The debacle about the "1C fragment of Mark" raises questions about the wisdom and ethics of nondisclosure agreements in scholarship. How widespread is this practice? Is there a danger that scholars will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements to function in the guild? What if a scholar signs a nondisclosure agreement, then has second thoughts or changes his mind as he becomes aware of new evidence, but is not at liberty to publicly revise his position due to the gag rule?
This damages Wallace's credibility while giving Bart Ehrman an unmerited boost:
Craig Evans put his reputation on the line as well:
Evans spearheaded a Fragments of Truth documentary. Does the "1C fragment of Mark" figure in that documentary?
I saw "Fragments of Truth" and I don't recall any mention whatsoever of a "1c fragment of Mark." The main thrusts of that film were the sheer volume of manuscript evidence, and Evans' argument that scrolls and codexes were in use for much longer than previously thought, and therefore 2c and 3c manuscripts could have overlapped with the autographa. It has excellent production values, but it doesn't present and novel scholarship that I noticed.
ReplyDeleteWallace actually has several cameos, but again, nothing where he mentions a 1c fragment that I recall.
Thanks for the info. Evans is a capable scholar.
Delete