Over the last couple of weeks, I have been engaged in a deep investigation into the textual history of the Bible. This is not the first time I have done so—over the last 30 plus years I have devoted weeks of study into this issue about every 5 years—but this occasion has added some details/elements that were missing from all my previous endeavors.
This first post of my new series on the Bible’s textual history will focus on one of those new elements: a proven forgery—beyond any reasonable doubt—of a purported archaic New Testament manuscript of Mark’s gospel that had been embraced and promoted by some of the most prominent textual scholars of the twentieth century as authentic; and they did so for decades.
The manuscript of which I speak was purchased by the University of Chicago circa 1937-1941 for an undisclosed amount from one Gregory Vlastos, a nephew of John Askitopoulos—an Athenian collector and dealer of antiquities—who had died in 1917. (See this article for more details.)
This manuscript was catalogued into the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection under number MS 972; it was subsequently registered as Gregory-Aland 2427, and became known as the "Archaic Mark."
Two of the highest level New Testament textual scholars, Kurt and Barbara Aland, had for a number decades accepted the antiquity of “Archaic Mark" (MS 972/ Gregory-Aland 2427). In their celebrated The Text of the New Testament (English ed. 1987/1989) they dated the manuscript to the 'fourteenth' century, and placed it into the "category I" documents grouping (p. 135/1987; p. 137/1989). Concerning the "category I" documents, they wrote:
Category I: Manuscripts of a very special quality which should always be considered in establishing the original text (e.g., the Alexandrian text belongs here). [p. 155/1987; p. 159/1989.]
In the XXVII edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, Wikgren - 1993), the manuscript is referenced in the critical apparatus at least once on every page of the 'ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΑΝ' (pp. 88-149).*
Clearly a number of New Testament textual scholars placed a high degree of value on the "Archaic Mark" manuscript. However, that all changed in the early twenty-first century. Back on November 4, 2009 Tommy Wasserman published the online article, Archaic Mark (Greg.-Aland 2427): A Story of a Modern Forgery (LINK). He provides an excellent summary of why the manuscript is now considered by scholars to be a forgery.
My current textual studies have raised a question: are there other possible forgeries of Biblical manuscripts that scholars have also misjudged? More on this in upcoming posts on this series, the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
*The XXVIII edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (2012) has completely removed any reference to the Gregory-Aland 2427 manuscript.
No comments:
Post a Comment