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.

Technorati Tags: ,

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. 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!)

Comments on this (old) blog are closed. To comment on this post, go to the new blog location and search for your post: http://drmsh.com/paleobabble/