Manuscripts and rumors of manuscripts...

I haven't had much to say about the buzz around the bibliosphere about rumored fragments.  The two most rumored are:

1. A fragment of Romans, reputed to be from the second century, which would make it the oldest fragment of Romans yet.  It's initial dating may have been done by Scott Carroll who is with the Green collection.  The Green collection has connections with Baylor, IWU, and others.

2. A fragment of Mark, alleged to date to the first century.  The source of this rumor is some comments by Dan Wallace of Dallas Seminary.  Dan has said:

• A top paleographer is working on the dating of the Mark fragment.
• The collection includes 1) small fragment of Mark, 2) something from Luke, 3) three from Paul, 4) an early sermon on Hebrews 11.  The Paul and Hebrews one are apparently being dated to the second century.

I'm guessing the manuscripts Wallace is talking about are also part of the Green collection.  I'm guessing that one of those three Paul manuscripts is the Romans manuscript on the news.

There's nothing impossible about finding second century manuscripts of Paul or Hebrews.  It's also not impossible that someone would find a first century fragment of Mark, although I'll wait to see on that one.  Whatever date ends up being ascribed--and manuscripts from this period can only be dated to within a 50 year window--I doubt anyone will be forced to change their dating of Mark.

So it's exciting because these fragments would be so early and so close to the time of writing. Let's just enjoy them, whatever they turn out to be in a year or so, early or late, authentic or hype.