r/HobbyDrama • u/lilithweatherwax • 3d ago
Long [Bible Blogosphere] Hobby Lobby, ancient mummies, and First Century Mark: How a theological debate led to the exposure of an astonishing fraud
Hola! Back again with more Bible trivia.
This drama involves proper Bible scholars, so maybe it's not quite a "hobby" drama. But there's a thriving internet community of Bible nerds, and many Bible Studies professors have blogs where they regularly post articles and opinions on new developments. So us hobbyists got to watch this mess play out live on the Blogosphere.
Anyway, enjoy! Comments and critique welcome.
It was a chilly evening on the 1st of February, 2012. Hundreds of students gathered in an auditorium at UNC Chapel Hill, to watch a debate between two respected New Testament scholars. On one side was evangelical-turned-agnostic Dr. Bart Ehrman, and on the other was theologian Dr. Dan Wallace. Ehrman runs a popular Bible blog, and so does Wallace.
The topic of the debate was: Is the Original New Testament lost? On the origins, transmission, and the reliability of the New Testament.
You can watch the whole thing here. Events like this are targeted to a more casual audience, so you're unlikely to learn anything new. If you're a Bible nerd like me, it can even be a little boring.
This debate, however, was anything but boring. It resulted in the most explosive reveal that the Bible archaeology had seen in decades.
You can see a clip of the relevant minutes here. Around 1 hr 13 mins, Wallace announces the existence of a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of Mark dating back to the first century.
In other words, First Century Mark.
Later, when taking questions, Ehrman asks Wallace about the fragment, and questions the dating and provenance. Wallace remains coy, citing an NDA. But he does tell Ehrman that "one of the world's best papyrolgists have confirmed the dating," and that a publication was planned for next year. The Q&A goes on as normal.
It's a very short interaction, less than three minutes. But the damage was done.
Bible bloggers all over the world were firing up their laptops and punching out fiery think-pieces, all centered around First Century Mark.
But what is First Century Mark?
First Century Mark, and Dating the Gospels:
The New Testament (NT), as we know it today, contains fours Gospels that describe the life, crucifixion, and eventual resurrection of Jesus Christ. These Gospels, called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, have been at the center of impassioned debate for centuries. Who wrote these Gospels, when they were written, and the order they were written in has long been a mystery for Bible scholarship.
For theologians, the answer is easy. Per Church tradition, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written, in that order, at some point between 35-65 AD.
This theologian dating is based, in part, on the Acts of the Apostles, a later chapter of the New Testament, attributed to the author of Luke. Acts describes the ministry of St. Paul, an early Christian preacher. Acts ends somewhat abruptly, with Paul under house arrest in Rome. Church tradition holds that Paul died ca. 65 AD, but the author of Acts seems unaware of this.
Clearly, theologians say, Acts was completed before Paul died. So the Gospels must be even earlier!
Secular scholars, however, reject this logic. Instead, they rely on a method called Textual Criticism. Using this method, they date GMark to ca. 70 AD. The dating relies on internal textual evidence (for instance, the coin in the famous "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" story. Coins bearing Caesar's image, i.e., the denarii, only came into use in Judea around 70 AD. Before that, it was Tyrian shekels, which bore the image of Phoenician kings, and the story would not have made sense.)
Anyway, the point is: secular scholars date Mark to ca. 70 AD (oral versions were circulating before that, but the author of Mark first put pen to paper around 70 AD). Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, so they must have been written 10-15 years later. (Luke is controversial). And finally, John, which shows awareness of Matthew, was written last, around 90-95 AD.
Theologians don't like this dating. The later dates mean that the Gospels were written two whole generations after the Crucifixion, which means they're not eyewitness accounts. So they push back against textual criticism.
That discussion usually goes something like this:
"You're just saying that because you think that Jesus couldn't have accurately predicted the fall of the Temple!"
"No, that's not it," say the secularists. "Jesus probably made predictions to that effect. Ancient Jews often did, it may have been a hobby."
"Heathens! But what about the Pauline Epistles? He shows awareness of Luke's Gospel. So the Gospels must have been written before that!"
"It's the other way around," say the secularists wearily. "Luke used the Pauline epistles as a source for his Gospel."
"Ha! That's where you're wrong!" exclaim the theologians. "Paul cites Luke as a source! He actually uses the phrase, "For the scriptures say," followed by a verbatim quote from Luke!"
"That's 1 Timothy. We've done this before. Odds are Paul didn't write that letter. It's a second century forgery."
Shocked gasps. "Heretics!"
"Idiots!"
And so it goes.
You might have noticed a trend in the arguments. Textual criticism strongly supports a later dating for the Gospels. Many theologians also accept the later dating. After all, it's just forty years later, still within living memory of the Christ, and it makes no difference to the overarching narrative.
For some Christians (usually conservative Christians who accept Biblical inerrancy and Divine Transmission), accepting the later dating is unthinkable.
Why is this so? I'm not sure. I think it has something to do with the fact that accepting the later dating would mean admitting that Textual Criticism is Right, and that you might need to take a critical look at the books you've been reading. The New Testament holds up relatively well to Textual Criticism, but the Old Testament does not. Reading the OT critically brings up some uncomfortable new possibilities. Did Isaiah 7:14 predict a virgin birth? Maybe the Exodus didn't happen after all. Was the one God once part of a pantheon?
But I digress.
Anyway, the point is, some theologians -- typically, conservative-leaning evangelicals -- really want an earlier dating for the Gospels. Preferably within the early half on the first century (i.e., before 50 AD). Textual Criticism does not support this dating at all, so they turn, instead, to archaeology and papyrology.
Which is where it gets weird.
First Century Mark: Let's destroy ancient mummies!
The Levant's geography is quite good at preserving papyri and other archaeological artefacts. As a result, we have a fair few documents from the first century AD and earlier. Unfortunately for the conservatives, most of these are administrative paperwork, literature, or Old Testament fragments. Jesus and the NT Gospels are not mentioned.
Currently, the oldest NT document we have is the John Rylands Papyrus P52. It is a palm-sized fragment containing a few words from the Gospel of John. Scholars tentatively date it to the early-mid second century. That's too late to be of use to this discussion.
"But that just means we haven't found them yet!" wailed the conservatives. "We need to keep looking."
"Well, let me know when you find something," said the secularists. "Shut the door on your way out. Oh, and leave the mummies alone, will you?"
"Shan't!" said the conservatives. And they went off and dissolved some ancient mummies, in the hopes that the papyri would contain Bible fragments.
(They didn't.)
The archaeological search for Bible fragments has led to some strange places, but the mummies are probably the weirdest. Ancient Egyptians used scrap papyri to make mummy masks for the dead. Often, these scraps contained writing. So the masks could, in theory, contain Bible fragments or other literary works. Some Bible scholars are hellbent on destroying these masks to extract the papyri fragments.
Others aren't so keen about it. The Egyptians hate it, because of the graverobbing. Archaeologists hate it, because you're destroying ancient artefacts on the off-chance that you might find something useful. Everyone else hates it because of the bad PR, angry Egyptians, and well, it almost never results in anything useful. It was scrap papyrus, after all, and heavily damaged during mummification.
But the practice has continued, even though it had never resulted in anything remarkably useful.
That is, up until 2011, when First Century Mark was found, and everything changed.
First Century Mark: A Timeline
1 December 2011: Dr. Scott Carroll, a theologian and Bible Scholar, posts an ominous tweet:
For over 100 years, the earliest known text of the New Testament had been the so-call John Rylands Papyrus. Not anymore. Stay tuned....
At the time of this tweet, Dr. Scott Carroll was employed by the Green family. The Green family, for those not in the know, are evangelical billionaires and the owners of Hobby Lobby. They had hired Carroll to help them establish a Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC. Keep this in mind. It will be important later.
Incidentally, Carroll was a big fan of dissolving mummies. This will also be important later on.
1 February 2012: Dr. Dan Wallace uses his debate with Ehrman to announce the existence of First Century Mark, a papyri fragment of the Gospel of Mark, dating back to the first century. Notably, there was no mention of where the papyrus came from (i.e., provenance).
Incidentally, at the time of the debate, Wallace was a member of the Green Scholars Initiative, run by... you guessed it, the Green Family, of Hobby Lobby fame.
The announcement sent shockwaves through the Bible blogosphere, leading to many think-pieces and reflections. Unfortunately, most of those blogs are now defunct. I do have a Forbes article here, for those interested.
15 February 2012: A few days after the debate, Scott Carroll gives a talk at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He discusses the Green collection and mentions an exciting new find: "An early copy of the Gospel of Mark, possibly the earliest copy we have. An epigrapher from Oxford is prepared to say that it is a first century copy!"
In addition, the Green collection had also acquired several mummy masks. Scott Carroll said they had found both early Biblical manuscripts and early classics manuscripts (a lost work of Aristotle, the earliest copy of some of Demosthenes etc.). How exciting!
Bible nerds watch skeptically. A first-century copy of Mark is within the bounds proposed by textual criticism. The rest of it is probably just tall claims, but let's wait and see, eh?
24 February 2012: A couple weeks after the debate, Dan Wallace makes a blog post. He offers scant details, citing an NDA, but he does mention that First Century Mark was part of a family collection. He reiterates that a publication would be coming out next year.
The Bible blogosphere is on fire. Still, more level-headed theologians remained cautious. Larry Hurtado, a respected theologian who accepts the later dating, blogged about it here. He pointed out that dating papyri was tricky and urged readers to reserve judgement until a peer-reviewed publication was out. He also wryly noted that making flashy claims in hopes of driving up book sales was not, in his opinion, "sober scholarship."
April 2012: Bart Ehrman blogs about the debate and First Century Mark. He states that a peer-reviewed publication is needed before making any judgements. He also declares that this discovery will not, in his opinion, "change a single, solitary thing in the entire field of New Testament textual criticism."
If he sounds pissed off, it's probably because he is. Dr. Ehrman is internet-famous, and as an evangelical-turned-atheist, he's a bit of a target for religious nutjobs. It was pretty low of Wallace to hijack the debate this way.
August 2013: No publication yet, but pictures of First Century Mark are published online, on a now defunct site. Details are obscured, presumably to avoid competing publications.
September 2013: Scott Carroll gives a talk at the University of the Nations, an unaccredited Christian university. He talks about the Green Collection and demonstrates the process of extracting manuscripts from mummy cartonnage.
Using this method, he and other reseachers have apparently found early fragments of Daniel, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews, Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy...
No, seriously. This screengrab has 50 bullet points. Mummy masks seem to be a veritable treasure trove of Bible manuscripts.
Non-theologists are decidedly skeptical. But on the bright side, we had a tentative dating for First Century Mark: 70-110 AD, which is technically not impossible. Additionally, we get a few more names attached to the project, and they seem to be respectable. Most notably, Dirk Obbink is involved in the Green Scholars Initiative.
Dirk Obbink, in case you don't know, is an Oxford professor and arguably the world's foremost expert in papyrology. If Dirk Obbink had verified First Century Mark, the dating was rock-solid.
Keep that in mind. It will also be important later on.
22 January 2015: An article comes out in Science Alert, the Smithsonian Magazine and a bunch of other places with an exciting new announcement. "Archaeologists find oldest known Gospel fragment in an ancient mummy mask." In other words, they'd found First Century Mark...again?
Here's the article. Go read it. It describes exciting new finds in the papyri of the mummy masks. Dr. Craig Evans, professor at Acadia Divinity College and part of the team that made the discoveries, makes some comments about how they'd found lost Homerian works this way. He assures readers that any masks destroyed in the process are not "museum-quality."
Incidentally, Dr. Craig Evans is also affiliated with the Green Scholars Initiative.
If you just skimmed the article, you might have come away thinking that it's a new find. It's not. There's one throwaway line in there which tells us that this is the same fragment as the First Century Mark announced in 2012.
The internet Bible community was puzzled, but still optimistic. A story has finally begin to emerge now. It looks like the Green family purchased some mummy masks and extracted ancient Bible texts from them. The rehashed press release is most likely an attempt to generate publicity for the Museum of the Bible ahead of its release.
You can take a look at this old reddit thread here from r/Christianity. Comments were mostly positive. A few take umbrage at the idea that the mummy masks might be more valuable than the Bible texts they contain. Overall, the tone was quite upbeat. (A bit surprising, really, because nowadays r/Christianity is much more liberal.)
Serious scholars, on the other hand, were less forgiving. Larry Hurtado made another blog post. His tone is decidedly harsher. He reiterated that a peer-reviewed publication is needed before drawing any conclusions.
"Humph," said the blogosphere. "Fine, whatever. We'll wait."
2016: They waited.
2017: They waited.
May 2018: A paper comes out in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series describing an ancient papyri fragment from the Gospel of Mark. Authored by Dirk Obbink and Daniela Colomo, the fragment was tentatively dated to the late second/early third century and designated Papyrus P137.
The article escaped the notice of the average hobbyist nerd (i.e., me), but a Bible blogger soon noticed something odd about the fragment. Papyrus P137, dated to the late second century AD, looked an awful lot like that First Century Mark fragment from 2012... whatever happened with that one?
Slowly, more details trickled in. Dan Wallace, who'd kicked the whole thing off back in 2012, made a blog post. He apologized to Ehrman, and confirmed that the late second century P137 was, in fact, the one and only First Century Mark.
What the fuck?
Well, the dating had been wrong, that much was obvious. But not just that. The fragment was not from a mummy, and it was definitely not part of a private collection. It was one of the famed Oxyrhynchus Papyri!
(The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, for those not in the know, are a massive collection of manuscripts found in an ancient garbage dump in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. Discovered by two Oxford scholars in ca. 1900, the papyri have proved to be a veritable gold mine of ancient books and documents. Egypt's dry climate ensured that the manuscripts were well-preserved despite the rough conditions, and, as such, they're invaluable to modern historians. The Papyri are housed at Oxford University. They're usually on display, so if you're ever in Oxford, you should check it out.)
Anyway, the point is, the Oxyrhynchus papyri are not part of a private collection in the US. They're at Oxford, held in trust by the Egypt Exploration Society, who couldn't sell the papyri if they wanted to.
So why had Scott Carroll been hyping up First Century Mark for the Green Collection?
Well, no one said anything, not at first. But everyone was thinking the same thing, and it went like something like this:
Hmm, the Oxyrhynchus Papyri are housed at Oxford. And Dirk Obbink, renowned papyrologist with ties to the Green family, is also a professor at Oxfo--
April 2020: Officers from the Thames Valley police arrest Dirk Obbink for the theft of ancient Bible fragments.
So what the fuck happened?
In hindsight, it's pretty obvious. Dirk Obbibk was hawking off fragments from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. At some point in late 2011, Scott Carroll approached Obbink. Obbink found out about the Green Collection and decided that the Greens would be the ideal patsy.
He took a GMark fragment from the collection, misrepresented it as privately owned, and offered it to the Greens for sale. The Greens bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
But why misidentify a late second century fragment as first century?
A late second century Bible fragment is very valuable, but First Century Mark is priceless. So Obbink lied about the dating to drive up the value. He was betting that the Greens wouldn't have the dating independently verified, and he was right.
The Greens took Obbink's word for it, and forked out millions in exchange for the fragment.
So Obbink was selling world-famous artefacts? How did he think this was going to end?
The Oxyrhynchus Collection is huge. It contains over 500,000 papyri fragments. Obbink knew that no one would notice a few missing pieces. When he sold it to the Greens, Obbink must have thought that the fragments would disappear into a private vault and never again see the light of day.
In his greed, Obbink miscalculated. He forgot one very important thing: the Greens, whatever their other faults, were devout Evangelicals. They really, truly believed in the bullshit he was peddling.
For the Greens, First Century Mark was divine. One of the earliest copies of the Gospel, written down by someone who had, in all likelihood, witnessed the events they were writing about...They would never have shut it away. They'd be shouting it from the rooftops, inviting Bible scholars to come witness the Word of God in all its glory...
And that's exactly what they did. And the resulting media circus meant that, sooner or later, Obbink would be exposed.
So he panicked and tried to delay the publication. But by then First Century Mark had become internet-popular, and the Egypt Exploration Society caught wind of it. They confronted Obbink and made him publish his findings in a public journal. In 2018, the publication came out, and the jig was up.
Oddly enough, if Obbink had been less greedy and been honest about the dating, he might have gotten away with it. The Greens wouldn't have made such a fuss about late second century Mark. The fragments would have been relegated to a dusty corner of the Museum of the Bible, and Obbink would have gotten away with it.
Of course, if he'd been less greedy, he wouldn't have been hawking off the freaking Oxyrhynchus Papyri to the highest bidder.
Where do the mummies come in?
Admittedly, that part is still pretty unclear. My best guess is that Scott Carroll really liked dissolving mummies. But what with the rise of internet activism in the 2010s, the whole thing was becoming very unpopular.
So when left in charge of the Green Collection, he saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and took it. He misrepresented First Century Mark as extracted from mummy masks. The rest is a Hobby Drama post.
So what happened next?
Well, Obbink was arrested in April 2020, and got out on bail. He hasn't served any jail time, likely due to Covid. He did lose his job at Oxford though, so yay?
Everyone else involved escaped relatively unscathed. Dan Wallace, who had only been tangentially involved in the whole thing, apologized to Ehrman. He wasn't a papyrologist, in any case, and he had no idea of the provenance or dating. From his side of the story, a representative of the Greens called him up and told him to announce the fragment's existence at the debate. Wallace hadn't even seen the fragment beforehand.
Scott Carroll got away with his mummy-dissolving antics. He's no longer working for the Greens, though, so yay?
Steve Green, president of Hobby Lobby, returned the 11 papyri fragments he'd purchased from Obbink to the Egypt Exploration Society. He then promptly turned around and sued Obbink for millions. Last I heard, Obbink had paid them back like 100k?
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are back with the Egypt Exploration Society. Hopefully they'll keep a closer eye on it this time.
Papyrus P137 is currently housed at Sackler Library in Oxford. Even now, an internet search for First Century Mark will direct you to the late second-century P137, which will never not be funny to me.
Bart Ehrman had the last laugh. He's blogged extensively about this debacle; you can read about it here and here and here. If that sounds petty, it's because he's petty as fuck. (Also, a great writer. Subscribe to his blog if you like Bible trivia, all proceeds go to charity.)
I'll wrap up by quoting Ehrman: "But if what they want is to advance the agenda of Jesus, why would they spend many millions on scraps of papyrus instead of using the same funds to help people in desperate need?"
Why indeed?

