Greetings in Christ!
Thanks to the guys over at Triablogue for tracking this…
Here is an excerpt from Wallace’s recent debate with Ehrman:
“However, in the last few months several very early fragments of the New Testament have been discovered. These will be published by an international scholarly publishing house in a book one year from now. By way of background, prior to this book, I mentioned that we knew of as many as a dozen second century manuscripts from the New Testament, that were in the second century. Once the book is published, the numbers will change dramatically. As many as 18 New Testament Manuscripts from the second century. Among the finds was also a fragment of Luke that is from the
early second century. It thus rivals P52, that fragment that Bart showed you, the manuscript traditionally considered to be the oldest New Testament manuscript known to exist. And yet this new Luke fragment is
not the oldest New Testament manuscript. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament is now a fragment from Mark’s Gospel that is from the first century. How accurate is the dating? Well, my source is a papyrologist who worked on this manuscript—a man whose reputation is unimpeachable. Many consider him to be the best papyrologist on the planet. His reputation is on the line with this dating and he knows it. But he is
certain that this manuscript was from the first century. This papyrus fragment—just like the other new discoveries that we are preparing for publication—strongly confirms what most scholars have
already said is the original text” (
“Is the Original New Testament Lost?” (beginning at 1:13:45)).
Concerning Dan Wallace’s performance during the debate, Wallace himself commented here:
Ehrman-Wallace Debate Wrap-Up, Comment 7, February 4, 2012.
In Christ,
Pete
