rakovsky wrote:OK, can anyone please tell me what the fragment says?
I have no idea how any of this is going to confirm anyone's theories, unless it says something different than canonical Mark.
There's no indication that it "says" anything. It's a fragment of the Gospel of Mark.
If it was anything other than that, I think we'd have heard about it by now.
Also, if it weren't very small, I think we'd hear bragging about its size.
So take it as a small scrap of Mark that tells you nothing, apart from its
claimed age.
When it's published (and that won't be before 2018 apparently), it may or may not have variations in the text, and they may or may not have been attested before. Odds are (if one can speak of odds) that any variations attested, are already attested elsewhere. There may be no text-critical significance at all.
Compare with the p52 scrap of the Gospel of John, which has very little meaning apart from its claimed age.
rakovsky wrote:OK, can anyone please tell me what the fragment says?
No. It's a secret, for now, for the scholars' eyes only.
rakovsky wrote:I have no idea how any of this is going to confirm anyone's theories, unless it says something different than canonical Mark.
Tell that to the (mostly conservative Christian) apologists who believe it will have great meaning for supporting the historical value of the Gospel of Mark (mostly, by requiring the traditional date for the Gospel of Mark, apparently ... i.e. ca. 70, give or take or whatever).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown