Would It Matter If It HAD BEEN a First-century Copy of Mark? A Surprising Answer in the Readers’ Mailbag
I received a lot of comments on my post about the academic fraud connected with an Oxford manuscript scholar, the Museum of the Bible, and certain enthusiastic evangelical Christians who are ironically willing to lie or distort the truth in order to prove their understanding of the truth. One question I received several times: suppose the manuscript that started the whole thing off, the alleged "first-century copy of Mark" -- which turns out to be a tiny scrap that is NOT from the first century -- suppose it *had* been a manuscript of the first century. Would that have revolutionized our understanding of Mark's Gospel, the New Testament as whole, the historical accuracy of the Bible, or our views of the historical Jesus? TERRIFIC question. Here is how one reader asked it: QUESTION: For the sake of arguments let’s pretend for a moment that the fragment really existed and was precisely what it was claimed to be. That would surely be a stunning, miraculous find that all scholars would applaud. (And we can certainly [...]

