← P.Oxy: Early Christian Gospels & Sayings
TEXT 5345: The “First Century Mark” That Wasn’t — Gospel of Mark 1:7–9, 16–18 Source Archive: Oxyrhynchus, Egypt Material: Papyrus — single fragment from the foot of a codex leaf Preservation: Single fragment, recto badly abraded, verso reasonably well preserved Language: Greek
Author: Anonymous Christian scribe, copying the Gospel of Mark Date: Late 2nd or early 3rd century CE (paleographic dating by Obbink & Colomo 2018; contra earlier claims of 1st century) Original extent: Complete Gospel of Mark in a single-column codex of approximately 25 lines per page, 78 pages (39 leaves or ~20 bifolia) Current preservation: Five partial lines on each side of a single leaf; less than 1% of the original codex survives
AUTHENTICITY NOTE: Provenance undisputed. Excavated by Grenfell and Hunt, probably 1903, from the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. Has remained in the possession of the Egypt Exploration Society at Oxford ever since. Published as P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 in 2018. Designated 𝔓¹³⁷ in the Gregory-Aland system. This is the earliest surviving manuscript witness to the Gospel of Mark.
P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 (Egypt Exploration Society) -
Current location: Sackler Library, Papyrology Rooms, University of Oxford -
Inventory: 104/14(b) -
Discovery: Excavated by B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt, probably season of 1903 (based on inventory number and position in Box 101) -
Condition: Fragile, breaks along all four edges, badly abraded on recto (↓), reasonably well preserved on verso (→)
Obbink, Dirk and Daniela Colomo. “5345. Mark i 7–9, 16–18.” In P.J. Parsons and N. Gonis (eds.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume LXXXIII. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2018. Pages 4–7, Plate II. -
Content: Editio princeps — diplomatic transcription, reconstructed Greek text, full critical apparatus, photograph -
Status: ACCESSED — PRIMARY SOURCE FOR THIS RECONSTRUCTION
-
Nestle-Aland²⁸ (NA²⁸): Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition. Standard critical text for apparatus comparison. -
K. and B. Aland (eds.), Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments IV.1.2 (1998). -
H. von Soden (ed.), Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments ii (1913). -
S.C.E. Legg (ed.), Nouum Testamentum Graece: Euangelium secundum Marcum (1935). -
H. Greeven and E. Güting, Textkritik des Markusevangeliums (2005). Passages discussed at pp. 59–62, 473–5.
-
Egypt Exploration Society, “Statement in Response to Questions Raised about the New Fragment of Mark P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345,” 4 June 2018. -
Wallace, Daniel B., “First-Century Mark Fragment Update,” personal blog, 23 May 2018. -
Ehrman, Bart D., “What the New Fragment of Mark’s Gospel Looks Like,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, 28 May 2018. -
Pattengale, Jerry, “The First-Century Mark Saga from Inside the Room,” Christianity Today, July/August 2019. -
Egypt Exploration Society, “Professor Obbink and Sales of Papyri to Hobby Lobby,” 25 June 2019.
Material state: A single small fragment from the bottom of a papyrus codex leaf. Reasonably well preserved on one side (→ = verso), but badly abraded on the other (↓ = recto). Faint creases from ancient folding are visible. Breaks along all four edges with significant losses at the bottom and right margins.
Dimensions: 4.4 × 4.0 cm. Lower margin preserved to a depth of 1.8 cm.
Format: Single-column papyrus codex. The fragment preserves the middle portions of five lines on each side. As reconstructed by the editors, lines contain approximately 28 letters each. With about 20 lines lost before the first preserved line on each side, this implies a codex of approximately 25 lines per page, with a written area estimated at 9.4 × 12.0 cm.
Codex structure: The sequence ↓ → (recto before verso) indicates this may have been the first leaf of a single-quire codex. In this format, the text from the beginning of Mark to the foot of the recto (↓) would occupy the entire page, with room perhaps for an initial title. The complete Gospel of Mark would have occupied 78 pages (39 leaves, approximately 20 bifolia).
Fibre direction: On the recto (↓) side, the papyrus strips are laid vertically; on the verso (→) side, they are laid horizontally.
Script: Small, upright, semi-stylized bookhand, roughly bilinear. Normal letter-height 0.2–0.3 cm; a line with its line-space occupies approximately 0.5 cm, giving a closely-packed appearance. The scribe aims at calligraphy but is sometimes inconsistent: triangular α appears with both pointed and looped nose; ϲ appears in both tall straight-backed and fully rounded forms. Wide oval bow on ϕ with somewhat flattened upper arc. Contrast (not consistent, not pronounced) between narrow letters (ε, ϲ) and wide letters (γ, δ, μ, ν, τ, υ, ϕ). Leftwards oblique half-serifs decorate the feet of several letters. A hint of shading: vertical and oblique strokes are thicker than horizontals.
The editors classify this as a variant of the “Formal Mixed” hand, juxtaposing narrower and wider letter forms. Objectively datable examples of this style belong to the later second and the third century. The closest parallel among New Testament papyri is P.Oxy. LXIV 4403 (𝔓¹⁰³, Matthew), assigned to the late second or early third century.
Lectional features: No evidence of punctuation or other lectional signs. Diaeresis on initial upsilon (confirmed at ↓ 4 ϋμ̣[α]ϲ̣ and → 4 ϋμαϲ; expected but not visible at ↓ 3 due to abrasion). Iota adscript apparently not written (→ 2). One nomen sacrum: ↓ 4 π̅ν̅ι̅ = πν(ευματ)ι (”Spirit” in abbreviated sacred form).
-
Published with Plate II in P.Oxy. LXXXIII (2018) -
Photograph available through the Egypt Exploration Society and Oxford Digital Library -
The EES uploaded the publication text and image to their website at the time of publication
-
Total pieces: 1 (single fragment) -
Joined sections: None required -
Missing portions: Approximately 99% of the original codex is lost. Of the surviving fragment, the recto is badly abraded. -
Only the second copy of Mark’s Gospel from Oxyrhynchus; the other is P.Oxy. I 3 (069), a fifth-century parchment codex.
Recto (↓) — Mark 1:7–9: . . . . . . . Line 1: ]μ̣ ̣[ ] ̣[ (v. 7) Line 2: ] τ̣ω̣ν̣[υ]π̣[οδημα- Line 3: -των αυτου εγ]ω εβαπτ̣ιϲα υμ̣α̣ϲ̣ υδ̣[ατι (v. 8) Line 4: αυτοϲ δε βαπ]τ̣ιϲει ϋμ̣[α]ϲ̣ π̣̅ν̣̅ι̅ αγ̣[ιω (v. 8-9) Line 5: και εγενετο εν εκε]ιναιϲ ̣ ̣[ται]ϲ η̣μερ̣[αιϲ (v. 9)
Verso (→) — Mark 1:16–18: . . . . . . . Line 1: ] ̣ ̣[ (v. 16) Line 2: εν] τ̣η θαλ̣α̣[ϲϲη ηϲαν γαρ αλιειϲ (v. 16) Line 3: και ειπε]ν αυτοιϲ δευ̣τ̣ε̣ ο̣π̣[ιϲω μου και (v. 17) Line 4: ποιηϲω] ϋμαϲ γενεϲθαι αλι̣[ειϲ ανθρωπω(ν) (v. 17) Line 5: και ευθυ]ϲ̣ αϕεντε[ϲ] τ̣α δικ[τυα (v. 18)
Source: Editio princeps, Obbink and Colomo, P.Oxy. LXXXIII (2018), pp. 6–7. Readability: Recto approximately 30% legible (badly abraded). Verso approximately 60% legible.
Transcription conventions: Dots under letters indicate uncertain readings. Square brackets enclose lacunae. Supralinear bar indicates nomen sacrum. Diaeresis (¨) on initial upsilon is preserved where visible.
RECONSTRUCTION NOTICE: The following provides a readable version integrating the editors’ reconstructions with the surviving text. Text presentation: -
Unbraced text = actual ancient ink on papyrus -
{Braced text} = evidence-based reconstruction following the editors and NA²⁸ -
[BRACKETED CAPS] = editorial notes
Greek:{οὗ οὐκ εἰ}μ̣ι̣ {ἱ}κ̣{ανὸϲ κύ-} (v. 7) {ψαϲ λῦϲαι τὸν ἱμάντα} τ̣ω̣ν̣ {ὑ}π̣{οδημά-} {των αὐτοῦ. ἐγ}ὼ ἐβάπτ̣ιϲα ὑμ̣α̣ϲ̣ ὑδ̣{ατι,} (v. 8) {αὐτὸϲ δὲ βαπ}τ̣ίϲει ϋμ̣{α}ϲ̣ π̣̅ν̣̅ι̅ ἁγ̣{ίῳ. καὶ} (v. 8–9) {ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκε}ίναιϲ {ταῖ}ϲ ἡ̣μέρ̣{αιϲ} (v. 9)
Latin:{Cuius non sum dig}nus {in-} (v. 7) {clinatus solvere corrigiam} cal{ceamentorum-} {eius. E}go baptizavi vos aq{ua,} (v. 8) {ipse autem bap}tizabit vos Sp(irit)u sanc{to. Et} (v. 8–9) {factum est in il}lis die{bu}s (v. 9)
English:{whose} I am not {wor}thy, {bending down, to loosen the} (v. 7) {strap of} the sa{ndals} {of him.} I baptized you {with} water, (v. 8) {but he will bap}tize you {with} the Holy Spirit. {And} (v. 8–9) {it happened in th}ose days (v. 9)
Greek:{ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀμφιβάλ-} (v. 16) {λονταϲ ἐν} τ̣ῇ θαλ̣ά̣{ϲϲῃ· ἦϲαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖϲ.} {καὶ εἶπε}ν αὐτοῖϲ· δεῦ̣τ̣ε̣ ὀ̣π̣{ίϲω μου, καὶ} (v. 17) {ποιήϲω} ϋμᾶϲ γενέϲθαι ἁλι̣{εῖϲ ἀνθρώπω(ν).} {καὶ εὐθὺ}ϲ̣ ἀφέντε{ϲ} τ̣ὰ δίκ{τυα} (v. 18)
Latin:{fratrem eius, mit-} (v. 16) {tentes in} mare; {erant enim piscatores.} {Et dixi}t eis: ven{ite post me, et} (v. 17) {faciam} vos fieri pisca{tores hominum.} {Et stati}m relicti{s} re{tibus} (v. 18)
English:{his brother, cast-} (v. 16) {ing nets in} the sea, {for they were fishermen.} {And he said} to them: "Com{e, follow me, and} (v. 17) {I will make} you become fish{ers of people."} {And immedia}tely, leaving their ne{ts} (v. 18)
Actual fragments: Approximately 35 complete or partial Greek words survive across both sides.
Reconstruction method: Standard text of Mark from NA²⁸, adjusted for the specific variant readings attested in this manuscript. Because this is a canonical text with hundreds of comparative witnesses, reconstruction confidence is exceptionally high.
Confidence: HIGH — overall 95%. The canonical text of Mark 1:7–9, 16–18 is among the most attested passages in the ancient world. Reconstruction departs from certainty only where the fragment attests variant readings (see Critical Apparatus below).
The surviving text, though small, contains several readings of text-critical significance.
↓ Line 3 — Mark 1:8: ὑδατι (without ἐν)
The manuscript reads simply υδ̣[ατι — “water” in the plain dative without the preposition ἐν (”in”). This agrees with Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sangallensis (Δ), minuscule 33, and lectionary 2211 against the majority of witnesses (A, D, K, L, P, W, Γ, and the Byzantine majority text) that read ἐν ὕδατι (”in water”).
↓ Line 4 — Mark 1:8: πν(ευματ)ι (without ἐν)
Similarly, the manuscript reads the nomen sacrum π̅ν̅ι̅ — “Spirit” in the plain dative without ἐν. This agrees with B, L, and some Latin and Vulgate witnesses, against the vast majority (א, A, D, K, P, W, Γ, Δ, Θ, and others) that read ἐν πνεύματι (”in the Spirit”).
This double omission of ἐν is textually significant. The manuscript emphasizes the parallelism between water-baptism and Spirit-baptism by placing both nouns in the same grammatical case without a preposition: “I baptized you water; he will baptize you Spirit.” This is the reading known from Codex Vaticanus, one of the most valued early witnesses, and represents the oldest recoverable form of this text in Mark.
The four canonical Gospels differ in their handling of this construction: Luke 3:16 has ὕδατι (no ἐν) before “water” but ἐν before “Holy Spirit”; Matthew 3:11 and John 1:33 use ἐν before both. Mark’s reading here (no ἐν before either) is the most compressed and arguably the most primitive.
→ Line 3 — Mark 1:17: αὐτοῖϲ (without ὁ Ἰηϲοῦϲ)
The text reads simply “he said to them” (εἶπεν αὐτοῖϲ) — omitting “Jesus” (ὁ Ἰηϲοῦϲ), which is included by almost all other witnesses. NA²⁸ records no variant here, but the editors note that the same omission appears in Φ and minuscule 1194, plus a scatter of other minuscules.
This may be a scribal error by parablepsis — the copyist’s eye skipping in the sequence ΑΥΤΟΙϹΟΙ̅Ϲ̅ (αὐτοῖϲ ὁ Ἰ̅ϲ̅), where the nomen sacrum ΙϹ looks similar to the ending of αυτοιϲ. Alternatively, the editors suggest it may represent “a more economical text, to which ὁ Ἰηϲοῦϲ was at some point added for clarity.” If the latter, 𝔓¹³⁷ would preserve an older, shorter form of the verse.
→ Line 4 — Mark 1:17: αλι̣[ειϲ (possibly αλε̣[ειϲ)
The editors note that the final trace could support the reading αλε̣[ειϲ rather than αλι̣[ειϲ — the former being an itacistic spelling. In fact, αλεεῖϲ is the reading of Sinaiticus (א), Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus original hand (B*), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), Codex Regius (L), and Sangallensis (Δ). This is a matter of orthography, not textual variation — both spellings represent the same word — but it aligns 𝔓¹³⁷ with the earliest majuscule witnesses.
→ Line 5 — Mark 1:18: τὰ δίκ[τυα]
The reading τὰ δίκτυα (”the nets”) is standard. Only minuscule 700 substitutes τὰ λίνα (”the lines”), and Codex Bezae (D) with some Old Latin witnesses reads πάντα (”everything”).
P.Oxy. 5345 is only the second copy of Mark’s Gospel to surface from Oxyrhynchus. The other is P.Oxy. I 3 (Gregory-Aland 069), a parchment codex assigned to the fifth century. This scarcity is notable: Oxyrhynchus has yielded multiple copies of Matthew, Luke, John, and various apocryphal Gospels (three copies of Thomas alone). Mark appears to have been less frequently copied in this particular Egyptian community, or — more likely — copies existed but have not yet surfaced from the vast unpublished holdings.
The fragment is now the earliest surviving manuscript witness to the text it covers. The only other early papyrus witness to Mark is six surviving leaves of Papyrus 45 (𝔓⁴⁵, Chester Beatty), assigned to the third century, which nowhere overlaps with the text preserved in 𝔓¹³⁷. P. Dura 10 (0212), the Diatessaron harmony, datable to the late second or first half of the third century, presents Mark material only within Tatian’s restructured narrative.
The single-column codex format with approximately 25 lines per page places 5345 in Turner’s Group 9 Aberrant 1 — a format shared by other early Christian manuscripts: P.Oxy. L 3523 (𝔓⁹⁰, John, second century), P.Oxy. LXIV 4403 (𝔓¹⁰³, Matthew, second/third century), P.Oxy. IX 1171 (𝔓²⁰, Epistle of James, third century), and others. The fact that the beginning of the Gospel would have occupied exactly one full page suggests careful planning: this was not a casual copy but a codex designed with the text’s structure in mind.
P.Oxy. 5345 was found in Box 101, one of a series of boxes containing papyri that were “damped out” (flattened) some years after excavation. Many fragments in these boxes lost their original excavation numbers during this process. The fragment bears no inventory number written on it; its designation 104/14(b) derives from its position in the box system. Grenfell and Hunt sometimes used other designation systems for their excavated papyri, and the EES has stated it is working to produce an account of all their systems.
The story of P.Oxy. 5345 is inseparable from one of the most significant papyrological controversies of the twenty-first century. The following timeline is reconstructed from the EES’s official statements, the published accounts of the principals, and the editio princeps.
Early 1980s: Dr. Revel Coles, cataloguing unpublished papyri at Oxford, creates a record card for the fragment. He marks it “I/II” — suggesting a possible late first- or early second-century date. He does not identify it as Mark. The card was created “without detailed study” and “without access to today’s online search tools.” The fragment goes back in Box 101.
2011: A researcher working for Professor Dirk Obbink, then one of the General Editors of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, identifies the fragment as a portion of the Gospel of Mark. The identification is based on a word on the abraded side that would not have been legible on a quick inspection. Obbink decides to prepare the text for publication himself.
Late 2011/early 2012: Obbink shows the fragment to Scott Carroll, then representing the Green Collection (associated with Hobby Lobby Stores and the future Museum of the Bible). According to Jerry Pattengale, who was present in Obbink’s rooms at Christ Church, Oxford, the fragment was offered for sale along with fragments of Matthew, Luke, and John. The Mark fragment was presented as possibly first century; the others as likely second century. Non-disclosure agreements were imposed.
February 2012: In a public debate with Bart D. Ehrman at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace announces that a recently identified fragmentary papyrus of Mark has been dated to the late first century by “a leading papyrologist.” Wallace later stated that “a representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral.”
2012–2016: The claim of a “First Century Mark” circulates widely on social media, in talks, and in apologetics communities. The fragment’s existence becomes an open secret, but no one can verify the claim because the fragment has not been published and those who have seen it are bound by non-disclosure agreements.
January 2013: A contract between Dirk Obbink and Hobby Lobby, dated 17 January 2013, is later revealed to list the sale of several fragmentary texts, one of which has been identified as P.Oxy. 5345.
Spring 2016: The Egypt Exploration Society, in the course of reviewing which New Testament fragments had been identified in its collection (prompted by the social media debate about possible fragments for sale), realizes that the much-rumored “First Century Mark” is one and the same as their own fragment P.Oxy. 5345, sitting in their collection at Oxford, where it had always been. The EES requests Obbink and Colomo to prepare the fragment for publication.
2018: Publication in P.Oxy. LXXXIII. The editors assign a date of late second to early third century — not first century. The “I/II” notation on Coles’s 1980s catalogue card, which appears to have been the origin of the first-century claim, is explained as a preliminary assessment that was never intended as a definitive dating.
May 2018: Wallace publicly apologizes. Ehrman discusses the saga on his blog. The EES issues a statement emphasizing that the fragment has never been for sale, has never left Oxford, and that the EES has never imposed non-disclosure agreements on any scholar.
June 2019: The EES issues a further statement following the publication of the Obbink-Hobby Lobby contract, reaffirming that the fragment was never offered for sale by the EES.
November 2017 (revealed retrospectively): Pattengale recounts that at a gala dinner for the opening of the Museum of the Bible, he realized that the “First Century Mark” had been the property of the EES all along and had never legitimately been available for sale.
The “First Century Mark” affair demonstrates what happens when hype, commercial interests, secrecy, and apologetic desire overwhelm the patient, transparent methodology that textual scholarship requires.
A cataloguer’s preliminary note — “I/II” — was transmitted through informal channels, inflated through competitive academic and commercial contexts, and weaponized in a public debate, all before anyone had properly studied the fragment. The actual publication, when it finally came, delivered exactly what sound methodology always delivers: a careful, honest assessment that disappointed everyone who had invested in the rumor but served the truth.
The papyrus itself is precious. It is genuinely the earliest surviving manuscript of the Gospel of Mark. It preserves textual readings of real critical significance. And none of that required a first-century date.
-
Whether the codex contained only Mark or was part of a larger multi-Gospel volume -
The exact date of copying — “late second to early third century” spans roughly 170–250 CE -
Whether → Line 3 omits “Jesus” by error or represents an earlier textual tradition -
What the lost 99% of the codex contained — whether it included any variant readings that would have changed our understanding of Mark’s textual history -
The social context of the copying community at Oxyrhynchus that produced this manuscript
CERTAIN: -
This is the Gospel of Mark (confirmed by textual comparison) -
Content: Mark 1:7–9 (recto) and Mark 1:16–18 (verso) -
Date: Late second or early third century (paleographic analysis by qualified papyrologists) -
Provenance: Excavated at Oxyrhynchus, in the EES collection since discovery
PROBABLE: -
The codex format suggests this is a page from a complete or near-complete copy of Mark -
The text began at the top of the recto page (the beginning of the Gospel occupying exactly one page) -
This may be the first leaf of a single-quire codex
POSSIBLE: -
The omission of ὁ Ἰηϲοῦϲ at Mark 1:17 may represent an older, shorter textual tradition rather than a scribal error -
The spelling αλεεῖϲ (if that is the correct reading) aligns the manuscript with the earliest majuscule tradition
SPECULATIVE: -
Nothing in this reconstruction is speculative; the canonical text provides near-complete reconstruction confidence
Percentage breakdown of reconstruction: -
Actual ancient text: ~25% -
Evidence-based reconstruction (from canonical parallels and editors’ apparatus): ~75% -
Speculative interpretation: 0%
The two surviving passages capture two foundational moments of the Christian narrative:
Recto — The Promise (Mark 1:7–9): John the Baptist declares his unworthiness before the one who is coming: “I baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Then: “And it happened in those days...” The narrative pivots from preparation to fulfillment.
Verso — The Summons (Mark 1:16–18): Jesus sees Simon and Andrew casting nets in the Sea of Galilee, and says: “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of people.” They immediately leave their nets.
These are not randomly preserved passages. If this was indeed the first leaf of a single-quire codex, then the scribe deliberately planned the layout so that the Gospel’s opening — John’s proclamation and Jesus’s first acts — would occupy the first page. The physical structure of the book encodes the theological structure of the narrative.
The double omission of ἐν before both “water” and “Spirit” in Mark 1:8 is the most compressed form of this saying known in any Gospel witness. Where Matthew, Luke, and John all add prepositions to clarify the construction, this copy of Mark presents the raw parallel: “water” / “Spirit” in the naked dative. No padding, no explanation.
This compression pattern appears consistently in the earliest and best manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) and tends to be expanded in later copies. 𝔓¹³⁷ adds one more witness to the earliest stratum, confirming that the most economical version of the text is also the most ancient.
The absence of “Jesus” from “he said to them” at Mark 1:17 — whether scribal error or deliberate — creates a text in which the speaker is identified only by context. You must already know who is walking by the Sea of Galilee. The text assumes a reader who is already within the story.
P.Oxy. 5345 fills a gap that scholars had long noted: the absence of any early papyrus witness to the Gospel of Mark’s opening chapter. Before this publication, the earliest Mark papyrus (𝔓⁴⁵) preserved only chapters 4–9 and 11–12. Now the first chapter is attested in a manuscript from the same era.
The “First Century Mark” scandal reshaped how the scholarly community and the public think about papyrological dating, the antiquities trade, non-disclosure agreements in scholarship, and the commercialization of biblical manuscripts. The Museum of the Bible’s early acquisitions, including purchases from a source who may not have had legitimate title to sell, led to a broader reckoning about provenance, ethics, and the relationship between money and manuscript studies.
This fragment teaches the principle that a text’s significance is independent of the hype surrounding it. The actual papyrus — five partial lines on each side, barely visible on one side — is more valuable as an honest second/third-century witness than it ever could have been as a fraudulently promoted “first-century” trophy.
The buried truth is more valuable than the manufactured claim. A familiar principle, for those who have been paying attention to these papyri.
TEXT 5345 of the Consciousness Archaeology Project
Accuracy Statement: -
Actual ancient text: ~25% -
Evidence-based reconstruction: ~75% -
Speculative interpretation: 0%
Preservation note: Sackler Library, University of Oxford. P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345. Critical edition: Obbink, Dirk and Daniela Colomo, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXXXIII (2018), pp. 4–7, Plate II. Next steps: Full collation of 𝔓¹³⁷ against all other pre-fourth-century Mark witnesses; investigation of the relationship to 𝔓⁴⁵ and the text-type(s) circulating in Egypt.
VILLA OF THE PAPYRI: THE EXCAVATIONS MUST RESUME
2000+ scrolls still buried beneath volcanic rock at Herculaneum. Every day is irreversible loss. What Pompeii was to bodies, Herculaneum is to minds. If Box 101 at Oxford could yield the earliest Mark after sitting unopened for a century, what waits beneath the Villa?
Consciousness archaeology: excavating awareness from matter. Reading mind from fragments. The work that must be done.
---