University of Chicago Analysis: Archaic Mark is a Forgery

Looks like Stephen Carlson was right.[Carlson has also charged that a text known as “Secret Mark” is a forgery – see here.] From this article:

The Divinity School’s Margaret M. Mitchell, together with experts in micro-chemical analysis and medieval bookmaking, has concluded that one of the University Library’s most enigmatic possessions is a forgery.

7 thoughts on “University of Chicago Analysis: Archaic Mark is a Forgery

  1. For a moment I thought that Secret Mark had been finally found. Unfortunately (for me) all that effort of Margaret M. Mitchell and her team seem to have been directed to the so-called Archaic Mark which, though interesting in its own, is not the same as the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark.

  2. @Timo S. Paananen: The article notes the work of Stephen Carlson in this regard (he wrote the recent book charging that Secret Mark was a forgery), so it appears to me that Secret Mark and Archaic Mark refer to the same text. If not, please let me know.

  3. @Timo S. Paananen: I just checked; I had not realized they were different texts, and so I have corrected the post – thanks!

  4. You’re welcome. Actually, reading your post the first thing in the morning, with a coffee cup in my hand, I got at first a great numbness spreading through my body, my vision blacking out, thinking that they had the missing manuscript in Chicago all this time – good thing I didn’t drop the coffee.

    Gave me a chuckle afterwards. (Many of your posts in this blog do, since you cover such amusing field – keep it up!)

  5. Please direct me to the paleo dept. I would like to talk to the Hadrosauridae person.
    Peter Torres

Comments are closed.