Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by Secret Alias »

Wallace's original statement:
I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered — six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century.
His apology yesterday for this bombast:

https://danielbwallace.com/2018/05/23/f ... nt-update/

I know that there are people at this forum who hate Wallace because he is an apologist for Christianity. I am not one of those participants. But I do think that Wallace can be accused of willingly accepting unproven claims because it supported his agenda. In other words, it is not because Wallace is a Christian apologist that he should be mistrusted in the future but because any sort of partisanship in scholarship often leads to the eager embracing of evidence which is ultimately not vetted. As such, Wallace should be used as an example of the sins of partisanship not 'evangelicals' or 'Christian apologists' as such.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

As apologies go, I think this is a genuine one. If it is true the things he writes in this blogpost (concerning the non-disclosure agreement etc), then I dont see how he can apologize more than this. I think you're right, the sin committed should be regarded as partisanship. Whether or not evangelicals and apologists are more likely to do this, I dont know, probably not.
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.
...
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.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by Ken Olson »

I'll repost a comment I made in another forum:
I think Wallace is guilty of two errors in judgment. First, he made a public statement on the fragment, saying that "He had it on good authority." He has admitted his mistake on that and apologized for it. Okay, fine. Second, he knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement that would prevent him (and did prevent him) from correcting his earlier public statement. I think the second was the greater error. He had already made a public statement on the fragment and had a duty to correct it if and when he discovered he was wrong. He should not have signed an agreement that would prevent him from doing so.
Now that I've had a chance to think about it, I suppose Wallace probably did not expect it would take so long for the fragment to be published, so he probably didn't expect he would have to hold his peace for as long he did. Nevertheless, signing an agreement not to talk about something he'd already made an emphatic public claim about seems like a lapse of good sense.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 8:17 am Wallace's original statement:
I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered — six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century.
Scott Carroll
If you look on the screen you see texts discovered of almost many of the Old Testament books with New Testament books, most of the Gospels, including a first century text of the Gospel of Mark. That's the earliest, that will be the earliest text of the New Testament [...] We're looking now at a text of Mark that dates between 70 and 110.

Josh McDowell
It was in here that we discovered Mark, the oldest ever: back to the first century. ... Now, what you do, you take this mask [chuckles]… You take these manuscripts, we soak them in water. There is a process we use with huge microwaves to do it but it’s not quite as good. We put it down into water at a certain temperature and you can only use Palmolive soap, the rest will start to destroy the manuscripts; Palmolive soap won’t. And you start massaging it for about 30-40 minutes you’ll pull it up and ring it out, literally ring it out, these are worth millions, and you’ll put it back in for 30-45 minutes.

Craig Evans
Someone video-recorded and posted on YouTube a lecture I gave last summer (?) on the number, age, and reliability of New Testament manuscripts. In this lecture I described the effort under way in recent years to recover manuscript fragments, including biblical manuscripts, from ancient cartonnage, including mummy masks. All of these materials are from Egypt. Just over three years ago a fragment of Mark was recovered, which those studying it think dates to the 80s. If they are correct, this will be the first New Testament manuscript that dates to the first century. The fragment is to be published later this year (by E. J. Brill).
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by toejam »

Wallace's bias got the better of him and he naively jumped the gun - something we've all probably done in the past.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by Stuart »

After reading the apology, and the circumstances I would say know no. He lied for commercial purposes, even mentioning his NDA in these terms, even knowing the date would eventually be set 3rd century with a chance of being 2nd (hence 2nd or 3rd) by the volume editors (just as mysteriously). Effectively he is admitting he committed fraud, or at least participated in a fraudulent scheme, which to be completely blunt is felonious.

His apology however should not be condemned, as it is at least a rare acknowledgement of wrong doing by a public person in, well, just about any field. So for having the courage to do partly the right thing, I commend him. But it does not absolve him.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by Blood »

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century.
Shouldn't "one of the world’s leading paleographers" apologize?
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by DCHindley »

Blood wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 4:28 pm
It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century.
Shouldn't "one of the world’s leading paleographers" apologize?
The whole situation just seems bizarre.

Wallace's source was aware that some papyrus fragments had come from excavations of weird places like garbage dumps in Egypt with recovery from other weird sources like the waste papyrus sheets used as cartonnage from mummy masks. This kind of stuff has been recovered since the late 19th century, and some of it does indeed date back to the 1st century CE (not the NT fragments though).

The dating of the Nag Hammadi codices was based, in part, on waste papyrus used to line the leather covers of one or more of the codices, this papyrus layer also being called "cartonnage." See Hugo Lundhaug, 'Shenoute of Atripe and Nag Hammadi Codex II' (Zugänge zur Gnosis-Akten zur Tagung der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft vom 02, 05-01-2011, in Berlin-Spandau, 2013). It should be floating around online, as that is where I found the article. The author proposes that the documents were from a Pachomian monastery, and clearly from the late 4th century.

This suggests that the source was an apologetic one, not in the sense that Wallace engages in (very well informed on the Greek texts, and honest in his convictions and ethics, although he is a character), but more like what we might expect from those who revolve in the inner-circle around the owner of Hobby Lobby stores. Hiring David Trobisch as the Curator of the Museum he created was a big boost for his agenda of taking back NT scholarship from the hands of the Historical-Critics.

So I am thinking that Wallace's source was from the cloud of retainers employed by the owner of The Hobby Lobby. This source, relaying to Wallace the advancement of the Conservative Evangelical counter-offensive against the liberals, had somehow confused the recovery of a set of fragments from a garbage dump in Egypt with recovery of fragments of documents from mummy mask cartonnage and/or from book-binding cartonnage.

Wallace, unaware that his source was confused, took him at his word. He may have assumed that Trobisch himself had signed off on a dating of a NT fragment to the 1st century CE. :confusedsmiley:

DCH
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by Peter Kirby »

DCHindley wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 7:58 pm So I am thinking that Wallace's source was from the cloud of retainers employed by the owner of The Hobby Lobby.
Does anyone know who this source is?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is Dan Wallace's Apology Good Enough?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 8:17 amAs such, Wallace should be used as an example of the sins of partisanship not 'evangelicals' or 'Christian apologists' as such.
I don't think Wallace should be used as an example. Wallace spoke some words hastily and imprecisely, in part incorrectly, but there are very few people who have not done much worse than he did that day, because they said things that they haven't personally verified.

Are we all going to cast stones, while living in glass houses?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply