At my debate with Bart Ehrman (1 Feb 2012, held at UNC Chapel Hill) over whether we can recover the wording of the New Testament autographs, I made the announcement that a probable first-century fragment of Mark’s Gospel had been recently discovered. I noted that a world-class paleographer had dated this manuscript and that he was pretty darn sure that it belonged to the first century. All the details will be coming out in a multi-author book published by E. J. Brill sometime in 2013. Several newspapers and magazines have covered the story already. John Farrell, writing for Forbes, wrote a brief article on it, followed up by an update (now incorporated with the first article). He is working on a third article that will discuss new technology that may help us to be more precise in our dating of the manuscript. In particular, there is a newly developed carbon-14 dating method that does not destroy the object it is dating. That’s always a good thing when it comes to ancient manuscripts! The inventor is Professor Marvin Rowe of Texas A & M. His assistant, Dr. Karen Steelman, wrote her dissertation on this new procedure. I met with both of them recently and discussed the possibilities of using this technology for dating ancient manuscripts.
You can see the Forbes article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2012/02/27/fragments-of-marks-gospel-may-date-to-1st-century/. Stay tuned for follow-ups! In the meantime, the best attitude for all to have is “wait and see.” Über-exuberance or dismissive skepticism are both unwarranted responses based on the information supplied so far. But when the fragment is published along with six other early New Testament papyri (all from around the second century), the scholarly vetting will do its due diligence. It should be fun!
[...] First-Century Fragment of Mark’s Gospel Found!? « Daniel B. Wallace. Share this:FacebookTwitterMorePrintEmailDiggLinkedInRedditStumbleUponTumblr [...]
Thank you for your work… I m teacher and scientist in human area, ideas, mind, spirit, soul, and your work are very blessing for us… God bless you… !!
Dr. Wallace,
Could you comment on the photo of “Markan manuscript” that someone claimed that it was the one you’re referring to during your debate with Ehrman?
See:
http://nearemmaus.com/2012/02/20/the-earliest-markan-manuscript/
In my opinion, this “Markan manuscript” is a practical joke made by someone who thinks that Christians are gullible who would believe anything. Hence, the practical joke. It originated from someone with the forum username “GodAlmighty.” This person claims that his friend posted the photo on Facebook. Quote:
“A Facebook friend of mine posted a pic. He knows his Koine pretty well and he says it’s definitely from Mark 5:15-18. (GodAlmighty)
Yes, this is a hoax. It’s not even a papyrus manuscript! It first surfaced when an atheist group displayed it as a way to discredit the real finding.
I just heard about this from a friend of mine and so I’ve started researching it. I see many people on other blogs questioning who this “world-class paleographer” is….and casting skepticism because of the person’s name not being cited. Also questioned is where the fragment was found. I’m happy to wait for the book for all the details to surface, but certainly a discovery of this magnitude would be well served by citing at least the basics…who discovered it, where it was discovered, and who dated it with such certainty. Otherwise, your silence casts more doubt on it. So, any more basic info you care to share on this?
As I said in the blogpost, dismissive skepticism is uncalled for. If people choose to act that way I can’t stop them. Trying to put pressure on me to reveal a name won’t work with me either. After all, this is not like the supposed Ark of the Covenant in some Ethiopian church where all they say is, “Trust us–it’s here!” If this papyrus would never get vetted by the scholarly community, only then would it (and I) be subject to deserved ridicule.
I don’t get it. Why the mystery?
Just state what your facts are.
Simple.
Unless, of course, you are up to something.
intresting find,hey this may be off topic doc.Wallace are you a pre trib rapture believer
Personally, I love the suspense! Waiting for a new manuscript to be published is much better than waiting for the midnight showing of some new movie!
Jouras, that’s a pretty narrow view of things: If I don’t simply state the facts, I must be up to something.
Daniel, I think what we’re all wondering is why you would take the time to answer “Joiras, that’s…” instead of something like “the paleographer was xyz”. Or it was found at abc”. When asked simple questions that are met with avoiding answers, it creates doubt and skepticism. It also seems highly unorthodox to announce such a find during a debate. What are you up to? Possibly trying to create future demand for a book you plan to sell? That would make sense. And if that is the reason, just say so. “hey guys, i’m going to sell a book…buy the book for the story”. Maybe you are under contract to not release the facts? Say so. Maybe you think answering one question will simply lead to another? Say so. I’m trying to take a wider view
.
I’m a fellow Christian, and i would love for this to be true. However, since you wont state even the basic facts, it forces those of us out here to speculate “a narrow view” of things. You could really help us out here by giving us THE view that is correct, instead of deflecting and avoiding the questions…that you caused by making the announcement.
Christianface, no, I disagree. This is how scholarship is often done: an announcement comes ahead of time, but the complete work and all the details must await the fully vetted scholarly tome. If you choose to take the narrow view of things, that’s your business. But as I have said repeatedly, in interview after interview, the proper attitude for those on the outside of this work needs to be ‘wait and see.’ Not too skeptical, not too gullible.
Dr. Wallace,
What are your thoughts on the manuscripts found by Jose O’ Callahan years back? Supposedly, they had strong reason to believe them to be from the first century (Passages in Mark, I believe).There are some,such as Geisler, that still currently point to these as possibly possessing strong value (apologetically and historically) yet, if so persuasive, why does one really never hear anything concerning them except from a select few apologists?
(Yes, I am the same one that also asked your stance on Anglicanism/joining their ranks a week or so back)
Blessings
Dr. Wallace I understand how frustrating it is to debate with Skeptics, I believe I heard you say the Manuscript would be revealed in Feb 2013. Is this true? Is it about to be revealed?
Dr, Wallace,
Can you tell me about the location where the manuscript was found?
According to what I have read, this fragment proved that the Bible text is pretty accurate. Am I correct?
Mrs. Joe C.
Russ, I believe you are referring to 7Q5, the postage-stamp sized Greek fragment that made a huge sensation when O’Callaghan in 1971 (ten years after it was published) claimed that it was from Mark 6. This was later followed by Carsten Peter Thiede who argued the same. This has been debunked time and time again by NT scholars. I wrote a couple of articles on it myself: “7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus?” Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994) 173–80; “A Review of the Earliest Gospel Manuscript? by Carsten Peter Thiede,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (1994) 350–54. It’s not from Mark, but is most likely identified with 1 Enoch, if memory serves.
Thanks. Good to know.
Blessings
Great news! We are waiting for a publication. Greetings from Poland.
VERY excited to read this book. Mr. Wallace is absolutely correct. The scholars must have their time to pour over all the data. To reveal too much before the proper time leaves everyone with egg on their face if it proves false. Once the data is published, other scholars will have their chance to weigh in. I personally hope it all comes out authentic. Keep up the good work.
Yes, it’s the way things are. The process. In the meantime we can drink lots of tea and chew our fingers to the bone, in anticipation.
[...] First-Century Fragment of Mark’s Gospel Found!? by Daniel B. Wallace (22.03.2012) [...]
Mr. Wallace,
How will the “average joe” student of the Bible like myself get notified when the findings are published? Do you have an email list? Thanks much, Paul from Ft. Collins, CO
Just keep checking the Internet.
Dan, you’re a champ!
[...] Dan Wallace, “First-Century Fragment of Mark’s Gospel Found,” http://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/22/first-century-fragment-of-marks-gospel-found/ (accessed Dec. 13, [...]
i wanna be sure about the gospile of mark ending is it added or no as a result with some information.,,,,,,, please send it to my email for sake of jesus
I understand that scholars need time to publish. I get that. I just wish it would be a bit faster. I know Dr Wallace is faster than the DSS writers, some of whom have taken decades. Please, Hurry up! I want to read about this!
Also to Jacck – Dr Wallace is publishing about a fragment of Mark, not a complete gospel. It is very unlikely his work will have any bearing whatsoever to the discussion regarding the ending of Mark 16. Nearly everyone agrees that the passage after verse 8 was added. Liberal scholars believe it does NOT reflect the original ending, conservative scholars believe it is very close to the original ending. Clearly, the gospel did NOT end with verse 8. That would make no sense whatsoever.
Actually Joe, it would make sense, if Mark is trying to dramatize the Resurrection.
If he is trying to get people’s attention and get them to start talking about it. The ending accomplishes an important literary goal: Make the reader curious. Raise questions.
The key question is who was Mark’s audience and what was he trying to tell them.
In this context we might want to ask what debates were going on within his audience.
If Mark’s audience already accepted the Resurrection, then Mark would not need to state what to them was the obvious ending. Could emphasizing the empty tomb the way he did, be an effort to underscore the resurrection?
The only way it “would make no sense whatsoever” is by insisting that their has to be an ending of some kind. I’m not sure why that would need to be so.
Spike, I can’t imagine that Mark was writing to believers only. Nearly everyone agrees it was the first gospel, and the first verse states the purpose – Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I find it inconceivable that the audience did not include unbelievers.
He is setting out to tell the story of the Son of God. 5 times Mark’s gospel says Jesus will rise from the dead (8:31, 9:9, 9:31, 10:34, & 14:28) and in 16:6 it states he HAS risen. I respectfully completely disagree that Mark would have any reason to leave the resurrection out of the narrative. 16:8 as a final verse is completely incongruous with the theme of the entire book.
Most believing scholars agree there was some ending originally (unbelievers don’t have that problem). But at the end of the day, we probably will never know for sure.
thanks for the dialog.
JT
[...] to determine the date of these old manuscripts. You can read more about this new discovery here. Textual criticism is very much alive. Hopefully this new discovery will settle the question about [...]
Dr. Wallace,
Thank you for all your work. It has been a year and I have been checking the internet frequently. Any updates on the the published work coming out this year?
MJ
Have there been any updates on this? I know you said last year in the debate that you were sworn to secrecy, but is there a place you can point us to for further info? Thanks!
Sorry. I’m still sworn to secrecy. Can’t say anything else.
Daniel, can you at least tell us if the fragment really does exist? There has been some speculating that you were mistaken about this announcement.
Sorry, but I have signed a nondisclosure agreement. Can’t say a thing.
Can you say WHEN you can say? I have to say we are growing increasingly skeptical.
It will be funny to see who’s skeptical of people like Bill and Joe when the information is finally released. I guess after nearly 2000 years, a couple of months of waiting is just rough, huh? Dr. Wallace, we support you and your team’s work, due diligence, and ethics. Keep up the good work.
Devin, I don’t doubt the authenticity of Mark’s gospel. It is already well-attested. I certainly hope we have an earlier fragment that could be dated to the first century.
My skepticism is about this particular fragment. There have been plenty of claims over the years that turned out to not be legitimate. The legitimacy of the NT documents is more than well attested, but an earlier copy would be great. If the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a model, we might not hear about this fragment of Mark for decades.
As for non-believers, we have a fragment of John’s gospel dating to approximately AD 130, only a few decades after it was written, and still many atheists claim ridiculous things like the NT was written in the 4th century and edited by Constantine, and that Jesus did not even exist. An older copy of Mark won’t change their minds.
But it would mean a lot to biblical scholars and students like those of us commenting here.
Please… hurry up! We really want to examine the evidence you have! I am getting old! I’m certain that Herschel Shanks will give you some prime space in his magazine to get the word out. Thanks!
Thank you Dr. Wallace. I understand that you’re sworn to secrecy and that you “signed a non-disclosure agreement”. But obviously there are some things that you were given permission to disclose:
(1) A fragment of Mark was discovered.
(2) It is believed to be from the first century.
(3) The details about this specific fragment will be coming out in a book published by E. J. Brill sometime in 2013.
So, since it has been over a year, can you at least verify that the above mentioned things that you were given permission to disclose are still accurate (especially #3)? Just curious.
Thanks for everything you do!
Dr Wallace, I mean no disrespect, by the way. Just a pointy stick to encourage you to hurry up and publish. Again, thanks.
In regards to the alternate endings of Mark and early proof for the long ending:
Doesn’t iraneus quote mark 16:19 in his book, “against heresies”? I am baffled how often this is overlooked, especially because Iraneus says “at the end of Mark’s Gospel” and then quotes it in the year 177.
Therefore I believe we already have enough proof for the long ending of Mark that is in our Bibles today.
David, thanks for sharing that. I just read chapter 10 of against heresies (book 3) and you are correct – he does quote mark 16:19. I was not aware of that – thanks for sharing that. I have believed that the long ending was probably the original ending, or at least a close proximity to the original ending, having come from a different line of copies. Obviously the original had an ending beyond verse 8 – the only question in my mind is what did it say. Iranaeus (AD177) precedes vaticanus and sinaiticus.
To me, one of the best evidences for the NT documents is the fact that you can reconstruct about 99% of the NT from quotations from ante-nicene writings.
thanks.
[…] az első századi Márk-kézirattal (meg a többi hat korai másolattal), amit tavaly év elején harangozott be Dan Wallace Bart Ehrmannal vívott vitája második felében. Wallace akkor arra figyelmeztetett, […]