His apology yesterday for this bombast: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.
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.