That first-century Mark manuscript again

THE ETC BLOG: Gary Habermas on First-Century Mark (Peter Gurry). I agree with Professor Gurry that the proposed date range is too narrow to be credible. If the claim was that the manuscript had been paleographically dated to, say, 50-150 CE, I would take it more seriously. And more seriously still if someone would publish the manuscript.

There's nothing new here, but as long as the claim about the early date continues to be repeated, we should continue to respond to it. The fragment was supposed to have been published five years ago.

It is not promising that the dating of this Mark manuscript to 80-110 CE appears alongside that claim that the Rylands fragment of the Gospel of John (P52) dates to c. 125 CE. On that, see here, here, and here, and links.

For more on the supposedly first-century manuscript fragment of the Gospel of Mark, see here and links.

Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.