Papyrus P137: A Small Page of Mark and a Changed Date

The Münster institute's 2018 manuscript list identifies P137 with P.Oxy. 5345 and records its size as approximately 4.4 by 4 centimetres. It locates the text in Mark 1:7–9 and 1:16–18. The edition describes a lower margin and parts of five lines on each face, with one face especially worn. Neither passage survives as an intact paragraph. [SRC-08; SRC-01]

Begin with that difference between a passage and its surviving pieces. A modern Bible supplies a continuous reading experience, but an ancient fragment often asks the reader to pause over absence: missing edges, incomplete letters, a word recognizable only beside its neighbors. The achievement of an edition is to make those conditions inspectable. Its brackets and notes let another reader see where evidence ends and reconstruction begins. That patient visibility is part of the wonder of encountering the page.

Reading the complete chapter in a modern Bible restores the narrative setting. John distinguishes his baptism with water from the coming one's baptism with the Holy Spirit. Later, Jesus encounters Simon and Andrew at their work and calls them to follow him. The men leave their nets. These are the surrounding Gospel scenes; the fragment preserves only portions of their wording. [SRC-06]

For Catholic readers, the two scenes can be read together as an invitation: receive what God gives, then respond with a life. The fishermen's work makes the call concrete. Discipleship enters an ordinary place and interrupts an ordinary task. This is our reflection on Mark, rather than information about whoever owned this papyrus. We do not know that person's name, occupation, prayer or circumstances. The page can prompt our attention to the Gospel without permitting us to invent its first reader.

The Egypt Exploration Society explains that an early-1980s record card carried the notation I/II, suggesting a late first- or early second-century date. Such cards supported catalog work before detailed study. The text was identified as Mark in 2011. Reports about a possible first-century fragment followed visits in 2011–12. The Society's account distinguishes those steps from the eventual publication. [SRC-02]

The distinction matters whenever an exciting discovery reaches an audience before its evidence does. A catalog guess, an oral description and a published argument have different jobs. Repeating a preliminary date can make it sound settled even when no new comparison has been offered. A reader who remembers the first announcement deserves the later result with comparable prominence. Updating the story is a way of respecting that reader, as well as the scholars who make their reasoning available for examination.

The editors compare letter shapes and writing styles with other manuscripts, including examples constrained by dated documents. They explicitly note the difficulty posed by the tiny, damaged sample and the scribe's inconsistency. Their conclusion favors the later second or earlier third century. It is a palaeographical assessment, not a laboratory measurement of the year when ink touched papyrus. [SRC-01]

A useful way to read such an estimate is to ask what anchors each comparison. Is the other example dated by its own document, by writing reused on the same material, or by another judgment of style? Similarity can narrow a discussion without functioning like a calendar stamp. Nothing in the edition warrants replacing its qualified range with a precise year. Equally, the existence of uncertainty is no reason to restore a much earlier public claim that the detailed study did not sustain.

The Society identifies the papyrus as part of its Oxyrhynchus collection, excavated by Grenfell and Hunt. It corrects the printed inventory number to 101/14(b). The exact excavation season is uncertain; 1903 is a possibility inferred from neighboring items, not a documented find date for this fragment. These corrections belong beside the publication when its history is retold. [SRC-02]

An inventory number helps a researcher identify the same object across records. An excavation context would answer further questions about where and with what it was found. Neither automatically answers the date of copying. Keeping these questions distinct prevents a real custody record from being asked to repair every missing part of a biography. It also honors the material itself: a scrap deserves accurate identification even when it cannot deliver the dramatic origin story a modern audience hoped to hear.

The later statements are essential to the modern history. In June 2019, the EES addressed newly released sale documents and clarified that its 2018 statement had reported Professor Dirk Obbink's answers to questions, including his denial of offering the Mark fragment for sale. The Society did not present that earlier denial as a completed independent finding. [SRC-03]

In October 2019, while reporting other missing papyri, the EES specified that P137 and the other texts on the associated handwritten Gospel list remained in its collection. Its broader recovery page subsequently received a July 2025 update reporting an ongoing police investigation and the return of recovered papyri. These statements concern different objects and stages of inquiry. They do not justify saying P137 was among the fragments returned from the Museum of the Bible, or treating this article as a determination of any individual's legal responsibility. [SRC-04; SRC-05]

For a reader, the constructive lesson is to preserve the sequence. Date each statement, notice what it actually establishes, and retain the corrections when sharing an older account. An unresolved institutional question should stay visible without becoming a license to repeat allegations as verdicts. The historical value of the text and responsibility for the care of the object both deserve serious attention.

Dei Verbum joins the Church's confession of Scripture's inspiration with attention to human authors, language, culture and literary form. It also encourages the faithful to read Scripture prayerfully. Those teachings offer a fruitful setting for meeting an ancient manuscript. Reverence can include asking how a text has reached us and listening carefully when the answer changes. They do not assign a copying date to P137. [SRC-07]

Our Catholic reflection is that gratitude need not depend on possessing the oldest possible fragment. One can give thanks for a surviving page, for the labor that makes it readable and for a Gospel still heard in worship. Read Mark 1:7–18 slowly, then notice a word that calls for a response: repentance, gift, following. Consider a small act of fidelity in the work already before you. The papyrus helps occasion that encounter; the invitation comes from the Gospel, and the response remains yours.