Another
writer has compiled an image of the new fragment
from the Gospel of Mark along side the text from the
Codex Sinaiticus:
Here is how
these passages (Mk 5:15-18) line up in the Codex
Sinaiticus:
καιηρχοντοπροϲ
τονινκαιθεωρου
ϲιτονδαιμονιζο
μενονκαθημε
νονϊματιϲμενο
καιϲωφρονουν
τατονεϲχηκοτα
τονλεγιωνακαιε
φοβηθηϲαν
καιδιηγηϲαντο
αυτοιϲοιϊδοντεϲ
πωϲεγενετοτω
δαιμονιζομενω
καιπεριτωνχοι
ρωνκαιηρξαντο
παρακαλιναυτο
απελθιναποτω
οριωναυτων
καιεμβαινοντοϲ
αυτουειϲτοπλοιο
παρεκαλειαυτο
John,
ReplyDeleteD.M. Murdock is a highly unreliable source, with a terrible record, and her article makes many absurd claims. I see no reason to trust her reconstruction based on an alleged image of the fragment. It’s tremendously unlikely that the image is authentic, and I wouldn’t trust Murdock’s analysis even if the image were genuine.
Hi Jason, I noted in my comment on your post that she was a skeptic. (My unstated point there being that some people do know the issues, even if Christians don't).
ReplyDeleteBut if the original photo is a photo of the papyrus, the rest of the graphic (comparing Codex Sinaiticus) then seems to be correct.
True, the original photo of the fragment wasn't sourced, but it didn't seem unlikely to me that the Green Collection would have these fragments on display, and that someone would have a photo of it at this point.
John,
ReplyDeleteIt's unlikely that a photograph would have been unintentionally released, and so early, by such reputable people who have been so successful in limiting the release of information so far. It's even more unlikely that such a photograph would be acquired by somebody who would post it on Facebook. It's still more unlikely that the person who acquired it and publicized it in that manner would then leave it so much in the hands of people like D.M. Murdock and her associates to further publicize it. Then there are the problems with the image itself. The fragment is suspiciously clear. It's suspiciously smooth around the edges. There are a lot of problems with the image and its supposed origins, and Murdock's analysis is problematic on many other levels.