1st Century Fragment of Mark’s Gospel: Yes or No?

Scholars have been speculating over a text fragment provisionally dated to the 1st century A.D. It is a Greek uncial text of Mark 5:15-18. If genuine, it would confirm that written texts on Jesus were circulating only a few decades after his death.

So is this fragment really from the 1st century? Tom Verenna has posted an initial analysis. For anyone curious about how one analyzes a fragment’s authenticity, it’s an interesting read. Verenna also posts several clear photos of the Mark fragment.

His conclusion: “I have to say it looks fake.” Read carefully though, and you will see this is not his full conclusion. Verenna links a few others’ reactions to the fragment at the bottom of his post. We look forward to hearing other scholarly opinions on this.

By the way… as Jim Davila points out, “the question of whether this fragment is fake is entirely separate from the question of whether a first-century fragment of Mark has been discovered.” In other words, if this fragment is fake, from where did the forger copy the text? Verenna addresses this possibility in his post. Again, interesting.

Advertisements

About LukeChandler

Luke holds an M.A. in Ancient and Classical History and has been an adjunct professor at Florida College in Temple Terrace, Florida. Luke and his wife Melanie have five children. He serves as a minister in English and Spanish with the North Terrace Church of Christ and participates annually in archaeological excavations in Israel. Luke also leads tours to Europe and the Bible Lands.
This entry was posted in Inscriptions and Manuscripts, New Discoveries and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to 1st Century Fragment of Mark’s Gospel: Yes or No?

  1. Tom Verenna says:

    Jim’s point is an apt one. This may not even be the manuscript that Wallace was talking about. This might just be a fake that a tourist bought, found out that it was a fake, and decided to make the best of it by posting it up as a real fragment. Someone easily could have linked the two on accident (either due to lack of experience or just because they didn’t know). Association is a pain like that. Thanks for the repost! Much appreciated.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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