This post I suppose is mainly directed to AP, who if I'm not mistaken said in another thread that the 1st century fragment of Mark that's been announced but not yet disclosed to the world is not what it's purported to be according to several Christians.
I'm a bit of an archaeology nut and I was wondering why some would think this. Can anyone who's heard of this idea (or agrees with it) please give their argument for lack of authenticity here?
I have sent a PM to AP regarding this thread.
I'm a bit of an archaeology nut and I was wondering why some would think this. Can anyone who's heard of this idea (or agrees with it) please give their argument for lack of authenticity here?
I have sent a PM to AP regarding this thread.
Comment