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

Re: Re Secret Mark

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... Because, to me, making a claim that a ms exists, and is authentic, but failing to show it to somebody, is insufficient. If we operated on these lines all
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 2, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:56 AM 12/2/98 +0100, you wrote:

      >Why do you always make these comments?

      Because, to me, making a claim that a ms exists, and is authentic, but
      failing to show it to somebody, is insufficient. If we operated on these
      lines all the time then folk could say things like-- "I have a 1st century
      copy of John- in its entirety- and I can date it to the year 39". Who would
      believe it without seeing it? And why would they believe it unless it
      supported some pet theory?

      >Almost all scholars have accepted the Clement letter to be genuine!

      Almost is not the same as every.

      >The main question today is, where the cited Gospel-fragments belong to. The
      >majority view is, that it is a later addition, but there's also a strong
      >minority group (Koester et al.) who see SecMark to be prior to cMk.
      >What are your arguments?

      My arguments are simple-- show us the ms. Without it all we have is wind in
      the air. Flatulent wind at that. If one cannot produce a ms- I cannot
      imagine anyone saying its real much less authentic!

      To be even more straightfoward- if atheists can argue that God does not
      exist on the basis of the fact that God cannot be found anywhere- then why
      should the existence of ms fare better? Why should a ms receive the
      privilege of acknowledgement while God does not?

      All I ask- if you say the thing exists- show it to me. If you do- I will
      agree with you. If you dont- how can I agree with something that does not
      exist?

      >The manuscript is said to be in Jerusalem. I don't understand, why there's
      >nobody in the world going to look for it. I really don't understand that!
      >Jack? Scan in decorative references!

      I can tell you why no one is looking- because there is nothing to look for.
      Otherwise someone- somewhere, would be looking.

      >
      >Best wishes
      > Wieland

      Best to you, and Happy Advent.

      Jim

      ++++++++++++++++++++++
      Jim West, ThD
      Quartz Hill School of Theology
      jwest@...
    • Jim West
      ... Mark, I am standing on the station platform! best, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 2, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 03:34 PM 12/2/98 +0000, you wrote:

        >
        >Perhaps, Jim, you will be hopping on the Farrer train soon?
        >
        >; )
        >
        >Mark

        Mark,

        I am standing on the station platform!

        best,

        Jim

        ++++++++++++++++++++++
        Jim West, ThD
        Quartz Hill School of Theology
        jwest@...
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... Perhaps, Jim, you will be hopping on the Farrer train soon? ; ) Mark ... Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 2, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On 2 Dec 98 at 8:31, Jim West wrote:

          > My arguments are simple-- show us the ms. Without it all we have is wind in
          > the air. Flatulent wind at that. If one cannot produce a ms- I cannot
          > imagine anyone saying its real much less authentic!

          Perhaps, Jim, you will be hopping on the Farrer train soon?

          ; )

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... I can understand Jim s frustration when an important ms is unavailable. We knew that certain Dead Sea Scrolls existed for 50 years, that they had been
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 2, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Wieland Willker wrote:
            >
            > > 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.
            >
            > Why do you always make these comments?
            > Almost all scholars have accepted the Clement letter to be genuine!
            > The main question today is, where the cited Gospel-fragments belong to. The
            > majority view is, that it is a later addition, but there's also a strong
            > minority group (Koester et al.) who see SecMark to be prior to cMk.
            > What are your arguments?
            > The manuscript is said to be in Jerusalem. I don't understand, why there's
            > nobody in the world going to look for it. I really don't understand that!
            > Jack? Scan in decorative references!

            I can understand Jim's frustration when an important ms is
            unavailable.
            We knew that certain Dead Sea Scrolls existed for 50 years, that they
            had
            been photographed (like Clement's letter) and catalogued but no one was
            allowed to see them.

            We do, at least, have photographs of Clement's Epistle to Theodore
            which
            is more than we had for MMT. The Mar Saba Monastery acknowledges the
            existence of the ms and that it had been turned over to the
            Patriarchate.
            The Patriarchate acknowledges the ms and if no one else has attempted
            to do so, I will knock on their door the next time I am in Israel which
            I hope will be the Spring.

            What do the photographs show us? They show three pages of a letter
            written in a very hurried but fluid 18th century hand. The fluidity
            of the hand is enough to tell any handwriting expert that there is
            no forcing, pauses or deliberations to indicate the letter is a forgery.

            The only conclusion from the photographs is that the 18th century
            copyist hurriedly preserved the text of another manuscript in the
            end papers of the 1646 book. The photographs are, after all, the
            next best thing to seeing the original and those photographs are of
            a ms that was not forced or forged, is in an 18th century hand and
            was certainly not penned by Morton Smith...period.

            99.99% of all scholars will never see this ms just as 99.99% of all
            scholars have never seen P52.

            Next is the matter of style which is clearly Clementine. That
            didn't come from Dr. Smith either. 90% of the forensics can be
            done with the photos.

            Jack
            --
            ______________________________________________

            taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

            Jack Kilmon
            jkilmon@...

            http://www.historian.net
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.