Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Secret Mark

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... I don t know who Jeff is making reference to- but there are lots of respected, reputable scholars who think the whole Secret Mark saga is a horrid joke
    Message 1 of 37 , Dec 1, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:30 AM 12/1/98 -0700, you wrote:
      >FWIW Department: at SBL I visited with a widely respected senior scholar
      >well acquainted with Morton Smith who offered the unsolicited opinion that
      >(s)he found it quite believable that Smith fabricated the Mar Saba letter,
      >citing the Piltdown Man hoax for comparison. I don't feel at liberty to
      >disclose the scholar's identity as the statement was made in private, but
      >there were others involved in the conversation so I wasn't the only
      >witness. This is certainly one of the most curious episodes in the modern
      >study of early Christianity.
      >
      >Jeff


      I don't know who Jeff is making reference to- but there are lots of
      respected, reputable scholars who think the whole "Secret Mark" saga is a
      horrid joke perpetrated against scholarship. They are right. Those who
      have this alleged ms are kindly asked to produce it so that it can be examined.

      Jim

      ++++++++++++++++++++++
      Jim West, ThD
      Quartz Hill School of Theology
      jwest@...
    • Philip B. Lewis
      Jack Kilmon s speculation today about the motives of the Patriarchate for squirreling away the famous Clenetine letter prompt me to add another consideration
      Message 37 of 37 , Dec 10, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Jack Kilmon's speculation today about the motives of the Patriarchate for
        "squirreling away" the famous Clenetine letter prompt me to add another
        consideration to the ms interest,

        First, I have no doubt that M. Smith discovered a real document. And I
        would not question the judgment of those who had seen the PHOTOGRAPHS Smith
        provided, that the letter was authentically Clement's. That said:

        Has anyone done a study of the photographic film/plates used? Was it
        orthochromatic or panchromatic? How was it developed? In what solution?
        What lens/camera was used? What FILTRATION was used to make the record?
        From the photos of the document in my 1st edn _Secret Gospel_ the details
        are NOT that clear. It is clear that natural light was used for taking the
        photos. Anyone who has done any photocopying knows that filters HAD to be
        used to distinguish letters in a 200 year old volume. Note that the book
        print itself is quite legible; the copied pages leave something to be desired.

        This has nothing to do with Smith's integrity; I have never doubted it. It
        raises questions of how much of the bracketing [] Smith provided "to make
        the meaning clear" was necessary because of image-lacunae which can occur
        when copying is inexpertly done.

        Anyone able to provide the verification of the photographing process?

        -phil@...
        + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
        "History is the phenomenon living people invent
        and create to establish who they are
        based on what they think they were in the past."
        -- Linda Schele
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.