Via our friends at ‘almost to Emmaus‘.
My gut reaction? It looks fake. Look how crisp the papyrus is. The letters are excessively ‘sharp’. If you’ve ever seen a really old manuscript they never (in my experience) look like that. It looks like something hatched in someone’s tourist trinket workshop.
They need to test the material in a lab and they need to examine the ink. I’d trust Yuval Goren to do it. Until someone of his caliber says ‘yes, it is indeed ancient’ I think it’s a fraud.
UPDATE: If this is the manuscript Wallace is talking about, it’s junk. If it’s some fake being passed around (doubtless in hopes of selling it), it’s just plain unethical junk.
- Dan Wallace Has More to Say About the ‘Earliest Fragment of Mark’, But Adds Nothing New (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Hurtado on the Hullabaloo About the Purported ‘Earliest Copy of Mark’ (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Is this the fragment of Mark’s Gospel? (timothymichaellaw.com)