I have been reading David Parker’s rather interesting volume An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts and in the introduction to the book he makes the following statement which I found quite amusing given the recent hubbub about a supposed 1st century fragment of Mark.
At this point I would like to avow my intention to make no further reference to a number of documents or theories which, although they are sometimes used in text-critical arguments, I do not accept as reasonable. They are: first, the Secret Gospel of Mark, which I have never believed to have been genuine; second, the Gospel of Barnabas as anything other than a late medieval text dependent on other medieval texts of interest to students of Christian-Islamic dialogue; third, the claim that there are New Testament manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls; fourth, all extravagant claims that any New Testament manuscripts known to us were written in the first century [emphasis mine]. (pg 8)
I think that unless Wallace produces some strong evidence to the contrary it will remain appropriate to relegate such claims to the same status as the three obviously baseless theories mentioned above.