The Mystery of the Hidden Scrolls

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Dear Friend, The Bible declares that the end-times will be days of apostasy. The apostasy is already taking place in our midst: The Oldest Fragment Of The Bible... Uncovered? Critics of the Bible have long made the claim that the New Testament was committed to writing years, even centuries after the events they claimed to record. If not already discredited, such claims would be a thing of the past in light of new discovery. Since its announcement in February, much of the biblical scholarly world has been buzzing with excitement. The news: The oldest known fragment of the New Testament may have been located. If verified, it would be the first time that an original surviving fragment of the New Testament would be dated to the first century. The claim was made by Dallas Theological Seminary's Daniel B. Wallace. The Mark fragment has not yet been made available to the public but Wallace claims that one of the world's leading paleographers has said he was certain that it was from the first century. The fragment appears to contain parts of the account of Messiah's healing of the demoniac. Apart from this claim, the earliest known Gospel fragment is a papyrus which contains portions of John 18 and is dated to around 125 A.D. If this newly revealed fragment is proved to be authentic, then it would move the date up by at least a quarter of a century if not more. Why is this significant? If the fragment dates to the first century, then it would be the first actual remnant of a New Testament text from the same century in which the New Testament events took place. It would then even be possible that it existed at a time when various people of the New Testament, writers and characters, apostles and disciples, actually existed. It would also furnish more proof that the New Testament was committed to written record very early on. The Book of Acts ends with the apostle Paul in Rome, awaiting trial, still alive. Had Acts been written after Paul's execution it would have undoubtedly recorded his death. Paul was executed before the year 70 A.D. Since there's no mention of the apostle's death in the Book of Acts, the book had to have been completed before that date. Further, the Book of Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke. This means the Gospel of Luke had to have been completed even earlier. The Gospel of Luke is universally regarded as having been completed after the Gospel of the Mark. Thus the Gospel of Mark had to have been completed at an even earlier date. One of the keys of how accurate an ancient document is, is how close the existent documents are to the event they record, and how many documents are in existence. There are more, far more, ancient and early manuscripts of the New Testament in existence than of any other ancient document in history. Unlike such writings as the Gnostic writings and the Koran which are filled with confused ramblings, distorted echoes of the biblical accounts, written years, even centuries later, the New Testament writings bear all the marks of first hand accounts, the testimony of those who were there at the time, not only at the time of the apostles, but at the time when Messiah walked the earth. Whether or not the Fragment of Mark turns out to be genuine and as old as suspected, you can rest that you have the Word of God, as ancient as the footsteps of Messiah Himself and as new as His touching your life today. This month, take the Word of God for all its worth and apply it, step out on it, live it with all your heart, mind, and strength. Your brother and co-laborer, in His love and service, Jonathanrn