(18 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...As most of us have suspected for years now, there is in fact no first-century copy of the Gospel of Mark. If fortune smiles upon us, maybe one will eventually be discovered. But it hasn’t been yet. Dan Wallace, our lone public source for the existence of such a thing (announced with some flair at a public debate I had with him in 2012) has finally provided the necessary information: his claim that such a copy existed was based on bad information. He lays it all out here. https://danielbwallace.com/2018/05/23/first-century-mark-fragment-update/ . I’ve copied the post here, below.
He is gracious to apologize to me, and I understand about non-disclosure agreements. But at the same time, I have lots of questions about the entire affair. You may have some too. If so, let me know. I’ll answer the ones I can and ask the ones I can’t.
Daniel Wallace’s most popular books are Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament and Reinventing Jesus.
Here is Dan’s Post:
**************************************************************************************************
First-Century Mark Fragment Update
ON 23 MAY 2018 BY DANIEL B. WALLACEIN CONTEMPORARY ISSUES, NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES, TEXTUAL CRITICSIM
There has been a flurry of announcements and comments on the internet about the “First-Century Mark Fragment” (FCM) ever since Elijah Hixson posted a blog on Evangelical Textual Criticism this morning. As many know, I signed a non-disclosure agreement about this manuscript in 2012 sometime after I made an announcement about it in my third debate with Bart Ehrman at North Carolina, Chapel Hill (February 1, 2012). I was told in the non-disclosure agreement not to speak about when it would be published or whether it even exists. The termination of this agreement would come when it was published. Consequently, I am now free to speak about it.
Confirmation
The first thing to mention is that yes, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345, published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 83 (2018), is the same manuscript that I spoke about in the debate and blogged about afterward. In that volume the editors date it to the second or third century. And this now is what has created quite a stir.
Apology
In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a first-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting any sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned.
Personal History
Prior to the Debate
Just prior to the debate, this representative discussed with me the discovery of FCM. It was my understanding that their group had purchased the papyrus; had I known otherwise, I never would have made the public announcement. I was urged—and authorized—to make the announcement at the debate. I was also told that a high-ranking papyrologist had confirmed that FCM was definitely a first-century manuscript. On that basis, I made the announcement.
Post-Debate
After the debate I posted a blog entitled, First-Century Fragment of Mark’s Gospel Found!?, which came online March 22, 2012. Hundreds of comments were made on that blog, all the way up to the end of 2017. Many of them were negative, asking me why I didn’t say more. I have been accused of dissemblage or incompetence or both. But I could not say more. The reason was simple: I was asked not to say more.
Some thought that I was the one who discovered the fragment or that I was the one editing it for publication. Whenever this was suggested, I denied both. I had not even seen the fragment!
Post-Non-disclosure Agreement
Later in 2012 I did get the opportunity to see the manuscript. I was allowed to see it only after I signed a non-disclosure agreement. From that point on, I have essentially kept my mouth shut (though I was also asked not to take the blog down, since that would only raise more questions). What struck me about the fragment especially was that in Mark 1.17 instead of αυτοις ο Ιησους the papyrus did not have ο Ιησους. I thought at the time that, if this really was a first-century fragment (which I was not prepared, with my limited knowledge of papyrology and paleography, to claim), it most likely was due to ο Ιησους existing as a nomen sacrum already in the first century. I surmised that the exemplar that the scribe was copying from most likely read αυτοιςοις (no spacing, and Ιησους written with just the first and last letters with a supralinear bar over them). The scribe of FCM then could have easily and accidentally skipped over the duplicated οις. Alternatively, it was possible that the scribe’s exemplar did not have ο Ιησους, but this seemed far less likely.
Nomina sacra are a well-known phenomenon in New Testament manuscripts from the earliest papyri, although the reasons for their creation are not altogether clear. (For a recent discussion, see Larry Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], 95–134.) To find a first-century fragment whose exemplar most likely had this nomen sacrum was truly exciting! But was it really from the first century? With only a few minutes looking at the papyrus, and no permission to take pictures, I too had to wait, like everyone else, to see the publication.
In virtually every speaking engagement I have had since then, the question inevitably comes up: “What can you tell us about the first-century Mark fragment?” The answer is always the same: I’ve signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Somewhere along the line, I learned that the world-class papyrologist who dated the fragment to the first century had already, prior to my debate with Ehrman, adjusted his views. He was not so certain about the date (perhaps it was early second century). I learned that the rep knew, two weeks prior to the debate, that the papyrologist had changed his views. But I was told none of this. Regrettably, even when I made the announcement in Chapel Hill, I was giving misinformation. Even more regrettable, I have not been able to reveal the papyrologist’s uncertainty until now.
Further, I did not know that FCM was dated to the second/third century until I saw Elijah Hixson’s blog. The reasons for my silence had to do exclusively with the fact that I signed a non-disclosure agreement. Journalists, authors, newspaper editors, and many, many others have asked for information about it. But I was not allowed to say anything. Some have accused me of being silent to protect my reputation; just the opposite is the case. I was silent because I gave my word to be, even if it would hurt my reputation.
Final Reflections
One of the lessons my wife and I drilled into our four sons was that their integrity would be in question unless there were times when being honest hurt them. When they repeatedly told us they were telling the truth, but the consequences were always to their advantage, we couldn’t trust them. In short, integrity sometimes hurts. I am glad that this fragment has finally been published, so that I can get past the accusations and condemnations. To be sure, there is much to criticize me for, in particular that I did not personally verify the information I received about this manuscript before announcing it to the world. But the speculations about my character otherwise I would hope have been resolved.
I’m so angry about this! The fact that he signed an NDA (which he restates several times in that short post) doesn’t absolve him of his responsibility to confirm his facts prior to going public with them on his own blog. Relying on assurances of proper rigor from second-hand sources diminishes a scholar’s authority whether they apologize for it later or not. I understand that at some point you have to trust what people say to some extent, but I’m generally suspicious of the claims of academics who refuse to show their work and his bombshell announcement was no exception.
My question for you would be this: Had this been you being urged to post those claims on your blog, how would you have approached it? Do you ever think you’re at risk in some measure due to the shortcomings of others?
Well, one never knows how one will react in extreme situations. But I would like to think that I’d have the presence of mind to want to have some evidence before making a public statement in front of hundreds of people based simply on hearsay.
Quelle surprise!
Dan Wallace does not name the person who he thinks misrepresented the unsure dating of the fragment to him prior to your debate, but Peter Malik seems to assume that it was Scott Carroll, who nonetheless denies it, saying that he only learned yesterday that Dirk Obbink had changed his view of the dating.
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/05/first-century-mark-published-at-last.html
This is what happens when scholars get mired in apologetics.
Is it a forgery?
No, it is almost certainly authentic.
Some more information appears in Scott Carroll’s comments on the Evangelical Textual Criticism article. He says Dirk Obbink is most likely to be the mysterious owner who was pushing the first century date:
“D. Obbink offered a papyrus of Mark 1 for sale in late 2011 to the Greens and it was still in his possession and he was trying to sell it in 2013. On both occasions, he unequivocally said that the papyrus dated to the late first or early second century and detailed reasons for his dating. He gave no clear indication about its provenance. Without seeing the pictures, I can not confirm if P.Oxy LXXXIII 5345 is the same papyrus he was trying to sell but it seems certain.”
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/first-century-mark-published-at-last.html?showComment=1527094029903&m=1#c6371549005866244014
Further to that comment, someone claiming to be from The Egyptian Exploration Society has contradicted Scott Carroll’s story. The plot thickens!
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/first-century-mark-published-at-last.html?showComment=1527145727386#c1824316419273693062
I think this is a very good explanation of what happened, with a sincere apology. I can understand the man’s having felt bound by that nondisclosure agreement. I admire him for acknowledging his mistakes!
Bart – Would it make sense that the authors of the four gospels were not “trained” historians; rather, they were simply educated Christian men who wanted to compile a narrative of the life of Jesus, and in the case of Luke, early church history?
And given the many discrepancies in their accounts of events such as the crucifixion, resurrection and several other key events involving Jesus’ life, would it be logical to assume that these authors probably never met personally to collaborate on the content of their writings in an effort to get the story straight?
Yup! And yup!
“Everybody plays the fool sometime…no exception to the rule”. I admire Dr. Wallace’s honesty and candidness.
“…which they realized would make this go viral. ”
So the whole thing was a publicity stunt? Why would they want it to go viral if they already knew the papyrologist changed his views?
It’s a little hard to work out the sequence of who knew what when.
Like many of the books of the New Testament…
I wonder how much damage this has done for the fundamentalist cause.
I’d hazard, no harm at all to their movement.
They harbor only suspicion of scholars and their archeological fragments anyway.
Why would Wallace sign a nondisclosure; would incentives – financial or privileged access – have been involved?
That was the price he had to pay for being offered the chance actually to look at the papyrus.
As a scholar, that makes no sense to me. I understand agreeing not to publish; that is reasonable. But not to be able to say anything about at all? What is the point of looking at the papyrus if not to tell something about it (even if that only amounts to attesting its existence) to others?
Once it’s published then you can talk all you want!
I understand, but at that point the value of having looked at it beforehand is pretty much nil. At that point it is in the purview of the scholarly community as a whole. It seems to me the only point of having looked at it (given the NDA) was the self-satisfaction of having seen it.
I mean, under the terms of the NDA, it appears they could have shown Wallace a cocktail napkin with ‘First Century Mark’ scrawled on it in crayon, and he would not have been able to retract his previous announcement. That’s crazy.
The value is that you get an exceedingly rare chance to see an unbelievably rare document for yourself. Dan is not a palaeographer, but he knows an ancient ms when he sees one, and could probably read most of it (some of it requires special techniques: it’s badly preserved)
Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. There are mistakes and then there are foolish mistakes. In this case we have a mistake compounded by an amazing level of gullibility, which qualifies as a foolish mistake. To stake one’s reputation on the word of unnamed “experts” on the veracity of an unseen document is amazingly foolhardy.
What role did Craig Evans play in all of this? Did he sign a non-disclosure as well, do you or Dan W know?
I *think* he did. He propagated the existence of first century Mark and apparently said it was salvaged from a mummy mask. He was evidently completley wrong about that. Not sure why he thought it.
I believe this was when he was attempting to rehabilitate public perceptions regarding the destruction of cartonnages in the search for early mss. Personally I think the losses involved in this practice dwarf the potential benefits.
So do most reputable scholars!
It’s almost as if Dr. Wallace is willing to accept extraordinary claims on too little evidence. I wonder where he gets that.
I’ve seen a lot of people detailing the Greek that appears on the papyrus but I’m having trouble finding a translation. What is the English translation of the text that appears, and can it be confirmed beyond a doubt that it is indeed from the Gospel of Mark?
Yes, it’s Mark. With one important textual variant. Translations will appear very soon.
In Dan Wallace’s apology he states: “A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect.”
Later Wallace notes: “Just prior to the debate, this representative discussed with me the discovery of FCM. It was my understanding that their group had purchased the papyrus; had I known otherwise, I never would have made the public announcement. I was urged—and authorized—to make the announcement at the debate. I was also told that a high-ranking papyrologist had confirmed that FCM was definitely a first-century manuscript. On that basis, I made the announcement.”
So Wallace is trying to place a lot of the blame on this mysterious “representative”. This statement has caused all sorts of claims and counter-claims on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog (https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/first-century-mark-published-at-last.html) and much of it depends on who this “representative” is. Peter Malik thought Scott Carroll was the “representative” and asks for some clarity.
Scott Carroll responds: “I only learned yesterday that D. Obbink still had the papyrus, that it was published and that he changed his view on the date. In 2013, he showed it to me again as still being available for sale with the same story. I truly thought until yesterday (5-23-18), that the Green’s had acquired it. I haven’t read what D. Wallace has said, but if he implies that I knew that D. Obbink had changed his view of the dating that is untrue–how would he know this? He has never talked to me. Did D. Obbink plant this story as well? BTW I hardly had the authority to ‘authorize’ anyone to say anything nor was this debate, which I only learned about when I met briefly with D. Wallace that day, a platform for me to make an announcement about something that hadn’t been acquired.”
Elsewhere in the comments, Scott insisted Obbink was trying to sell the fragment: “D. Obbink offered a papyrus of Mark 1 for sale in late 2011 to the Greens and it was still in his possession and he was trying to sell it in 2013.”
The Egypt Exploration Society (who are the real owners of the fragment) then weighs in: “The EES confirms that the Mark fragment comes from Grenfell and Hunt’s excavation at Oxyrhynchus, probably in 1903 (on the basis of the inventory number), and that it has never been for sale, whatever claims may have been made arising from individual conversations in the past.”
Scott continues to insist Obbink was trying to sell it: “And for the record, both times I saw the Mark 1 papyrus were in D. Obbink’s office at Christ Church. It was in a fold of paper in a pile of other things he was trying to sell, sitting on the pool table in his office. An odd place for a papyrus in the Oxy collection.”
The outstanding questions I have are:
1. Was Carroll “the representative” Wallace cites? If so, either Wallace or Carroll is lying about what happened.
2. Was Obbink trying to sell the fragment to the Greens (via Carroll) in 2011 and 2013?
3. Is the Egypt Exploration Society telling the truth that “it has never been for sale”?
4. Who insisted Wallace sign the NDA and not take his blog post down? Was it the owners of the Fragment (i.e. the EES)? If so, then wouldn’t that undermine Wallace’s account that he thought the Greens owned it (if it was Carroll who was the representative)? If Wallace knew that Carroll wasn’t representing the owners of the fragment in 2012, then why didn’t he try to sort this mess out when he knew who the real owners were? Why agree to the NDA before he put the record straight?
So much of this doesn’t add up!
Dr. Ehrman,
If you had been in Dr. Wallace’s shoes back in 2012 and understood the situation the exact way he did, would you have done the same thing? Why or why not?
Thanks
One never knows. There are no atheists in foxholes. But I think I would want something more than hearsay before making a public statement of “fact” in front of hundreds of people for all the world to hear.
I’m surprised by you, of all people, using that old line about there being “no atheists in foxholes”! (Which, of course, can never be proven, and probably isn’t true.)
Actually, I think there are atheists in foxholes. But still — one really doesn’t know how one will react in an extreme situation until being placed in it.
Eeek… I was suspicious about this from the start, but it’s really a shame. I didn’t hear it until later, but I thought the silence was odd. I do feel that Dan should’ve used better judgement when it came to hinting towards a first century Mark papyri. I’m not going to add to the ridicule though because I am sure that he is already embarrassed. It’s a sad thing though. This could’ve been the evidence to finally confirm the consensus that Mark was written prior to the 2nd century even though it’s already the consensus. It’s always good to have archaeology to validate the scholarship.
Since Wallace says he had not seen the document what was there for him to disclose which occasioned the non disclosure requirement?
He heard about it before being given the chance to see it. The NDA was to give him the opportunity to see it.
The entire existence of a 1st-century fragment was a classic fraud straight from the pages of Mark Hoffman (famous forger who fooled both The Library of Congress and the Mormon Church). First, you need an unsuspecting messenger who has credibility. Then you need the middleman who represents an anonymous owner. Of course, there is no owner, except for the middleman himself. The final piece of the puzzle is to be paid. Buyers are carefully chosen because the document needs to be *protected* from any mishandling…..and *inspection*. A museum piece at worst, a sacred archived piece at best.
I doubt the actual fragment will ever be viewed by any recognized body of professionals. If it is, I predict the assembly date will be somewhere in the 2000’s CE. P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 may very well be FCM. But what does that say about the professor who supposedly dated it or the papyri itself? Am I to believe that this is a lone copy of First Century Mark and it’s being kept on a common pool table, covered with felt, having had drinks and multiple persons sweat, hair follicles, dust, and god knows what else laid on it and this is how you preserve it? A person such as Dan Wallace can view it once briefly but some fellow I’ve never heard of has seen it twice; sitting by heads of mummies. Sounds more like a workbench in a Hollywood costume studio.
The Amazon book with it’s whole *one* copy is laughable. Maybe the con artists can find some unsuspecting fool to buy it and make a tidy profit. This is pretty much the same thing I wrote on this blog some months back, but I think it’s even more apparent what’s happening now.
This isn’t a copy of a first century Mark. It’s a fragmentary copy of Mark that was wrongly thought to belong to the first century. And I don’t think that if Carroll actually saw it on a pool table he was saying that it was a table in active use.
Then what century is it from? Who is in possession of the fragment today? Who is the other party that signed the NDA? What law firms were involved? Who wrongly, besides Dr.Wallace, thought it belonged in the first century? Yeah, I don’t think Carroll saw the fragment on a pool table while playing a ring game of nine ball with a rotating system to see who racks next. The point is, anyone who has ever researched how to properly store a comic book knows that it should be put in plastic, starved of oxygen, and placed in a dark place. I assumed the process for one-of-a-kind 1st-century documents would have been stricter. This whole story is strictly amateur hour and I would like to be proven wrong…..but I won’t.
Sorry, my wording was wrong. My point is that it is not an imitation or forgery of a copy. It’s an actual copy of Mark’s Gospels. And some of these are questions we all have!
I agree this is a gracious apology, and I don’t believe there was any intentional deception on his part.
However, it’s kind of weird that they were, at the same time, making him sign a legal agreement not to talk about a document he’d never seen, and yet at the same time urging him to talk about it at a public debate.
There’s been a lot of weird stories about non-disclosure agreements lately, hasn’t there?
They don’t seem to work very well, do they?
The NDA came after he made his announcement. He was later given the chance to see the thing, if he would sign a NDA.
It’s still pretty weird.
I’m not a scholar and certainly not privy to the conversations going on between scholars but as a layman it seems to me these non-disclosure agreements are problematical and contrary to the spirit of open inquiry. I realize that interested parties want to maintain control over how discoveries are presented to the larger community but this situation can’t help but invite abuse. And it obviously can subject well-meaning scholars to the whims of people who don’t seem to be entirely honest in their dealings.
I have a question.
As I mentioned to you, Professor, in a recent blog, I had it on the authority of a one-time student at the Harvard University Divinity School that Harvard has in its possession a FIRST century manuscript of the Gospel of MATTHEW in which “The Salutation” — the section of Matthew 16 where Jesus says to Simon, “You are Peter, and upon this rock…” etc. — is MISSING — the implication being that The Salutation was added at a later time, to (another) manuscript(s), before everything was canonized and set into stone forever, to give a retroactive and spurious proof of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
(I knew my friend from a German Bavarian brass band in which he played trumpet and I played trombone. We did an Oktoberfest job once at the Divinity School, and another old trumpet player was Prof. Harvey Cox himself!)
My friend had told me that he had seen this manuscript with his own eyes, and could verify that it was MISSING The Salutation.
You told me the other day that Harvard cannot possibly have a FIRST century manuscript of Matthew. That being the case, my friend evidently was in error. So then, what is THE EARLIEST full manuscript we have of Matthew?
No, there are no manuscripts of Matthew, or of any other book, from the first century. The earliest ms of Matthew may be P104, dated to the second century.
But I’m not sure the dating is secure. It is a fragment with only parts of six verses. The other early ones are usually dated to the third century. Most of these are just small fragments (P1; P53; P70; P101); one, though, is relatively extensive and is thus the most important of the lot, P45.
The irony of an evangelical Christian being tripped up by unquestioningly and uncritically accepting sources is not lost on me
There’s a scene like that in Hyam Maccoby’s play The Disputation, which is based on the written account of a 13th century disputation in Spain between Rabbi Moses Nachmanides (who wrote about the affair) and a Jewish convert to Catholicism turned Dominican friar named Pablo Christiani.
Pablo had just excoriated Nachmanides for saying something about the Talmud that Pablo considered absurd, and nachmanidies replied, “Many stranger things than that are believed in the name of religion.” Nachmanides’ implication — that Christianity requires a leap into faith of believing in the incredible — was not lost on the shocked throngs listening to the debate.
Prior to this very recent publication of ‘FCM’ those who have I have seencomment on it in one way or another on the Internet (McDowell, Evans, Carroll and Wallace) tend towards the apologetic end of the spectrum. Is it possible that they were manipulated to end up with egg on their faces?
No, I don’t think so. The source of information appears to have a person who had similar reasons for wanting to claim the ms was very old.
I took this from Hixon’s blog:
UPDATE 5+? (25 May 2018): The Egypt Exploration Society issued a statement saying that P.Oxy. 83.5345 has always been in their collection, was excavated by Grenfell and Hunt probably in 1903, and has never been offered for sale (see also comments below). They confirm that it is indeed the claimed ‘first-century Mark’ that Dirk Obbink “showed to some visitors to Oxford in 2011/12,” which subsequently made the rounds on social media. Roberta Mazza also confirmed on Twitter that “This papyrus IS and always has been part of the EES collection stored in Oxford. And yes, I know this as a fact.”
Scott Carroll, however, has doubled-down on his claim that Dirk Obbink was indeed selling the papyrus (see comments below for these statements in their original context): “I only learned on 23 May 2018 that D. Obbink still had the papyrus, that it was published and that he changed his view on the date. In 2013, he showed it to me again as still being available for sale with the same story.” He later added, “And for the record, both times I saw the Mark 1 papyrus were in D. Obbink’s office at Christ Church. It was in a fold of paper in a pile of other things he was trying to sell, sitting on the pool table.”
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/05/first-century-mark-published-at-last.html?m=1
https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/poxy-lxxxiii-5345
Follow up comment:
If this is the case, why didn’t the Egyptian Society say FCM belonged to them a long time ago?
The “representative” is Obbink who made Wallace and others sign a NDA?
I don’t know. I don’t understand one thing about the NDA. It doesn’t make sense for Obbink to require it. But the people for whom it *would* make sense (e.g., Carroll), didn’t have the papyrus in their possession. So I don’t get it.
“… I have lots of questions about the entire affair. You may have some too. If so, let me know. I’ll answer the ones I can and ask the ones I can’t.”
Here are my questions:
1) Did Scott Carroll and the Hobby Lobby clan ever have an interest in hyping this fragment because they still hoped to acquire it?
2) Was another ‘representative’ of the owners hoping to hype it in an effort to raise the price?
3) Was Dirk Obbink himself trying to sell the fragment, which he was not authorized to sell because it was owned all along by the Egypt Exploration Society (seemingly insinuated by Scott and Peter Malik, but I don’t believe).
4) Was anyone at Brill trying to create fanfare around its upcoming publication?
5) Was the only legitimate attempt to date this fragment to the 1st century merely a quick assessment at the time it was first cataloged when the assumptions of paleography were very different than they are today. I personally suspect this. I can only imagine Obbink perhaps saying something like … well it was first cataloged as 1st century but I’m now in the process of dating it and will be publishing it ‘soon’.
Unless and until Dan reveals who it was that purposefully deceived him, we’re left with unjust speculations and innuendo. It would also be helpful if Dirk Obbink commented on these pool table stories.
The only one I can answer is #4, for which the answer is certainly not.
I guess I don’t understand the non-disclosure agreement. Why would a scholar not want such a finding disseminated? I don’t get it,
The idea behind these is that the person who has been slaving away on making an edition of the fragment has the right, because of his extensive labor, to publish his findings before others steal his thunder. It’s just a kind of professional courtesy, and a way to make sure correct information is disseminated before incorrect. That obviously didn’t work too well here, but it was because of what happened *before* the NDA was signed.
It is interesting to read all the responses here. To me, that shows just how each of us interprets the world differently based on our experiences in life. For example, I don’t particularly like him as a scholar and even less as a evangelical Christian. But, I have no trouble forgiving him for this blunder. Sometimes we, as humans, do not act as consistently as we think. In my profession, I deal with facts. 99 times out of 100, no, make that 999 out of 1000 I will verify the information before pursuing the issue further. But sometimes (a moment of weakness?) I will opt to take somenoe’s word and even though I have had it bite me in the end. I *still* sometimes makes this mistake and take the shortcut (take someone for their word), but the stakes are not high when I do. Couple that with the fact that second hand information isn’t always wrong, which of course teaches us that shortcuts are not always bad…
Call me stupid for still sometimes falling prey for this, but I’d prefer to say that I am human and just like all humans we are susceptible to take shortcuts, especially when the result of a bad shortcut doesn’t result in something catastrophic. The greater chance that someone is hurt, killed or massive havoc is created by a fact being wrong is, in my opinion, directly proportional to the likelihood of someone taking said shortcut. When the consequences are not dire, we will certainly be more willing to compromise on our processes and take a shortcut. When the stakes are high, it just doesn’t happen (or rarely), provided we know and understand that the stakes are high.
The tricky part, and what makes all of us unique is that we can’t always foresee the consequences of our actions. I might see a potential consequence much more clearly than another person and, because of that, I may unfairly pass judgement on someone for being a terrible human being. But, that is faulty reasoning and is altogether arrogant. Certainly, I am not suggesting we can’t ever pass judgement, I’d just caution it with a bit more humility, I mean, we are all human, right?
All this to say, I have more respect for Dan today than I did before reading his apology.
>> When the stakes are high …
If I may: I would agree we all err, and err a lot. Nonetheless, when the stakes are high, we should proceed cautiously, right.
One should think that as a biblical scholar, perhaps a claim that there exists a copy of the Gospel of Mark that dates to the first century mandates due diligence in 1) accepting the claim, and 2) repeating the claim.
For those who are interested in seeing a high quality photograph of the fragment and the now published 4 pages of analysis by Dirk Obbink and Daniela Colomo, the Egypt Exploration Society has very graciously made this available on their website:
https://www.ees.ac.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=45d9d9f7-8df4-4e8f-9eb5-9af2b048ef60
The EES has also said they will address the remaining questions that have been raised. This is the way responsible scholarship is done.
I’m curious about your relationship to your interlocutors such as Wallace. Have you struck up friendships with any of your debate partners? It seems like you get along well with Mike Licona and Michael Bird seemed like a very likable guy as well. Do you ever see these people outside of your debates and just talk about life?
Dan and I have known each other for some 35 years. I don’t really know Michael very well, and am friendly with Mike, but we don’t pal around at all.
Why didn’t the Greens just say they never owned this fragment? What’s their reasoning for staying silent all these years?
We have more questions than answers! I don’t know why the people who know are unwilling simply to tell us.
I almost feel sorry for the guy, but then I remember all the times he wrongfully accused you of “misleading” the public.
The sloppiness in which all of this was handled is really quite shocking. It is unbelievable to me that a scholar like Wallace would not have confirmed the first century claim for himself before going public in what can now only be viewed as a publicity stunt. Dr. Wallace has made a fool of himself, I’m afraid.
For the record, I still feel there is more to the story than what we’re getting.
Also, has Craig Evans made any comments? And idea whether or not he knew the story was bogus?
I’d be highly interested in knowing if Craig has made any comments — if anyone knows, tell us! He went public with some very bold claims that appear to be completely wrong. More excitement generated by hearsay I’m afraid.
It’s like Craig was talking about a completely different fragment, with all the mummy mask stuff. And he spoke of the dissolving of the mask so authoritatively, as though he were intimately involved in the process. Seems like somebody in the know (Wallace included) could have at least thrown him a bone and said, “Hey dummy, it’s not in a mummy mask!”
The whole thing is truly bizarre!
Dan Wallace did an interview last week and some of it pertains to you starting from about 11 minutes – 20 minutes.
A few key points I got out of it.
1 – Dan admits he should not have believed something without personal verification regarding FCM. *Odd statement for a Christian*
2- During your 2nd debate with him at southern methodist he mentions that during the QA his good friend asked you a question that would lead into Dan bringing up FCM. Guess you were set up?
3- When you dismissed his claims 6 years ago and compared donald duck to the papyrologist that he couldn’t name it was not appropriate on your part.
https://www.facebook.com/veracityhill/videos/860774584106162/
Yes I know he was offended by my “Donald Duck” comment. It was maybe a bit brash, but what I was saying is that anyone who thinks they can date a manuscript of Mark that precisely (within thirty years of the book being written) is a “quack.” (You can’t date a manuscript palaeographically within a thirty year period, from 70-100 CE). It’s striking that Dan would not identify who this alleged expert was. And still won’t say! Why is that??
I think Dan has already suffered professional embarrassment on this so I don’t think we will get a name or who the papyrologist was.
Ever since the 2012 assertion from Dan to you during the debate I have been following other Christians latching on to this. Josh Mcdowell, Gary Habermas, Craig Evans and quite a few others all made bold assertions relating to this claim Dan made to you.
Maybe you can do a blog post on dating manuscripts?
Even though this is not your specialty i’m sure some knowledge of it can be shared about it from you.