Unfortunately, that information was corrected just over five years ago:The most startling of the recent discoveries, according to Wallace, is the first-century fragment; it is from the gospel of Mark, which is widely believed by scholars to be the very first gospel written. The earliest manuscript of Mark we currently have, called P45, is dated to around the year AD 250. Thus, this new find would predate P45 by 100 to 150 years. “It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers,” Wallace wrote two weeks after the debate. “He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist.” (70-71, emphasis in the original; citing Daniel Wallace, “Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?” Dallas Theological Seminary, 9 February 2012; https://voice.dts.edu/article/wallace-n ... t-century/)
https://danielbwallace.com/2018/05/23/ ... New Testament-update/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.
I applaud Dr. Wallace for being honest and owning up to his mistake in a public apology. It is a refreshing thing to see. After all, he would be very motivated to bend the truth or deny reality to rescue a position he fondly wants to be the case. But no, right there on his blog he apologizes to Bart Ehrman for having made a mistake. Imagine that.
Another point that is worthy of note is that this same blogger quotes as an authority someone who is unaware that Pliny the Younger did not write a history of Rome but that his uncle, Pliny the Elder, did. More puzzling yet is the author’s belief that such a text survived in seven manuscripts. Pliny the Elder’s a fine Bassi did not survive in independent manuscripts and is only preserved in a few quotations.
“Hutchinson” wrote:We have only ten manuscripts of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, dating from the tenth century, or 950 years after they were written; only twenty manuscripts of the writings of Tacitus, dating from AD 1100, or a thousand years after they were written; and only seven copies of Pliny the Younger’s History of Rome, dating from AD 850, or 750 years after it was written.