Well, it has been six years since the announcement that an apparent first century fragment of Mark's Gospel had been discovered, a topic of debate that I have followed closely since the news first broke. It was announced by Dan Wallace during a debate with Bart Ehrman back in 2012. Following the announcement, the academic community began to scratch its head: Where is this fragment? Who owns it? Who has dated it? Is it being published? If so, where is it being published?
Wallace has refused to provide any details, because he indicated he was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement not to talk about the fragment. Given the lack of details, some even surmised that the fragment simply did not exist. Answers to some of the questions became apparent (or somewhat apparent) only after years of public inquiry, largely based on bits of information pieced together from the internet.
The obvious significance of a first-century fragment of Mark is that it would be the first-known manuscript of the Greek New Testament (GNT) to exist. Craig Evans reported that this fragment was “dated to the 80s” (see here also) and I told CNN in 2015 that this was rubbish, based on how scholars date manuscripts according to the handwriting (=palaeography).
Today, Elijah Hixson posted a blog post over on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog about a Markan fragment that is to appear as no. 5345 in the 83rd volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. The initial post questions whether or not this fragment is the same fragment as the so-called “first century fragment of Mark.”
Dan Wallace, who first announced the discovery of this fragment, has finally broken his silence and responded to Hixson’s post, verifying that P.Oxy. 83.5345 is indeed the fragment he was referring to back in 2012. Significantly, this fragment has now officially been dated to the second/third century, as indicated in a draft of the publication shown on the ETC blog.
Wallace admits that he was “urged to make the announcement [of the fragment] at the debate.” I wonder: who urged him and for what reason? Could it have been for financial reasons?
I ask this question because Scott Carroll (on whom see here, here and here) contributed comments to Hixson’s post indicating the following:
“D. Obbink offered a papyrus of Mark 1 for sale in late 2011 to the Greens and it was still in his possession and he was trying to sell it in 2013. On both occasions, he unequivocally said that the papyrus dated to the late first or early second century and detailed reasons for his dating.”
So, based on Carroll’s comments, Dirk Obbink, the co-editor of the Markan fragment, was apparently trying to sell off this fragment for a few years. [Side note: Wallace claims in his post that he learned later the famous papyrologist who dated the fragment to the first century already adjusted his views about the dating prior to Wallace's announcement of its discovery in 2012. Carroll's comment indicates that Obbink was still arguing for a first century date in 2013, a year after the initial announcement. So, we need clarification here.] According to Hixson’s post, the Greens were “possibly inline to purchase it,” but the transaction never took place.
I have not seen the full publication or an image of this fragment [UPDATE: image of the papyrus is at the top of this post], so I cannot make any real judgments about dating, etc. But, I would be interested in knowing how Obbink got his hands on an Oxyrhynchus papyrus (presumably) outside of the Oxhyrhynchus collection, and who gave him the authority to sell it. If what Carroll says is true, Obbink was in the business to make money off this papyrus. Could it be that the manuscript was purchased by Obbink and that he finally sold it to the EES and it ended up in the Oxyrhynchus collection? Or, could the Oxyrhynchus collection/EES have been attempting to deaccession this fragment in an attempt to raise money (this seems very improbable to me)?
If Carroll's assertations are true, does the fact that we are now seeing this fragment in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series undermine the integrity of the series? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I want more answers to the questions raised above before I say anything else. But, I will say this: some people/groups apparently missed the mark (no pun intended) by more than a century or two!
UPDATE: The EES has issued a statement about P.Oxy. 5345 and uploaded the section of the publication which includes the editio princeps of the manuscript along with an image. See here.
Methodius of Olympus was a Christian bishop who died as a martyr in c. 311 C.E. Unfortunately, we know very little about Methodius. Most of what we do know comes from a brief biographical account in Jerome’s On Illustrious Men, which was composed at the end of the fourth century. Methodius was mainly known as an antagonist of Origen. In particular, he had a problem with Origen’s doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which he rejects outright in his treatise On the Resurrection.
Methodius wrote several important works (see Roger Pearse’s list here), but almost all of these come down to us in fragmentary form. The only complete work of Methodius that we possess is his Symposium or Banquet—a treatise in praise of voluntary virginity. Until quite recently, the earliest manuscript of this text was an eleventh century codex known as Patmiacus Graecus 202, which is housed in the Monastery of St. John the Theologian on the island of Patmos.
But, a remarkable discovery was recently been made in the Montserrat Abbey in Spain. Sofia Torallas Tovar and Klaas A. Worp, who have been working on the manuscript collection in the Montserrat Abbey for many years, published a fragment of Methodius’ Symposium that they date on palaeographical grounds to the fifth-sixth century—about 450 years earlier than the Patmos codex mentioned above. (On another recent, important discovery by Tovar and Worp, see here.) Published as P.Monts. Roca 4.57, this fragment is the first attestation of a work of Methodius from Egypt. It is a narrow strip of parchment, with thirty partial lines preserved on the hair side (see image of fragment at right). The text on this side of the fragment comes from Oratio 8:16.72-73, 3:14.35-40, 8.60-61, and 9.18-19 (in that order). The flesh side contains thirty-five partial lines of text unrelated to the Methodian text. This is an unidentified Christian text with “Gnomic” sentiments, as the authors explain.
In addition to the wonderful fact that we now have a significantly earlier manuscript witness of Methodius’ text, there is also another remarkable feature in the new manuscript: a previously unattested saying about the Nile. In lines 5-8, the manuscript reads:
“The rise of the Nile is life and joy for the families”
ἡ ἀνάβα̣σ̣ε̣ι̣[ς] τοῦ Νείλου̣ ζω̣ή̣ ἐστι κ̣[αὶ] χαρὰ ἑστία[ις]
As the authors note, this saying does not occur in Methodius. And indeed, it does not fit the immediate context. Where it comes from is a mystery, but the saying is nonetheless very interesting. All in all, this is a fascinating discovery for scholars of Early Christianity and we commend the authors for their editorial work in making this text available to the world.
Today is Mother’s Day in the U.S. and Canada. According to Wikipedia, this holiday is “a modern celebration honoring one's own mother, as well as motherhood, maternal bonds, and the influence of mothers in society.” This is a time when many children send cards and flowers showing their appreciation to their mothers. While this holiday is modern in origins, we do find some examples of mothers becoming angry when their children do not write to them or show proper acknowledgment.
One case in particular comes to mind. In a first-century Greek papyrus letter known as P.Berenike 2.129, found in a Roman dump in Egypt, a mother named Hikane writes to her son Isidoros scolding him for not writing to her. Here is the opening of Hikane's letter:
“[Hikane] to Isidoros [her son, greetings. First of all] I thought it necessary, since the packet boat was putting out to sea, to write . . . me. I am in Berenike. I wrote you a letter [?but did not receive a] letter. Was it for this that I carried you for ten months and nursed you for three years, so that you would be incapable of remembering me by letter? And similarly you dimissed me though the Oasites . . . not I you. But I left your brothers in Arabia . . . so that . . Egypt I might see your face and . . . breath. I only ask and beg and adjure you by the one whom you . . . and by the memory of the one who begot you, to sail away if you are well.”
The papyrus is fragmentary, but Hikane’s frustration is clear. Through rhetorical coloring, she reminds Isidoros that she carried him in her womb for ten months and nursed him for three years. So, what is the moral of this story? Maybe it is that you should write to your mothers. Otherwise, you could receive a letter like Hikane's. Or worse: your mom takes her anger to Facebook!
My article on a recently identified papyrus has finally been published in the latest issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL). The small scrap of papyrus, housed in the University of Michigan Papyrology Collection, contains a partial citation of Matthew 1:20 in Greek.
I argue that the papyrus may have served as an amulet, as this passage from the gospel of Matthew is ritually charged (it involves the utterance of an angel), is written on one side, and appears to have been folded. I have tentatively dated the papyrus to the sixth-seventh century C.E. Despite its fairly late date, it is the only amulet to preserve this portion of gospel text and stands among the earliest textual evidence for this particular verse.
Since my book on Greek New Testament amulets was published in 2016, two other amulets have been published, excluding this one: Thomas Wayment published a Greek papyrus amulet containing a citation from Colossians, and Lincoln Blummel published one with a citation from Acts. I recommend that all three of these should be added to the list of amulets that started with Ernst von Dobschütz in 1923, a category that I have argued should be reinstated in the official list of New Testament manuscript, overseen by the Institut for Neutestamentliche Textforschung.
I have uploaded the article to the publications section of this website here.
UPDATE: This fragment has been assigned a number in the Trismegistos/LDAB portal as 754090 and can now be cited accordingly.