I think what bothered me the most is that “CE” is now replacing “AD.” Can’t have “Anno Domini” in there anymore, now can we?
Fixed it.
This sample is thought to date from before the year C.E. 90.
Well this more or less confirms what I read 30 years ago that Mark was the first Gospel written and that subsequent Gospels were basically expounding on Mark.
This is great news. Now maybe we can see if the text matches the current text. Is the missing verse there or if it is still missing? Is the order of the verses concurrent?........
Interesting article. It reminds me of a couple of books I read many years ago. The first is called “The First New Testament” by Estrada and White. I follows the discovery by a Spanish researcher who found what he claimed was part of the Gospel of Mark among some Qumran papyri. The fragment was dated to the middle of the first century. Although the book left the final confirmation up in the air, I don’t believe anyone has come up with an alternative explanation.
The other book was “Redating the New Testament” by John A.T. Robinson. Robinson’s main thrust was that one of the most momentous incidents of history, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, is not mentioned or even alluded to in the New Testament, leading to his contention that nearly the entire text of the NT was complete before 70 AD. Interesting because Robinson was quite a liberal scholar.
Thanks for posting this!
This is awesome
but that scholar bill maher says this is all bs?