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

recent "Secret Mark" claims

Expand Messages
  • goranson@duke.edu
    In the November-December Biblical Archaeology Review four articles address the question whether Morton Smith s Secret Mark manuscript is bogus or not. All
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      In the November-December Biblical Archaeology Review four articles address the
      question whether Morton Smith's "Secret Mark" manuscript is bogus or not. All
      four articles are written by staunch proponents of authenticity. Not
      surprisingly, BAR's claim of genuineness is unsatisfactory. It fails to
      present a balanced selection of facts, and it asserts as fact things which are
      not fact. For example, H. Shanks, attempting, weakly, to give the case for
      fraud, wrote (p. 51) that Smith "would also have to have sufficient knowledge
      of Latin to forge the Latin passage in the letter." But, there is no Latin
      passage in the Greek "letter."

      Another recent treatment, translating a thesis in the blog by Timo S. Paananen
      http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.com/
      curiously accuses Stephen Carlson's book of proposing a "conspiracy theory,"
      though conspiracy, by definition, includes plural conspirators, which Carlson
      did not posit.

      I welcome further research--including documented description of any other
      annotations in the Voss volume that may indicate where that book has been;
      including more JTS archive research (as Allan Pantuck and others have pursued);
      including investigation whether the putative monk scribe penned any other Mar
      Saba/Jerusalem mss; etc.

      Stephen Goranson
      http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
    • Jack Kilmon
      I don t know whether the 18th century librarian would have had other occasions to pen/quill an entire manuscript because I think this was a unique
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 31, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't know whether the 18th century librarian would have had other
        occasions to pen/quill an entire manuscript because I think this was a
        unique circumstance. The exemplar could have been the autograph or even a
        first generation copy of a Clement letter that he was ordered to destroy for
        the same reason the current Archimandrite "lost" the pages. Forensic
        examination of the pages themselves would have been the ideal solution to
        his problem with the manuscript. Surely he would have known that destroying
        the pages would give the manuscript a life he did not want it to have. Is
        it possible he KNEW the mss was authentic. Isn't that the only reason the
        pages were "lost?" I agree with you that finding other exemplars of the
        18th century librarian's hand in the Mar Saba monastery would settle the
        issue. Wouldn't these monks have kept inventories in the library records?

        My opinion is still for authenticity.

        Jack



        --------------------------------------------------
        From: <goranson@...>
        Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:28 AM
        To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [textualcriticism] recent "Secret Mark" claims

        > In the November-December Biblical Archaeology Review four articles address
        > the
        > question whether Morton Smith's "Secret Mark" manuscript is bogus or not.
        > All
        > four articles are written by staunch proponents of authenticity. Not
        > surprisingly, BAR's claim of genuineness is unsatisfactory. It fails to
        > present a balanced selection of facts, and it asserts as fact things which
        > are
        > not fact. For example, H. Shanks, attempting, weakly, to give the case for
        > fraud, wrote (p. 51) that Smith "would also have to have sufficient
        > knowledge
        > of Latin to forge the Latin passage in the letter." But, there is no Latin
        > passage in the Greek "letter."
        >
        > Another recent treatment, translating a thesis in the blog by Timo S.
        > Paananen
        > http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.com/
        > curiously accuses Stephen Carlson's book of proposing a "conspiracy
        > theory,"
        > though conspiracy, by definition, includes plural conspirators, which
        > Carlson
        > did not posit.
        >
        > I welcome further research--including documented description of any other
        > annotations in the Voss volume that may indicate where that book has been;
        > including more JTS archive research (as Allan Pantuck and others have
        > pursued);
        > including investigation whether the putative monk scribe penned any other
        > Mar
        > Saba/Jerusalem mss; etc.
        >
        > Stephen Goranson
        > http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >



        >
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.39/2470 - Release Date: 10/30/09
        > 15:18:00
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.