Re: Re Secret Mark
- 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. TheMy arguments are simple-- show us the ms. Without it all we have is wind in
>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 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
>The manuscript is said to be in Jerusalem. I don't understand, why there'sI can tell you why no one is looking- because there is nothing to look for.
>nobody in the world going to look for it. I really don't understand that!
>Jack? Scan in decorative references!
Otherwise someone- somewhere, would be looking.
>Best to you, and Happy Advent.
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
- At 03:34 PM 12/2/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Perhaps, Jim, you will be hopping on the Farrer train soon?
I am standing on the station platform!
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
- 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 inPerhaps, Jim, you will be hopping on the Farrer train soon?
> the air. Flatulent wind at that. If one cannot produce a ms- I cannot
> imagine anyone saying its real much less authentic!
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
- Wieland Willker wrote:
>I can understand Jim's frustration when an important ms is
> > 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!
We knew that certain Dead Sea Scrolls existed for 50 years, that they
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
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
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.
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon