“First-Century Mark,” Published at Last? [Updated]

It looks like we are finally getting that First-Century Mark (henceforth, FCM) fragment everyone has been talking about for years. (By the designation “FCM” I am not implying that it actually dates to the first century. I don’t know the date yet. I only mean that “FCM” is probably the actual papyrus that has been reported to be the first-century Mark fragment.)

I have not yet seen the latest volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. The Egypt Exploration Society’s website shows vol. LXXXII as the most current volume, at least as of today. However, Amazon informs me that volume LXXXIII was published last month. When I first saw it, there was only one copy available. It has since been sold. The description begins:

Volume LXXXIII of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri continues our publication of biblical texts, including what is only the second Egyptian witness to the Epistle of Philemon as well as further early witnesses to the text of Mark and Luke, and an amateur copy of excerpts from Ezekiel’s Exagoge.

Though it is also exciting for NT textual criticism that we will see fragments of Luke and Philemon, the key thing to notice here is that the description mentions an early fragment of Mark.

We can get a bit more information from the Oxford Faculty of Classics publications page:

Both the Mark (P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345) and the Luke (P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5346) fragments are being edited by Daniela Colomo and Dirk Obbink. The reported publication date of 2017 is probably just a delay in publication, which would not be the first time we’ve encountered such a delay with this fragment. I can’t see a date assigned to the papyri yet (UPDATE: see below), but we can piece together a trail of breadcrumbs and arrive at the conclusion that P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 is probably the infamous First-Century Mark—even if the date is not given as first-century. Here is the trail:

1. The text of P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 is Mark 1:7–9, 1:16–18

This confirms what was reportedly announced by Josh McDowell in 2014. “Jeff” mentioned in the comments at Brice Jones’s blog a that there was a video (that has since been deleted) in which McDowell spoke at Wheaton Bible Church on April 23, 2014. McDowell announced that the text was Mark 1 at 1:12:40, according to “Jeff.”

2. Dirk Obbink is a co-editor of P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345

We’ve known for a while now that Obbink is the Oxford papyrologist who assigned the date. Scott Carroll remarked in a video posted at this blog last summer:

Well, the most important person of note is Dirk Obbink who is [inaudible]. Dirk Obbink is an outstanding scholar. He’s one of the world’s leading specialists on papyri. He directs the collection—for students who are in here, you may remember hearing the word “Oxyrhynchus Papyri.” He is the director of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.

I can’t speak to his personal faith positions and I don’t think he would define himself as an Evangelical in any sense of the word, but he is not—he doesn’t have a derogatory attitude at all. He’s a supportive person. He specializes in the dating of handwriting. And as he was looking at the—both times I saw the papyrus, it was in his possession. So, it was in Oxford at Christ Church, and actually on his pool table in his office along with a number of mummy heads.

3. Just how many early fragments of Mark are there, anyway?

One of the problems of the “Early Text of Mark” is that there are so few early manuscripts. We have only one Greek manuscript of Mark earlier than the 4th century, P45. FCM is supposedly a fragment of Mark 1, and P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 is definitely a fragment of Mark 1. Assuming that the report that FCM is from Mark 1 was correct, what are the odds that we are seeing two early fragments of Mark 1? Unless Josh McDowell was wrong about the text on FCM, it is a very reasonable conclusion that P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 is FCM.

However, if P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 is indeed FCM, we also have a few problems.

1. Was an unpublished Oxyrhynchus papyrus really up for sale?

Carroll told Josh McDowell that the Greens were possibly in line to purchase it, that they did not purchase it, but that the papyrus had since been sold. Who could have offered it for sale?

Carroll: There were some delays with its purchase and I was working at that time with the Green family collection which I had the privilege of organizing and putting together for the Hobby Lobby family and had hoped that they would at that time acquire it. But they delayed and didn’t. We were preparing an exhibit for the Vatican Library and I wanted this to be the show piece in that exhibit but it--

McDowell: Who wouldn’t?

Carroll: I know, wouldn’t that have been awesome? But it was just not the timing and so it was passed on, delayed. It has since been acquired. I can’t say by whom.

This possibility makes me more than a little uncomfortable, but it leads to the next question:

2. Could a papyrus that was not obtained through Grenfell and Hunt’s expeditions be published as an Oxyrhynchus papyrus?

If FCM were for sale, I suppose it is possible that it originated in some other collection. If that is the case, however, why is it being published with the Oxyrhynchus Papyri?

In summary, it looks very much like:

• FCM is finally being published as P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345.
• We still do not know the date (UPDATE: see below). It might not be first-century. Maybe a reader has access to the latest volume and can confirm the editors’ date.
• The fragment is very small. It has only parts of six verses from Mark 1.
• The fragment tells us nothing about the famous textual variants in Mark 1:1, Mark 1:41 or the Ending of Mark.
• A papyrus document that is now published as part of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri was, at some point, offered for sale. Who was the seller?

Finally...

• This situation is still very unclear. Statements made over the years have been inconsistent and even contradictory. For example, the Live Science article featuring Craig Evans claims that FCM came from a mummy mask, but Scott Carroll—who seems to know more about FCM and extracting papyri from mummy masks than anybody else who has spoken publicly—said that he saw no evidence that it came from a mummy mask.

• If it is the case that P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 really is FCM, then perhaps the publication will include some explanation of the fragment’s history that will clear up most (or ideally, all) of these questions.

---

UPDATE 1 (23 May 2018): Peter Gurry has accessed the edition and confirmed that this fragment has been dated to the “(later) second or (earlier) third century.” Either there are two early Mark fragments (highly unlikely), or the “First-Century Mark” is not first-century, after all.

UPDATE 2 (23 May 2018): Scott Carroll himself weighs in (see comments below), and Dan Wallace finally speaks out. Wallace confirms: P.Oxy. 5345 is FCM.

UPDATE 3 (24 May 2018): I have removed the images of the edition and papyrus, per the request of one of the editors.

UPDATE 4 (24 May 2018): I (Elijah) have updated the post to remove images, hoping that it will stay this way without other bloggers adding in images, as interesting, helpful or amusing they may be.

UPDATE 5 (25 May 2018): The Egypt Exploration Society issued a statement saying that P.Oxy. 83.5345 has always been in their collection, was excavated by Grenfell and Hunt probably in 1903, and has never been offered for sale (see also comments below).  They confirm that it is indeed the claimed ‘first-century Mark’ that Dirk Obbink “showed to some visitors to Oxford in 2011/12,” which subsequently made the rounds on social media. Roberta Mazza also confirmed on Twitter that “This papyrus IS and always has been part of the EES collection stored in Oxford. And yes, I know this as a fact.”

Scott Carroll, however, has doubled-down on his claim that Dirk Obbink was indeed selling the papyrus (see comments below for these statements in their original context): “I only learned on 23 May 2018 that D. Obbink still had the papyrus, that it was published and that he changed his view on the date. In 2013, he showed it to me again as still being available for sale with the same story.” He later added, “And for the record, both times I saw the Mark 1 papyrus were in D. Obbink’s office at Christ Church. It was in a fold of paper in a pile of other things he was trying to sell, sitting on the pool table in his office.”

As of 25 May 2018, this significant discrepancy remains unresolved.

Brent Nongbri has a helpful post on the inventory numbers of Oxyrhynchus Papyri, here, among other good posts.

Malcolm Choat (among others, I’m sure) brings up the issue of the non-disclosure agreement and its relevance for this unfolding situation.

UPDATE 6 (25 May 2018): The Egypt Exploration Society has made the edition of P.Oxy. 83.5345 available via a link at the end of their statement, here. And there was much rejoicing. They report that a fuller response is forthcoming (see comments below).

UPDATE 7 (25 May 2018, PM): Candida Moss and Joel Baden have weighed in on the controversy with a piece at The Daily Beast. The article is worth reading for sure. Some thoughts:

1. Their timeline seems a little off. They present the story as if the whole issue started when the EES made their statement yesterday (24 May). Though they are critical of evangelicals and the Greens, they neglect to mention that the news of the publication broke right here, a day earlier, by an evangelical with ties to the Greens.

Furthermore, they do mention this post, but it is almost presented as if it were a response to the EES statement. They write: “On the academic blog Evangelical Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson has asked, “could a papyrus that was not obtained through Grenfell and Hunt’s expeditions be published as an Oxyrhynchus papyrus?” In other words: could someone try to pass off a manuscript as having come from the Oxyrhynchus dump if, in fact, it really originated elsewhere?“

I apologise if I was unclear, but “in other words” reads a level of malicious or deceptive intent into my question that I never meant to convey. It’s a great question to ask—it just wasn’t my question. I am unaware of any efforts they might have made to clarify what I meant before publishing the article. I asked that question before the EES statement. I was not implying that P.Oxy. 83.5345 was laundered by publication in a respected series but merely asking if it were possible for a “non-Oxyrhynchus” papyrus to be published in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. The answer is yes—it is possible. Brent Nongbri mentions that, in the past, some of the published papyri were bought, not excavated. Nonetheless, Moss and Baden do raise an important question about the possibility of laundering papyri.

2. One very important excerpt from Moss and Baden’s article:

“When we asked Carroll for emails confirming his story he told us that he had to turn over all of that information to the Hobby Lobby organization when he left. Dirk Obbink, in a brief response to our inquiries, stated that any story that he tried to sell the Mark fragment to the Greens “is not true.”“

It is unclear if there are any records that could confirm Carroll’s story. He doesn’t seem to say whether the emails would vindicate him or not, only that he no longer has them. Still, this is the first time I’ve seen any statement at all from Obbink, and that is certainly worth noting.

3. Moss and Baden write, “And, for the first time in over a thousand years, something about this ancient pile of garbage stinks.“ Except for that other time it stank. Still, a very nice rhetorical effect.

Unrelated to Moss and Baden’s article: People who use the Twitter inform me that the hashtag is #poxy5345.

UPDATE 8 (26 May 2018, PM): I have removed “+?” from the update numbers because a fellow blogger doesn’t like them (though I only added them because he was adding things between my own updates!). Transparency announcement, I know.

The unanswered question—rather, the thing that seems to need an explanation—is this: Was P.Oxy. 83.5345 ever offered for sale.? Note especially that I have used passive voice in the previous sentence. The owner says no, but others say yes, and nobody is backing down from their position. An official statement from the owner is weighty indeed and needs to be taken very seriously—it settles the matter completely for some. Roberta Mazza pointed out that it is EES against Green/Wallace/Carroll. Mazza’s word is especially relevant because she is a trustee of EES, and confirms that “the EES has NEVER offered the papyrus in question for sale.”

One matter to consider, however, is that Scott Carroll never claimed that EES offered the papyrus for sale (someone please correct me if I’m wrong here). He said that Dirk Obbink offered it for sale. Some have suggested that Dirk Obbink did offer it for sale but was acting on behalf of the EES. I think we can categorically deny that possibility. Whatever happened, that was not it. Certainly, the EES has never offered this fragment for sale, through Obbink or otherwise.

Could it be, then, that there were two different fragments? P.Oxy. 83.5345 and some other manuscript that Obbink offered Carroll for sale? Was Carroll mistaken? I suppose that is a possibility, but Carroll insists that P.Oxy. 83.5345 is the fragment Obbink offered in 2011 and again in 2013. Is Carroll lying here? I suppose that, too, is a possibility, but I don’t want to accuse him of lying when I don’t know the whole story. I don’t want to accuse the EES of lying either, so I am conflicted here, I admit. Jacob Peterson offers a possible way for us to solve the question like the text critics we are:

In all seriousness though, Peterson does pick up one one important detail from the Moss/Baden article, that they also mention in their book, Bible Nation: The United States of Hobby Lobby: Steve Green knew about “FCM,” and he considered it to be a possible acquisition. Moss and Baden approached Mike Holmes and David Trobisch about “FCM” and they both gave vague answers about it. Moss and Baden write, “When we asked Steve Green himself, however, we got a very different response. Green was clearly familiar with the Mark fragment: ‘At some point it was like, this is an item I want to pursue’” (Bible Nation, p. 41). Holmes turned out to know a little more about the fragment—”he believed it to be located in the UK” (p. 41).

Here’s what I find interesting: Moss and Baden’s interactions with Trobisch, Holmes and Green actually seem to corroborate parts of Carroll’s story. Holmes thought “FCM” was in the UK, but of the three, only Steve Green seemed to be well aware of it. He even thought of it as a possible acquisition, as I mentioned. If Carroll were telling the truth that Obbink offered it for sale in 2011 and again in 2013, and if 2013 was the last time it was offered for sale, that would explain why Carroll and Green know so much about it, but Trobisch and Holmes are less familiar. Trobisch didn’t come into the picture until 2014, and Holmes was not in his present position until 2015. If Carroll is telling the truth, this all happened before Trobisch and Holmes had anything to do with acquisitions.

Another question to consider is the Brill association. Dan Wallace thought that “All the details will be coming out in a multi-author book published by E. J. Brill.” Craig Evans told Roberta Mazza in 2014 that Brill would publish the fragment. Evans seems to be mistaken about the fragment coming from a mummy mask, but both Wallace and Craig Evans cite Non-Disclosure Agreements about why they can’t say more. I am reluctant to believe that all the evangelicals are lying, and the other option seems to be misunderstanding on a massive level, which also seems unlikely. We know that Brill has a series dedicated to the Museum of the Bible, Carroll worked for the Greens when he claims Obbink offered him the fragment, Steve Green thought of the manuscript as a possible acquisition, At least two people affiliated with the Greens (Holmes and Carroll) knew that this possible acquisition was in the UK. It seems as though nearly everyone just assumed that the Greens owned it. Roberta Mazza was one of the few people who was wise enough not to make that assumption.

So what is going on? It seems clear that the EES did not offer the fragment for sale. Still, the story we can piece together from others is that Dirk Obbink offered something for sale to the Greens, and P.Oxy. 83.5345 seems to fit the bill as to what Wallace/Carroll/Green/Holmes thought that something was. Candida Moss even thinks Obbink might have been “more than a consultant.”

Maybe I am more interested in the why than the what. After all, the fragment never sold. It has been published. It didn’t come from a mummy mask, and there is no more speculation about its text and date. In a sense, it’s water under the bridge. I’m actually not here to defend the evangelicals simply because I am one myself—I am not opposed to criticising bad evangelical scholarship on textual criticism when it does need criticising. I would like to think that I am “on Mazza’s side” in that respect, but I cannot shake the question, why do we have two different narratives about it?

Unrelatedly, you should read Brent Nongbri’s blog. He’s been writing some great posts about the Oxyrhynchus papyri lately.

Also, Kurt Jaros interviews Dan Wallace on P.Oxy. 83.5345. I haven’t watched it all yet.