Toto

Hi Jay - you are making me sorry I brought this up. I am not in a position to personally research the details of Smith's sex life, which I do not think is dispositive in any case. But the statements of two reputable, liberal or radical academics are on the record, for whatever that is worth.

I think you are correct about how the Christian myth forms, but I don't know if it applies in this case or not. I do not think that whether Smith was gay, a closeted gay, or had repressed homosexual leanings (what percentage of the population does that cover anyway?) will solve the question of whether he forged Secret Mark - it might provide at most part of a motive, but Vorkosigan has written some more complex explanations of the psychology of forgers.

I threw in the link to the 365gay article for its quote on why being homosexual does not make the work suspect. I admit the author does not seem to know much about Smith.

ShadowMan

Cut and pasted from New Advent

DramaQ

It's my fault, Toto. I guess I started it. I wanted to point out that forgery couldn't be ruled out because the "only" motives for it didn't seem to apply to Smith. That there are motives other than fame and fortune.

I sure never intended it to turn into a debate about Smith's personal life, and I've never actually said that I think Smith was the forger. Only that he can't be excluded on the grounds of "insufficent motivation" because we DON'T know if he could have been so motivated.

Sheesh! I'm being clear as mud this morning, aren't I?

dq

Yuri Kuchinsky

I've explained already a few times why it's impossible that any forger could have produced such a forgery all by himself.

If this is a 20c forgery, then it's a product of a conspiracy. For which, unfortunately for you, there's no evidence whatsoever...

As to Smith being gay, AFAIK this is true. Which was of course why there were suspicions in certain circles (e.g. conservative Christians) that he was somehow involved in a forgery. But he could have never done it all by himself.

It's easy to make accusations about people, especially if they are not there to defend themselves. Anybody can do it... What distinguishes a serious researcher from a scurrilous accuser is that a serious researcher actually does take time to study the evidence. Furthermore, for anyone who wants to make a legitimate accusation that X is a forgery, the onus is on this person to present a plausible scenario of how such a forgery could have been produced. Hence the need to study the evidence.

OTOH if you don't feel the need to study the evidence, and you don't have any plausible scenario of how X may have been forged, and yet you still want to accuse some individual of being a forger, then I'd say this comes uncomfortably close to scurrilous accusation and rumour mongering. This is just a form of McCarthyism AFAIAC, especially what with the insinuation that if someone was gay then of course he was a liar and a cheat, who can never be trusted about anything.

Yours,

Yuri.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Yuri,

You're right that we need to come up with plausible means for the forgery to prove it a forgery. Still, Smith's sexual orienttion in this case is relevent before we even get to that step.

In all cases of identifying a writer, we need to look at both motive and opportunity. If a writer does not have the motive or opportunity than it is ridiculous to attribute a work to a writer. On the other hand, once we establish a potential motive, the opportunity becomes the sole question.

Let us look at a hypothetical example of a researcher finding a text showing that Jesus was actually born in Egypt. Ordinarily the nationality of the researcher would be quite unimportant. However, if the nationality happens to be Egyptian, we immediately see a motive for forgery and must look most carefully if the person had the means/opportunity. Bringing out the possible motive connection does not mean that we are saying that all Egyptians are liars and forgers. We are only saying that the ideal impatiality of the discoverer to the discovery has been compromised. Now it is possible that the find is legitimate and it is just coincidental that the writer who found the text was Egyptian, but we have to keep in mind that we now have a possilbe motive (nationalism) which we wouldn' have if the investigaor was Chinese for instance.

Can you tell us the evidence that Smith was gay and why you believe it to be true. Thanks.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Jay,

This is what I've been told personally by some people who seemed to know.

But I think your focus on Smith and his personality really misses the point.

I think I've demonstrated quite clearly that if SMk was a 20c forgery, then it had to have been a conspiracy. And it was certainly a highly sophisticated "forgery", since it fooled so many competent scholars in so many different fields.

Thus, a highly sophisticated conspiracy, probably involving numerous participants, and possibly also backed by some rogue Masons, or something... A conspiracy that should have taken many years to plan, to prepare, and to execute...

Now, just ask yourself, if such was indeed the case, then why would the conspirators (even if Smith was himself a key player) risk their whole massive enterprise with a "discoverer" such as Smith? (Assuming it was a fact well known among his colleagues that he was gay.)

Why not appoint as the "discoverer" someone else, even if it was some old monk in the monastery, or something, who would be beyond reproach? Surely such a sophisticated group of conspirators would be able to find a more suitable "discoverer" for such a document -- whose sexuality would never be a factor at all?

So, if you ask me, supposing Smith was gay, then this should be seen as an argument against forgery!

Best,

Yuri

DramaQ

I understand why YOU think it would require a conspiracy to produce the forgery. My problem is that you hold up this notion as fact, then treat anyone who suspects Secret Mark as being a forgery as some sort of “conspiracy theorist�.

I am not yet convinced Secret Mark is real AND I AM NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST. Therefore, the lack of any evidence of a conspiracy is in no way “unfortunate� for me, because I do not have a conspiracy theory that needs support.

I don’t know if Smith was gay or not. I never said he was. I don’t know how you could ever know that.

All I did was suggest a motive SOME forger might have had (other than fame and fortune).

You’re absolutely right that we need to be sure to study the evidence to the fullest. And I intend to acquaint myself with your work completely before making another comment.

However…. There is a BIG difference between accusing AN INDIVIDUAL of forgery, and suspecting a piece of work of BEING a forgery. I am accusing NO ONE. I am dubious about the document.

Good grief! I never made any such insinuation. And never would.

I made pains to point out that I believe the motivation to be justified and forgivable in light of the social context of the time and place. It had nothing to do with being a liar or a cheat or trustworthiness. And certainly doesn’t somehow say that “gay=cheat�. It has everything to do with someone who WANTS to fit in his religion trying to JUSTIFY his own feelings against a repressive and intolerant dogma.

This is something I (and many many others) can identify with very well, I think.

Jay: Nice analogy. I think that says it well. Thanks.

dq

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, DQ, what I'm saying is that, after you've studied the evidence to the fullest, you'll understand that such a "fraud" could only have been produced by a conspiracy.

Therefore, if you argue fraud, then you're in effect a conspiracy theorist -- even if you don't quite realise it... Sorry about it, my friend, but this is the reality.

Regards,

Yuri.

DramaQ

Ok, I promised to do my homework before making further comment. To that end, I’ve spent quite a bit of time pouring over Yuri’s webpage, reading and learning.

I’m hoping I was able to absorb most of the information, and would like to go over some of it here. I shan’t bother to ask Yuri to point out places I’ve made mistakes and omissions. I’m sure he’ll oblige.

To sum up, here’s what I perceive are Yuri Kuchinsky’s arguments against Morton Smith as the forger or the Mar Saba document:

1. Smith “didn't care for� Western/Peripheral text and “didn't even know to what extent Secret Mark is really a Western/Peripheral text�.
2. Four out of nine instances of Western/Peripheral text parallels that Smith failed to recognize
3. Three instances of Western/Peripheral textual analogies showing a more “special� relationship between Jesus and the young man, that Smith failed to note.

So let’s take a closer look at these points.

1.

First of all your assertion Smith “didn’t care for� the Western(/�Peripheral�) and preferred the Alexandrian and therefore would not have used to WP text in his forger is – quite frankly – absurd. Smith’s personal feelings about the WP text is COMPLETLEY IRRELEVANT.

If his plan was to forge a letter by Clement and he knew Clement usually cited WP text – that’s what he would have used. Period. He may not have liked it, but he would have been a mighty poor forger if he knowingly used the wrong text to attribute to Clement.

Second: You say that Smith “didn’t even know� to what extent Secret Mark is really Western(/�Peripheral�) text. And yet, in your same essay you tell us:

Meaning it shouldn’t have been news to Smith. And you even acknowledge Smith’s own awareness of this:

Your argument seems to rely on the DEGREE to which Smith was aware of and understood the use of the WP text. This is based on the number of times he noted it. Or failed to. That takes us to the next point:

2.

Smith’s failure to note SOME of the WP parallels. By my count of your own analysis, Smith noted five times out of nine.

You build most of your case out of those other four instances of WP parallels that Smith failed to note in his analysis. But I can think of at least two ways these omissions could have happened.

a) Smith (or whoever the forger was) could have DELIBERATELY left out some cites in his analysis, assuming others examining it would find them. After all, if I was going to make a forgery and then do my own analysis of my own work, wouldn’t it look just a tad suspicious if I’d managed to analyze it PERFECTLY? Why not leave others to find some of the clues I’ve planted?
b) Smith could have (and presumably would have) used WP text – knowing that’s what Clement would have used – or even the Magdalene Gospel to formulate his bible verse. In doing so, he could easily have picked up bits of uniquely WP wording without necessarily even realizing he’d done so.

3.

More evidence of the “special� relationship between Jesus and the young man. Your source is pretty much the Magdalene Gospel for this. You use it to point out that this text hints at something more involved than the canonical John. Since you presume the Magdalene Gospel represents the older (and therefore more original) text, it shows that SOME kind of special relationship must have been included in earlier versions of Mark. Therefore, Clement’s letter is true.

Well… it COULD show that. Or it could show that Smith (or whoever the forger was) used the Magdalene Gospel for the basis of his version of the story. Or that the addition of “friend� and “love� in the Magdalene Gospel doesn’t really begin to hint at the type of relationship implied in Secret Mark and the suggestion that it does it a huge stretch.

In any case, I would hardly call it a smoking gun.

On last comment. Yuri, in your conclusion you say:

Pardon me if I pause to chuckle. Yuri, you can’t be serious about this.

OF COURSE the style of the letter is Clementine and says what Clement would be expected to say! What kind of forger would make a Clementine forgery that wasn’t??

You yourself point out:

This sounds like it totally qualifies Smith to create a “Clement-sounding� letter. I sure wouldn’t expect him to make a document that DIDN’T sound like Clement. And I sure wouldn’t call that “a priori� that Clement himself wrote the letter.

And now I’ll settle back and wait for the blast. I’m sure I’ve made a million errors and can’t wait to see what they are.

Cheers,
DQ

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, DQ, you've made many mistakes and omissions. Most importantly, Smith only found 1 real parallel between SMk and Western/Peripheral text. (His other parallels were only indirect, and some of those also very weak.) But I found 5 direct parallels.

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

It is clear that you have not studied the evidence sufficiently, and yet you're already in a rush to finding forgery...

As I wrote before,

"What distinguishes a serious researcher from a scurrilous accuser is that a serious researcher actually does take time to study the evidence. Furthermore, for anyone who wants to make a legitimate accusation that X is a forgery, the onus is on this person to present a plausible scenario of how such a forgery could have been produced."

So where's your plausible scenario now?

Instead, all you've done is offer all sorts of could have beens and would have beens...

Smith used the Magdalene Gospel for the basis of his version of the story? Hello! :wave:

I'd say this is completely impossible.

If you keep spinning such wild tales here, I think I'll put you on my ignore list pretty soon...

Yuri.