Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-14-2009, 09:49 PM

Miniature Manuscript of the Gospel of Mark Determined Inauthentic by McCrone Associates and the University of Chicago Divinity School

Quote:

The McCrone Group, Inc. today announced their microanalytical examination of an illustrated miniature manuscript (or codex) of the Gospel of Mark, termed the "Archaic Mark," helped identify the manuscript as a forgery.

...

McCrone Associates, Inc., the analytical service division of the McCrone Group, partnered with the University of Chicago early last year to analyze the writing ink the paints in the miniatures and other material constituents of the codex and presented their findings at the University of Chicago Regenstein Library, The Special Collections Research Center, last month,

"The mystery of the date of 'Archaic Mark' is now conclusively and independently solved from textual, chemical and codicological angles," said Dr. Margaret M. Mitchell, University of Chicago Divinity School. "This has been a triumph of collaborative work to solve a decades-long enigma to determine if the codex is genuine."

avi · 12-15-2009, 08:04 AM

Good news.

But, now, what about the claim, sounds sort of convincing, that some fragments, only a few lines with only partial words visible, found among the dead sea scrolls, represent gospel of Mark?

Toto · 12-15-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Good news.

But, now, what about the claim, sounds sort of convincing, that some fragments, only a few lines with only partial words visible, found among the dead sea scrolls, represent gospel of Mark?

Who makes this claim?

Nimes · 12-15-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Good news.

But, now, what about the claim, sounds sort of convincing, that some fragments, only a few lines with only partial words visible, found among the dead sea scrolls, represent gospel of Mark?

Who makes this claim?

Sounds like the crackpot 7Q5 theory of Jose O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede to me.

avi · 12-15-2009, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Who makes this claim?

I don't know. I ran into this article on the internet a week or ten days ago, and thought too little of it to save it. Sorry. I had forgotten it until your post this morning....

found it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimes

Sounds like the crackpot 7Q5 theory of Jose O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede to me.

Yup...

avi

spin · 12-15-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimes

Sounds like the crackpot 7Q5 theory of Jose O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede to me.

Yup...

I don't think it's a crackpot theory so much as a good reason why some christian scholars are dangerous in their willful stupidity.

Let's look at this tiny fragment whose only complete word is "and" and take one of the supposed reconstructions in the text: δι[απερασαντες] meaning "to cross over" from two morphemes δια ("through") and περαν ("other side"). Made up of two common words there is nothing obscure about it, but 7Q5 doesn't have δι, it has τι. Now while in obscure words a writer may on occasion make a mistake and hearing it wrong supply a τ for a δ, to get something as basic as δια wrong is a ridiculous suggestion for a copying error. And naturally there is no variant in any of the manuscripts to support the error.

This is willful overlooking of a glaring error in the analysis -- one that suggests the desire to inject christianity into the Dead Sea Scrolls to give more solidity to ancient claims for the religion.

spin

avi · 12-15-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let's look at this tiny fragment whose only complete word is "and" and take one of the supposed reconstructions in the text: δι[απερασαντες] meaning "to cross over" from two morphemes δια ("through") and περαν ("other side"). Made up of two common words there is nothing obscure about it, but 7Q5 doesn't have δι, it has τι. Now while in obscure words a writer may on occasion make a mistake and hearing it wrong supply a τ for a δ, to get something as basic as δια wrong is a ridiculous suggestion for a copying error. And naturally there is no variant in any of the manuscripts to support the error.

Thank you. Very clear. Well written. Very instructive. Gets my vote for best post of the day!

avi

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-15-2009, 08:04 AM	#2
avi Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Location: eastern North America Posts: 1,468	Good news. But, now, what about the claim, sounds sort of convincing, that some fragments, only a few lines with only partial words visible, found among the dead sea scrolls, represent gospel of Mark?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.