Earliest papyri nt dating
Obbink and Colomo admit in the edition that the handwriting is difficult to date. It contains a few letters on each side from verses 7–9 and 16–18 of Mark 1.Scott Carroll stated that P137 is indeed the manuscript he had spoken about as “first-century Mark,” and Dan Wallace finally broke his six-year silence on the matter. Lines of writing preserved on each side indicate that this fragment comes from the bottom of the first written page of a codex—a book rather than a scroll.As unlikely as a first-century Gospel manuscript is, the fragment was allegedly dated by a world-class specialist.This preeminent authority was not an evangelical Christian, either.Six years came and went, and there was no “first-century Mark” fragment. On stage at a conference in 2015, Scott Carroll told Josh Mc Dowell that the manuscript had been for sale at least twice, after the first attempt was unsuccessful.It was difficult to know who had even seen the manuscript.He had no apologetic motive for assigning the early date.
Naturally, this news of a first-century copy of Mark generated a great deal of interest.
Its date range makes it likely the earliest copy of Mark’s gospel.
The fact that the text presents us with no new variants is partially a reflection of the overall stability of the New Testament text over time.
Obbink is a renowned papyrologist at the University of Oxford, and he is almost certainly the non-evangelical specialist to whom Wallace attributed the first-century date.
New Testament scholars Craig Evans and Gary Habermas were among others who spoke about the fragment, generating even more excitement. The Oxyrhynchus papyri constitute a collection of hundreds of thousands of manuscript fragments excavated from an ancient Egyptian garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus between 18.