Peter Kirby

Haran, you suggest that one "read his doctoral thesis and then his later works." Which thesis are you talking about? Is it Palestinian parties and politics that shaped the Old Testament, revised in 1971 from his 1957 Harvard thesis? Do I have to find the original edition in order for the comparison to work? Has someone already done the work of comparing Smith's work before and after Mar Saba and outlining the evidence that points to a conclusion?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

This was your mistake (and mine to). I note Jack Kilmon's page on SGM refuses to countenance forgery which is interesting given his vocal support of the ossuary. Perhaps we need to be less trusting. Without any analysis of Smith's discoverary there is no solid evidence it is not fake.

We know it is possible to produce a letter in Clementine style (even though not all were convinced) so the question does not arise in the context of whether or not it is real. Like the palaeo this cannot prove authenticity. The circumstantial evidence damns Smith and nothing else is required.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Peter Kirby

Bede, do you accept the circumstantial evidence that points to Eusebius as the author of the Testimonium? Why or why not?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

I accept completely that the Testamonium is a forgery, just a rather earlier one than SGM. As for Eusebius, what circumstantial evidence? I've never seen any. I've just seen assertions built on misquotes from Gibbon and something that Layman completely demolished.

SGM has never been seen by a single scholar apart from Smith. It has been subject to no testing beyond subjective and subvertable questions of style, it has mysteriously disappeared and no one seems to be able to find it, it tied in with Smith's existing work (as he admitted in the CBQ reply) and it has no provenance whatsoever.

Yours

Bede

Bede's LIbrary - faith and reason

Haran

Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (JBL Monograph Series VI, 1951). If you don't have time to read it but can find it, Cf. especially, p. 155f. Also Cf. pp. xii, 16, 24, 47, 71f., 73, 110, 111 n. 18, 116f., 125.

Or, follow the footnotes in the CBQ articles I recently posted by Quesnell to find this and some of Smith's other works.

There is a difference between actually declaring something a forgery (which is really best done only with evidence) and believing that something probably is a forgery. As I said ealier, I can't claim 100% certainty that SGM is a forgery, but the circumstantial evidence definitely seems to point that way (as Bede points out, I too see lots of similarities to the James ossuary). It is very unfortunate that no one seems to have been able to find the MS since its first discovery years ago. Maybe someone will and tests can then be done.

Yuri seems to think that many are just too lasy to go look for the MS. I love to travel! If he'd send me, I'd search the library myself. 'Course there'd be the added problem of being approved for a visit by the patriarchate... (oh yeah, and the added fact that a Christian would be the one finding it again and who knows what a Christian would do with the evidence before he gave it to anyone else to examine... )

Haran

I'm also curious. Lead by what?

Have you read Quesnell? Have you read Smith's doctoral thesis, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels? Have you read his other works.

If I find the time, there was one particular story in one of his books that I'd love to recount here. It had something to do with other scholars being gullible and bending anything toward their own theories and how this intrigued him. I could be wrong about the exact wording on that because of my bias, so I'll have to see if I can find it at some point.

Haran

I read it a while back. I feel that Smith's own rhetoric and interests combined to form motive and the skills were most likely there. I simply don't agree with you that it would have been an impossibly difficult thing to do. I think Morton Smith, himself, mentioned that the style of the Marcan portion was more Marcan that Mark. Mark is not hard to emulate (and saying that he had to write "two SecMk gospel fragments" is overstating the case - he only had be able to reproduce Mark's style - you know... say "and immediately" several times and such ).

As to the Clement part, this would probably have been more difficult, but in the article I link to above, Quesnell pointed out that it would have been relatively easy. In fact, I think a comparison could be made between the way that Rahmani's Catalog of Ossuaries was possibly used to create the James ossuary and then later used in attempting to authenticate it, Stalin's critical edition of Clement's works could have been used to forge SGM and then later used to authenticate it.

Doesn't seem impossible to me, especially given the seeming motive. I doubt you'll agree. It depends on how you look at the data. You seem to think it would be near impossible to have forged. I do not.

Vorkosigan

Haran, how come it is so difficult to get permission to work with the manuscripts?

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky

I don't know who said what (and personally I've never said a word on the subject of the Ossuary, although by now it's perfectly clear it's a fake), but in general, I maintain that the Ossuary story and the SecMk story are fundamentally two different stories. The big difference is that we're talking about handwriting vs. a carving.

Please keep in mind that your signature on a check is considered as irrefutable evidence that you signed this check. A carving of your name on stone OTOH is something that any trained stonemason can do. It's a proof of nothing.

So now are you telling us that Smith wrote a whole essay with a pen, and nobody can figure out it was in his own handwriting? This, my friend, is absurd.

It's these sorts of absurdities that Smith's enemies are richly distinguished by.

Quote:

Jack Kilmon I think, on Crosstalk who does know his stuff.

In my books, Jack Kilmon has zero credibility. He knows very little about the Old Syriac Aramaic, which is my main interest, and he even admitted so himself. He has no formal credentials in biblical studies whatsoever. So why should anyone take him seriously at all?

His main distinction seems to be that, himself being Jewish, he runs interference for the Crosstalk-L crew of obnoxious censors, whose interests are strongly in the "Jesus the Greek" direction. So here's this self-described "Aramaicist" whose main contribution appears to be in helping to cover up ancient Jewish-Christianity, and the Semitic textual tradition of the gospels. For example, Mr. Kilmon has made a tremendous effort over the years in various Internet forums to dismiss the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and to discourage its further study.

Quote:

And he was very, very wrong indeed.

Couldn't have happened to a better guy... [big evil grin]

But of course, this doesn't come to me as a total surprise. For those folks who are unfamiliar with Mr. Kilmon's hijinks, he's actually a staunch defender of the Turin Shroud... has been doing it for years!

I'm not kidding ya! Don't believe me? Ask him yourself, and he'll fill you in how from his "scientific" viewpoint, the SHROUD IS THE REAL THING!!!

Quote:

To put it SGM together you need the Clementine concordance, someone familar with 18th century Greek writing, some tracing paper and ink. And plenty of time.

Well, go ahead and do it. You'll probably make 100 mistakes and will be ridiculed by everyone within a day after making your effort public.

Yuri.

Haran

I suppose it depends on who is trying to get permission. You and I would have a more difficult time than a scholar with legitimate study on an issue. It is probably because MSS are fragile and susceptible to the environment, which is why many of them are stored away in some sort of controlled environment. Many are not, so access to them is controlled so that people without a legitimate claim to be looking at them don't mess them up in some way. It is frustrating from my point of view since I would like to see more of them, but it is understandable.

I have had a chance to view the NT papyrus that resides here in Dallas. I was allowed to take the MS, sandwiched between pieces of glass, to a table in order to examine it and was given a decent amount of time to do so with someone watching over me. I believe the library has stopped allowing people to look at it now unless they are a scholar. When in Washington DC some time ago, I went to see Codex Washintonensis (or however it is spelled) and almost got the chance to except that I had to leave before the guy got back who could take me to it. I may go back sometime.