“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...