Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Saturday, February 18, 2012

1st Century fragment of the Gospel of Mark found




"In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled." From theology.web, Link



One of the preferred Big Lies that atheists LOVE to reassure themselves with is the ongoing 'the gospels were not written till the 3rd or even 4th century at the earliest'. Although the above author is a bit more generous in dating the gospels to the 2nd century,according to Baptist Press, a recent find blows even this assertion right out of the water...




"Much of the biblical scholarly world has been buzzing since Feb. 1, when a New Testament professor made a claim during a debate that was news to most everyone who heard it -- a first-century fragment of Mark's Gospel may have been found.

It would be the earliest-known fragment of the New Testament, placing it in the very century of Christ and the apostles.

The claim by Dallas Theological Seminary's Daniel B. Wallace took place during a debate with University of North Carolina professor Bart Ehrman, an author whose popular books claim the New Testament cannot be trusted because the original manuscripts aren't in existence...

..It was dated by one of the world's leading paleographers," Wallace wrote. "He said he was 'certain' that it was from the first century...

.. Apparently, the publisher is E.J. Brill, one of the world's leading publishers of high-quality academic work. Presumably, the volume, when it appears approximately one year from now, will contain not only the first-century fragment of Mark but several other early manuscripts that have been found (though not dating to the first century). The Brill volume will no doubt contain all the technical details as to verification of the date, circumstances of the find, and an assessment of its significance. It makes sense for the details of the find to be withheld until the publication of the volume so that this data can be fully vetted by the scholarly community at that time."




No other literary work from the ancient world is anywhere near as well preserved as the Bible and yet it is still held up to exacting standards by critics who seldom apply such a standard of authenticity to other works which they unflinchingly accept on face value.


9 comments:

Jerry E Beuterbaugh said...

"Trees For Lunch" has been included in this weeks A Sunday Drive. I hope this helps to attract even more new visitors here.

http://asthecrackerheadcrumbles.blogspot.com/2012/02/sunday-drive_19.html

Ross said...

I missed this news. Thanks for posting it.

Gregg said...

This news thrills true believers, but it will not convince those who are dead in sin and have no capacity to "see" the light." I can't wait to see copies.

bob smith said...

All I have to say is Wowwwwww, as each century goes by more and more evidence keeps pushing the date of of the new testament back closer and closer and now this fragment will push it all the way back to the time of the disciples who were eyewitnesses to the word incarnate.

Atheists all over will be having mental breakdowns over this news. They have all the chances and evidence in the world to accept Christ as their lord and savior but out of stubbornness they keep denying him.

Awesome news!!!!!!

Tristan D. Vick said...

I guess in this case I will believe it when I see it.

Not being released for the public only means there can be no peer review.

Until the fragment and be properly dated by others, and checked against other existing fragments, I can't take this one guys word for it. I mean, there have been hoaxes before. It wouldn't be the first time.

But if it is genuine, I would be highly interested in what the overall census would be for an early date and where it would fall on the time line exactly.

JD Curtis said...

There's skepticism from Biblical scholars as well. Link

JD Curtis said...

Here's the latest news

Tristan D. Vick said...

@JD

Thanks for the update!

It seems the evidence is still forthcoming. I wonder why it is this is the only Christian scholar who seems to know anything about this?

Anyway, once the evidence is properly released, I will be interested in reviewing it.

Tristan D. Vick said...

Turns out this first century fragment has been proved bogus.

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/markan-manuscript-dated-to-the-1st-century/

and here...

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/more-thoughts-on-the-markan-manuscript-fragment/

with further commentary here...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/425