Roger Pearse

Thank you for the link to this extremely interesting article, which articulates very well -- and politely -- the unease we all have with a document where the manuscript was only ever seen by the discoverer.

I was interested to learn from it that Solomon Zeitlin attacked the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yuri Kuchinsky

I have already proven that the Secret Gospel of Mark fragments could not have been a modern forgery.

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

So far, nobody has found anything wrong with my arguments.

As to Ehrman's critique of this MS, I have read his most recent contribution to the subject in THE JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES ("Response to Charles Hedrick's Stalemate", Volume 11, Number 2, Summer 2003), so I assume that this would be an updated version of what he wrote in his book. He gives no evidence at all that the MS may be a modern forgery. All he can do is cast suspicions, and demonstrate his paranoia. At first, I was going to write a response to Ehrman's article, but then I just realised that the new textual evidence that I've now discovered has already made it clear that his suspiciousness was misplaced in this case.

All the best,

Yuri.

Haran

Yes. This is a scholarly book as well. But I don't have to completely agree with everything he writes do I?

His scholarship is top-notch, but I don't always agree with his conclusions.

Haran

Actually, I thought Ehrman addressed some similar claims to those that you make, like the paleography, etc. He does not believe, nor do I, that it would be impossible for a highly intelligent scholar to forge such a script. And with the help of other books could have easily forged the contents of the letter itself as well. And he had unfettered access to the library where the book containing the MS find was located...

Ehrman mentions how ironic it is that Smith dedicated one of his books on SGM to Nock (a scholar who did not think the MS was authentic) and the other to "The one who knows"... Hmm... Ehrman also points out some interesting and ironic things concerning the contents of the last few pages of the Voss edition (specifically the text at the end of the book right before SGM begins on the blank pages at the end of the book). Could Smith have been leaving a trail of sorts on purpose...or even by accident?

Just too many strange and ironic coincidences following a man who expressed in writing his curiousity and annoyance at how scholars could take information and twist it to suit their own views and theories...

Haran

There might be more in one of Smith's books about the discovery. Don't know when I can, but I'll see if I can find some more information.

anti-X

The "wholely bable" is all a forgery!

Haran

Intelligent contribution... Thanks...

Yuri Kuchinsky

Haran,

I was referring to the new textual evidence that I've discovered in a variety of Western/Peripheral texts, as described in my long article. This has nothing to do with palaeography.

Quote:

He does not believe, nor do I, that it would be impossible for a highly intelligent scholar to forge such a script. And with the help of other books could have easily forged the contents of the letter itself as well. And he had unfettered access to the library where the book containing the MS find was located...

I only see a bunch of wouldas and couldas here so far...

Quote:

Ehrman mentions how ironic it is that Smith dedicated one of his books on SGM to Nock (a scholar who did not think the MS was authentic) and the other to "The one who knows"... Hmm... Ehrman also points out some interesting and ironic things concerning the contents of the last few pages of the Voss edition (specifically the text at the end of the book right before SGM begins on the blank pages at the end of the book). Could Smith have been leaving a trail of sorts on purpose...or even by accident? Just too many strange and ironic coincidences following a man who expressed in writing his curiousity and annoyance at how scholars could take information and twist it to suit their own views and theories...

Yes, that's about it... That's what Ehrman's whole article basically amounted to, a big web of speculation, that some may describe as a bit paranoid...

But OTOH what I did was present some pretty good textual evidence that makes it all but impossible for this MS to be a modern forgery.

The fact that Ehrman and all his pals missed all that textual evidence up to now is just one more indication of their collective ignorance in regard to the Western/Peripheral and Aramaic textual tradition.

Regards,

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

Yes, that would be classic forger behavior. Remember, the forger is like a serial killer, who gets off on fooling the Establishment, whether it be police (in the psycho's case) or the scholars.

I've always felt in my gut it was a fake by Morton Smith (said so before). Sorry, Yuri, but I just don't accept those "He couldna dunnit" arguments. They always founder on the reality of the forger's creativity and audacity.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

See what I mean . . . no controversy whatsoever. . . .

--J.D.