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

RE: Secret Mark

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... !!! Wow--- Yuri, I didn t know you had been standing behind me while I did my reading... how curious that you presume to know what I do or do not know.
    Message 1 of 37 , Dec 2, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 11:02 AM 12/2/98 -0500, you wrote:


      >Jim, let's face it, you don't know the first thing about any of this, you
      >haven't read Smith's two books, and you're simply adding to popular
      >opinion that you love nothing more than sounding off with ill-considered
      >and provocative comments.

      !!! Wow--- Yuri, I didn't know you had been standing behind me while I did
      my reading... how curious that you presume to know what I do or do not
      know. Ill considered? Provocative? I thought that the Psychic Hotline had
      gone out of business-- but at least you, Yuri, are keeping busy with your
      own network of friends and reading other people's minds.

      >
      >I refuse to believe that there are any "respected, reputable scholars" who
      >would slander someone with zero evidence to back up such serious
      >accusations.

      I dont really care what you believe or not.

      >It is impossible that Smith could have pulled off such a complicated
      >forgery and managed to fool every Clementine scholar in the world. Smith
      >was never a Clementine scholar himself. You're talking sci-fi, Jim.

      No- I leave the science fiction to those who claim some ancient document
      without ever producing it... kinda like Joseph Smith and the Golden tablets
      or Moroni...

      >
      >> Those who have this alleged ms are kindly asked to produce it so that it
      >> can be examined.
      >
      >Now, this is just silly. The ms belongs to the Greek Orthodox monastic
      >order. What, do you expect me to steal it so that I can "produce it" for
      >you?

      Why is it silly Yuri? Oh, I suppose then that if I say that I have secret
      Mark you will take me at my word, and not bother asking to see it... Most
      curious really as I have always considered the strong point of Biblical
      Studies to be the fact that Scholars sought to verify the claims of others.
      I suppose, however, that scholarship is now about something else- at least
      for you.

      >
      >If you knew anything about this subject, you would realize that these
      >Markan fragments are actually arguing _against_ Smith's own favourite
      >theories. The apparent Markan expansions that are contained in this ms
      >seem like secondary additions to the gospel tradition. So then most of
      >this gnostic initiation stuff was late, and did not go back to the
      >Historical Jesus, in spite of Smith's wishes that it would.
      >

      Blah, blah, blah. This is all totally irrelevant. It has nothing to do
      with the supposed ms under discussion.

      >My general observation, Jim, is your apparent lack of concern about
      >ethical norms. You appear to put yourself above generally accepted rules
      >of moral behaviour. I'm asking you to produce one shred of evidence for
      >your extreme accusations against a respected scholar. Is this because
      >Prof. Smith passed away that you feel free to discredit his name so
      >gratuitously?
      >

      I am not doing any such thing and you know it. I am asking that those who
      claim a document exists show it. Why is that so hard for you to understand
      Yuri? Show us the document, and I will gladly admit its existence. If you
      fail to produce it I can only assume that it does not exist and the whole
      theory is a bunch of crap.

      >Regards,
      >
      >Yuri.

      Best,

      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.