Featured Did the Gospel of Mark have 16:9-20 Originally?

For a few years now it has been rumored that Dr. Daniel Wallace has a connection with possibly a manuscript of Mark from the 1st century. It may only be a portion at best, not including any of chapter 16, much less verses 9 on.Presently Dr.Wallace has a non-disclosure policy on the matter --until or unless more info is available later with permission to address the exciting possibility.

 

Thanks! :wavey:

 

Interesting possibilities there. Here is an interview where Dr. Wallace vaguely acknowledges it: http://www.hughhewitt.com/new-testm...-discovery-and-other-biblical-papyri-with-it/

 

Wow, that was more than two years ago. I never knew he opened up that much about it before. His lips are kind of sealed now. That book which will deal with those seven fragments of Mark,Luke etc. is taking longer to put together than he had hoped.

 

Yeah, since he said he thought it would come out last year. Scholars must take their time to get it right in such matters. I know of a book on textual criticism that is due out any day now but has been in the works for a long time.