T.M. Law’s Astute Observations on the Purported ‘Earliest Fragment of Mark’ Thing

Tim writes

It is really frustrating when people spill ‘news’ of a manuscript discovery to score a point for themselves (e.g., in a debate) but then can only say, ‘Trust me. I got my info from a ‘world-class paleographer; and oh, by the way, he’s entirely unbiased because he’s not a fundamentalist.’ Time will tell, but no-one should buy this until the manuscript has been cross-examined several times. In any case the existence of a manuscript is almost irrelevant anyway unless it has some new light to shed on the text history, and for what it’s worth, it’s incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to pin down a date within the first century on paleographical grounds: the line between the first and second centuries is very blurry. This is likely to be only of great concern to those obsessed with finding the autographa; others whose faith isn’t disrupted or confirmed by autographa will be less wakeful at night.

Right.  Exactly right.  He’s got more to say so go take a look.

2 thoughts on “T.M. Law’s Astute Observations on the Purported ‘Earliest Fragment of Mark’ Thing

  1. […] of the gospel of Mark has recently caught alot of attention (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, add your link in the comments if I missed you).  First, I agree […]

    Like

  2. […] T.M. Law’s Astute Observations on the Purported ‘Earliest Fragment of Mark’ Thing (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com) […]

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: