Gospel.
The paleographer who dated it, Wallace said, is “one of the world’s leading paleographers.” Wallace previously said the paleographer is certain it’s from the first century. Still, Wallace told Hewitt, several more paleographers will look at the Mark fragment before the book is published.
The Mark fragment will be published in a book along with six other manuscripts, Wallace said. One of those will be a second-century sermon on Hebrews 11. The significance: It shows Hebrews — whose author is unknown — was accepted early by the church as Scripture.
“What makes that so interesting is the ancient church understood by about A.D. 180 in what’s called … the Muratorian Canon, that the only books that could be read in churches must be those that are authoritative,” Wallace said. “To have a homily or a sermon on Hebrews means that whoever wrote that sermon considered Hebrews to be authoritative, and therefore, it could be read in the churches.”
Also among the finds are second-century fragments from Luke and from Paul’s letters. Wallace did not state which letters were found.
“Up until now, our oldest manuscript for Paul’s letters dates about AD 200, [known as] P-46,” Wallace said. “Now we have as many as four more manuscripts that predate that.”
The transcript of the interview with Dan Wallace is here. We do not mention the name of the Romney-supporting radio show host.
Hey Wintery do you know of a book or article that shows a timeline for the finding of relevant fragments of the new testament.
It seems to me a very strong argument could be made by showing that: At time t skeptical scholar so-and-so claimed that the NT could not be reliable because too much time had passed from the event for us to know. But then we find an older document showing it had not been altered during the time between the new earliest fragment and the previous earliest fragment. Still skeptical scholar so-and-so claims too much time has passed for it to be reliable. Oh but again we find an earlier fragment showing no changes. How many times does this have to happen before skeptical scholar so-and-so concedes that in fact the NT texts are reliable?
LikeLike
Here you go:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/what-do-the-dead-sea-scrolls-tell-us-about-how-the-bible-was-transmitted/
LikeLike
The book Reinventing Jesus has a small chart in it listing some of the fragments and their dates. It’s a good book and quite accessible.
As for your argument, there is an example of this. In the late 19th century the critical scholar FC Baur said that the Gospel of John was written around AD 170. Then in 1935 a fragment of John, P52, was found and dated to 125 AD, though it might be earlier. Since this is a copy, the original must have been even earlier. So in a flash, a generation of scholarship that followed Baur went down the tube.
LikeLike
Thanks for the book recommendation! I turned it into a link.
LikeLike