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

Re: [textualcriticism] Morton Smith's Mar Saba Mark Secret

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Gie Vleugels To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Morton Smith s Mar Saba Mark
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 21 10:39 AM
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 7:48 AM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Morton Smith's Mar Saba Mark Secret

      <<In the fall, he [Peter Jeffery] will publish a new book entitled, "The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery." In it, he argues that an alleged fragment of the "Secret Gospel of Mark," supposedly discovered by a Columbia professor, is fake.
          "This guy in about 1973 published a text that said ... Jesus initiated his disciples through acts of homosexual intercourse," which caused a great deal of controversy but was never either refuted or proven by scholars, Jeffery said.
          Jeffery, however, approached the text from his perspective as a musical historian and conclusively refuted it. Because "everything it says about the early Christian liturgy is utterly nonsensical, it can't be made to fit into the history," he said.
          Jeffery said that it took more than 30 years to debunk the text because the study of rituals is complicated, involving a high degree of non-textual interpretation.>>
      I'm eager to read an evaluation by Wieland ...

      On 4/21/06, goranson@... <goranson@...> wrote:
      Stephen Carlson, author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret
      Mark (2005), notes a book forthcoming in September 2006: The Secret Gospel of
      Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical
      Forgery, by Peter Jeffery, Yale U.P.
      At amazon, Prof. Adela Yarbro Collins, a careful scholar, wrote: "Peter
      Jeffery's book proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Morton Smith forged the
      discovered text. It demonstrates that he had the scholarly expertise, the wit,
      the sense of humor, and above all the motivation to do so."

      Stephen Goranson

      I have a lot of respect for Stephen...actually BOTH of you Stephens...but that transcription of Clement's letter to Theodore in the fly leaf pages of the Voss book was done in the 18th century....but I will still refrain from such terminology as "beyond a reasonable doubt" since it is an unscholarly, unacademic, unscientific phrase in the assessment of this issue where the "evidence" for Morton Smith being a "hack" is totally subjective and does not even rise to the circumstantial.
      As I stated on this list almost exactly a year ago:
      First, I think the biggest problem is the term "forgery."  A forgery (in
      writing) is an attempt to duplicate a hand and/or signature.  This is not
      what the person who wrote this document on the flyleaves of Voss' book was
      doing.  The original text of Clement's letter could easily have been in an
      uncial hand.  What I am looking at is a COPY in a Phanariot minuscule hand
      with its "legalistic" shorthandedness, ligatures and flourishes.  Criteria
      for forgeries, such as lack of fluency and rhythm, slow broken strokes,
      "tremors" and retouching and blunt beginning and ending strokes and frequent
      pen rests are not there and do not apply.  This hand has fluency and rhythm.
      There are smooth unbroken strokes and rounded forms with delicate pressure
      at beginning and ending strokes.  I have no reason to believe that Morton
      Smith was accustomed to writing fluently, normally and rhthmically in a
      Phanariot Greek hand.  This is a hurried hand which conforms in my mind to a
      librarian attempting to preserve something he thought important and was
      probably ordered to destroy, much like Kallistos was ordered to do the same
      thing to the copy.  In a legitimate copy of the original, a "tremor" can
      form where the copyist pauses to check back to the exemplar and there may be
      an occasional pen rest.  I also see foxing that occurred between 1642 and
      the time of the writing and also foxing that occurred afterward that
      interferes with the writing....at least so it appears from both the Smith
      and Hedrick photos.

      This document is not a forgery, it is a handwritten copy.  There is a big
      As Jim West just posted on XTalk (I am sure he won't mind):
      *begin quote*

      Everyone should watch HTR for an article forthcoming by Scott Brown that
      debunks Carlson's assessment of Secret Mark as forgery by Smith.  If you
      have not seen his book Mark's Other Gospel. Rethinking Morton Smith's
      Controversal Discovery (Wilfrid Laurier Press, 2005), it is worth a look
      before rushing to judgment on Clement's letter.  Most of Carlson's
      evidence for the letter being Smith's forgery was less than circumstantial.
      Charles Hedrick

      *end quote*

      Jack Kilmon
      San Marcos, Texas

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.