This is the picture circulating the blogosphere of what is supposed to be the earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Mark from the first century.
The earliest fragment of Mark?
James McGrath is withholding judgment, but he expresses skepticism.
Tim Henderson is skeptical as well.
John Byron has doubts.
You’ll find this response is consistent. In the meantime we wait for more details.
February 20, 2012 at 2:59 pm
That looks like it was drawn with a pencil by a first-semester Greek student.
February 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Agreed!
February 20, 2012 at 8:42 pm
I did manage to lose last week’s assignment. Oops. I wonder how big that actually is. Looks huge on the computer, but what if it’s only 2 inches high?!
February 21, 2012 at 7:45 am
it looks like a fake too me.
February 21, 2012 at 7:55 am
This “Markan manuscript” is most likely (51% sure) a practical joke. It originated from someone with the forum username “GodAlmighty.” He claims that his friend posted this pic on Facebook. Quote:
“A Facebook friend of mine posted a pic. He knows his Koine pretty well and he says it’s definitely from Mark 5:15-18. (GodAlmighty)
February 21, 2012 at 8:08 am
Having seen a fair share of manuscripts from the Judean desert, I’d give it a zero on the Richter scale, moreover the way that it’s displayed between two glass plates, sealed, is how things were done ca 70 yrs ago. And yes you are right, letters are too sharp, nothing whatsoever to suggest it’s old. It’s another one of those ‘movies’ we’ve seen before, try to get one person, just one person to say maybe and lo and behold there will be a news item and some sucker will buy it along with some debris from the Ark, Jesus nails whatever..
February 21, 2012 at 8:13 am
to me too… danggit
February 21, 2012 at 8:32 am
Tony
It is hard to tell by the picture.
Jim
Agreed.
A-P
If that is the origins then it’s no more than a practical joke.
Joe
Good insights. It does seem too crisp, too clean.
February 21, 2012 at 9:54 am
Although paleography and papyrology are not my main areas of study, I am currently working on a research project at the University of Minnesota involving the analysis of manuscripts from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri through the University of Oxford’s Ancient Lives project. I have been able to study the fundamentals of papyrology and Greek paleography, and I must say, that this fragment is without doubt a modern creation. One thing that betrays it being a counterfeit is the difference in letter style. Granted, antique manuscripts often contain numerous scribal hands, but the forger of this fragment has obviously overexploited that fact in his/her attempt to create the appearance of authenticity. For example, I see at least three uniquely-written “alphas” in this small fragment, each of which seems to have been consciously manipulated to appear as though they had been written by different scribes. Take a look at the “alphas” in lines 1, 6, and 8, and you can immediately see the differences to which I am referring. The “alpha” in line 8 has a very “s-like” spinal curvature whereas the “alpha” in line 6 is extremely straight, almost as though it were an inscribed epigraph; the “alpha” in line 1 also has somewhat of an “s-like” spinal curvature, but its “loop” is much fuller than those on the other “alphas.” Also, I actually cannot tell whether the fragment is made of parchment or papyrus, but the mottled-looking surface is not normal for very old (or new) animal skins, so I doubt it is parchment. If it is papyrus, it is very odd-looking to me as there are no “fray” marks that are usually present on antique papyrus manuscripts.
February 21, 2012 at 10:10 am
Correct and that should put an end to the discussion.
Pingback: The picture of the “Markan fragment” seems like a fraud. « Near Emmaus
Pingback: The picture of the “Markan fragment” seems like a fraud. « Near Emmaus
Pingback: The picture of the “Markan fragment” seems like a fraud. « Near Emmaus
Pingback: The picture of the “Markan fragment” seems like a fraud. « Near Emmaus
February 21, 2012 at 12:25 pm
I think we should make a clear distinction between the authenticity of the new Markan fragment Wallace mentioned, and whether or not this picture is a picture of that fragment.
February 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Just to state the obvious here… There is no good reason to believe that the manuscript in the photo is the one mentioned by Dan Wallace.
February 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm
LOL… I see that I posted at the same time as “jasondulle.” I hope people are aware of the distinction. Judging by some of the comments I’ve seen around the internet, many are not.
February 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Jason and Tim
I agree, this picture doesn’t necessarily represent whatever Wallace saw.
February 21, 2012 at 11:39 pm
People should be congratulated for the fantastic job they have done evaluating this photograph.
The power of the Internet for experts to evaluate exhibits is one of the reasons it exists.
Of course, the real fragment is being hidden away, so that nobody can evaluate it.
February 22, 2012 at 12:00 am
Reminds one of that Angel Scroll a few yrs back…no one ever saw it either and it faded away.
February 22, 2012 at 12:25 pm
@Steven: Agreed
@Joe: I’m not familiar with that piece. This type of thing seems like a popular hoax.
Pingback: The Oldest Manuscript of Mark? Round 3 « Euangelion Kata Markon
February 4, 2013 at 10:03 pm
I would really like to believe this is real, but come on. It is way too well preserved to be a first century fragment. While I am not an expert in greek or ancient documents, I do know enough greek to say that this looks like something I would have written. Could it be authentic? I guess so. But I really doubt it. I agree with the skeptical comments of most of the writers here.