I saw an interesting post on The Gospel Coalition following up on the debate Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman had recently in North Carolina. The post focuses on an assertion made by Wallace in the debate that a first-century fragment of the Gospel of Mark has been found. Dr. Wallace, through his Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, travels frequently to examine and photograph manuscripts in libraries all across the world. He has made some interesting discoveries like this before, and his scholarly track record is pristine. So even though he could not give the details about this manuscript publicly at the debate, we can trust that he knows of what he speaks. It will be interesting to learn more of this in time to come. On a related note, I think Andreas Köstenberger's analysis of the most recent Wallace-Ehrman debate makes some fruitful points. I did not see this debate, so I can't interact with his points except in a general way. I do appreciate his point that even if a first-century manuscript of Mark has been found, Ehrman's skepticism is of the sort that will always keep the evidence at arm's length:
In my judgment, it may have been effective for Wallace to ask Ehrman early on what kind of proof he required to be persuaded that we have the original text of the NT. That would have brought out the fact that Ehrman sets the bar so unreasonably high that virtually nothing could ever satisfy him. Even though Wallace titillatingly dangled the prospect of a first-century MS of Mark in front of Ehrman’s nose (mysteriously hinting that he was sworn to secrecy), it was clear that even that discovery (if it checks out) is unlikely to sway Ehrman. Simply producing a few earlier MSS does not necessarily overturn Ehrman’s theoretical concerns.
This is an appropriate point to make. It is always worthwhile to consider how much evidence is needed to convince the other person. In Ehrman's case there is likely no amount of evidence that could sway him away from his conclusions, save the signed biblical autographa straight from the authors' hands, which of course we do not have and likely will never have. But what we do have is a manuscript tradition that is far and away superior to any other ancient corpus, that has shown its value and veracity in numerous ways, such that it is more rational and reasonable to trust it as a witness to the original text than it is to deny its value and worth.