DramaQ

From: The Secret Gospel of Mark http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/secmk.htm

Your “Case #6� (the “he comes to Jericho� bit), which you state “Smith was aware of“ PLUS the “four other� parallels makes FIVE places where Smith pointed out the WP text. Even if his parallels are “weak� as you put it, the point is that Smith DID mention them. Therefore he KNEW Clement was using WP text and demonstrated it.

I counted FOUR examples of DIRECT parallels:

1. “_the door_ of the tomb�
2. “The word "immediately" is used twice in the SMk.�
3. ... and, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus, _and says_ to him
4. _Son of David, have mercy on me_

Plus your Case #5 “Similarly to the Secret Mark, in the Magdalene Gospel there's also a closer relationship between Jesus and Lazarus�

I acknowledge and cover your Case #5 in my third point. This is not language but a character parallel.

I already pointed out above that your Case #6 is something Smith “was aware of�.

That means between Smith and you there were NINE “DIRECT� language parallels. Smith was aware of 5 and you found four more. PLUS the “special relationship�.

I haven’t “rushed� to find any forgery (yet). All I’ve done is read your explanation of why a forgery would be “impossible� and explain why I disagree with it.

Not just “all sorts� of “could have beens�. “Could have beens� that actually COULD HAVE BEEN. That’s all I HAVE to do. YOU’RE the one saying that no alternative explanation can possibly exist to explain the facts and that therefore forgery is “impossible�. I’m saying “Sure there are other explanations.�

It’s that sarcasm you imbue your writing with, Yuri, that makes it such a pleasure to argue with you.

Pray tell, WHY would “you say� it’s “completely impossible� that Smith could have used the Magdalene Gospel.

Maybe because he “didn’t like it�?

Well I’m not sure what “wild tales� I’ve “spun� but hopefully you won’t do me the humiliation of ignoring me before clearing up these points of contention….

dq

Yuri Kuchinsky

Where's your plausible scenario of how such a forgery could have been produced, DQ?

If you want to argue for forgery, then you need to present a plausible scenario. Otherwise, you're just wasting time here.

I've only discovered the Magdalene Gospel because of the studies by Quispel, Petersen, and especially Boismard. All of them were published well after SecMk was discovered. Smith had no benefit of such studies.

Yuri.

DramaQ

Whew! This Merry-go-round is making me dizzy. This is where I step off.

Well finally we can agree on something, Yuri.

DQ, Over and out.