The Secret Is Out: “First Century Mark” is not from the First Century - Brice C. Jones

Dan Wallace, who first announced the discovery of this fragment, has finally broken his silence and responded to Hixson’s post, verifying that P.Oxy. 83.5345 is indeed the fragment he was referring to back in 2012. Significantly, this fragment has now officially been dated to the second/third century, as indicated in a draft of the publication shown on the ETC blog.

The Secret Is Out: “First Century Mark” is not from the First Century - Brice C. Jones

Edited (5/26/18) to add,,,

See also::  Bullshit from Day One: The First Century Gospel Is a Third Century Gospel

You’ll find in the linked articles a lot of serious questions about how this papyrus was marketed until now. Dirk Obbink denies ever offering it for sale, but there are eyewitnesses who claim he was. Much confusion has ensued. I’m left to speculate if perhaps Obbink was claiming to offer it for sale, just to get a read on what people might pay for it, in order to suss out the viability of his creating and selling a forgery to retire on. But maybe that’s far too sinister a speculation. What others are insinuating is no less nefarious; I’ve seen proposed everything from Obbink the thief, to his having planted it in the Oxyrhynchus collection to pass it off as authentic—which would imply a pious lie rather than a financial one; but are we to suppose the appointment of a second editor foiled his plans to assert a first century date? The EES says it is investigating and will publish an account clearing up these issues.

Aspects of this mystery are explored in an article at The Daily Beast. For those who want a clearer picture of what’s riling folks, and what questions remain unanswered.