Vorkosigan

Thanks! No, I've never read that. I don't think it's an ancient forgery. Also, at least part of the Clementine letter must be forged as well. For the text says:

• "After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him," and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
  
  And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only,
  
  "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."

The letter and SecMark are intertwined......"naked man with naked man" is a provocation aimed at modern sensibilities, I fear.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Good job, Vork. There's no actual evidence that the suspect did anything wrong, and this should serve as the best evidence of his deviousness and skill in committing the crime. Sounds very Stalinist.

Hmm... but I think I recognise the logic...

"There's no actual evidence that Saddam had any WMDs, and this should serve as the best evidence of just how devious and evil he really is. He tricked us into the war!"

Regards,

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

C'mon Yuri, that's unfair. That's not the logic I am using. It is not unreasonable to hold the belief based on my understanding and experience of other forgeries . I won't bore you with lists of circumstantial evidence, but it doesn't look good for Morton Smith.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

Wow. Hell has finally frozen over--with absolutely no need for debate on anything on this point I actually agree with Vorkosigan on a contentious issue! It's a red-letter day! :Cheeky:

Regards,
Rick Sumner

andrewcriddle

A quick question. What about the monks? Was there still a tradition of hand copying. Morton Smith need not be the one to have physically produced the manuscript. The handwriting is a serious problem. I am reminded, though, of a couple of other cases of amazing skill acquired seemingly overnight.

Morton Smith's reply to Quesnell in CBQ:

• 1. Quesnell underestimates the task of his imaginary "mystifier." Perhaps, a gifted paleographer could write an eighteenth century Greek hand that would fool the experts in Athens and Western Europe. Perhaps, with Stahlin’s index to Clement and recent stylistic studies, he could also compose three pages in Clement’s style. Perhaps, if he had worked on Clement for years, 7 he might even catch Clement’s habits of thought and forms of exposition. But can we believe he could do so without any verbal imitation or quotation (except for clichés that Clement himself repeatedly repeats)? And can we also believe that this imaginary genius, when he had to forge a gospel text, would produce an amateurish imitation of Mk full of phrases found in the gospels?"

There are all good points except the last. The forger's problem is that he has to create something plausible. The only problem is that the only way that can be done is by using something extant with a similar style. Faced with the same problem, the Hitler Diary Forger worked moderately hard to get the handwriting and materials correct, but then copied the text of the diary out of existing materials in an incredibly stupid way. A second issue is that the forger is engaged in a contest of skill with the existing experts, which validates his superiority over them. The reason the text is so amatuerishly done is that it is the forger's way of displaying to himself and to (those who know in) the world that the text is a forgery. "Look how dumb those experts are! They fall for a simpleminded pastiche!"

I like Morton Smith for the forger, but I am not utterly convinced the way I was so certain so early that Lemaire and Golan were in cahoots. The fact that Smith is not connected to any other forgeries is very impressive (Lemaire had his finger in an impossible number of pies). The forger is like a serial killer -- he just can't resist producing more, even the thrill of getting cash for his forgeries is really only a form of concrete validation of his skill and power. I wonder what we'll find at Mar Saba when we finally get a chance to inventory and closely inspect the manuscript collection there. A single instance of this? If this is a real forgery from a serious forger -- and the skilled hand argues it -- there should be a bushel of other forgeries there. The problem of SecMark and Morton Smith's involvement can be solved by a close inspection of Mar Saba's manuscripts. It's a shame that this hasn't been done. SecMark is a very important and controversial manuscript. Some NT scholar needs to detail a couple of grad students to carry out this task.....

Vorkosigan

Bede

Vork, it's QUOTE you should press, not EDIT.

Vorkosigan

Damn! I did it again. That's it. Andrew's post was really good too. Shit Shit shit shit shit.

andrewcriddle

Possibilities for Secret Mark

Possibility 1/ Secret Mark is a genuine early version of Mark referred to in a genuine letter of Clement’s.

Discussion The arguments of Best and Vorkosigan obviously tell against this as does the absence of other evidence for such an early version of Mark. Arguments against the authenticity of Clement’s letter also count against this possibility. IMO not at all likely.

Possibility 2/ Secret Mark is a late 2nd century imitation of Mark referred to in a genuine letter of Clement’s.

Discussion IMO such an imitation of Mark is quite plausible we have parallels such as Proba’s version of the Bible using half lines of Virgil taken out of context.

However there are problems with regarding Clement’s letter as authentic. The apparent situation underlying the letter is hard to reconcile with what we know of Christians in Alexandria at that time. Clement’s letter seems likely to make a reader take the Carpocratians more seriously rather than less and an argument similar to Best’s can be applied to the letter to suggest that deliberate imitation of Clement’s style has resulted in ‘overkill’.

Also we can distinguish between letters meant to remain private and epistles meant to be published (In the NT Philemon is a letter Ephesians probably an epistle). At face value the Mar Saba document is a letter which Clement would definitely not want to be generally published. However it has the form of an epistle (rhetorical polish and tendency to infodump).

IMO this possibility is not at all likely.

Possibility 3/ The letter is an ancient eg 5/6th century imitation of Clement.

Discussion Such imitation at that time is quite plausible however we have no ancient evidence of such a letter only a single apparently 18th century copy. Normally when an early document survives only in a single much later copy there are places in the copy where the text is obviously wrong and conjectural emendation must be used. The Mar Saba letter has no clear need of such emendation. Together with the lack of early evidence I think this possibility is not at all likely.

Possibility 4/ The letter is an 18th century imitation/parody of Clement maybe with no intention to deceive.

Discussion This possibility has a real advantage, it fits the handwriting. Supporters of a 20th century forgery underestimate IMO the difficulty of a 20th century forger writing the small neat Greek cursive shown in the photographs.

However the other evidence points to a later date though not necessarily all that strongly. The preoccupations seem 20th century rather than 18th century, the author has knowledge of Clement’s style which is possible in the 18th century but more likely in the 20th and IMHO the representation of orthodox and heretical Christianity as types of ‘mystery religion’ may involve more knowledge of mystery religions than one would expect before the late 19th century. IMO this is quite possible but has problems.

Possibility 5/ The letter is a 20th century forgery with intent to deceive

Discussion The big problem with this is the handwriting otherwise it fits the facts. There are two realistic versions of this possibility a forgery deliberately perpetrated upon Morton Smith or a forgery perpetrated by Morton Smith. (because in this possibility the handwriting is a deliberate imitation of an older style this must be intentional deceit unlike possibility 4/) IMO this is quite possible the major problem is the handwriting.

General Discussion.

The real choices IMO are possibility 4/ and possibility 5/ we lack clear grounds to decide between them. But 1/ 2 and 3/ are not likely to be true.

Andrew Criddle

(I have rewritten this from memory and will be upset if it disappears.)

Toto

Okay - that will save a copy.

The edit button was moved because moderators kept hitting the wrong button and erasing posts that they meant to just reply to. But the move seems to have confused Vork.

DramaQ

Excellent analysis, Andrew.

I would like to add that the letter’s content, as an epistle-esque “infodump� limits the possibilities to only those that are written with the intention of deceiving.

It does not read like a private letter but as text well-crafted to steer the reader in a specific direction. And ending it with the cliffhanger “Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy...� is almost blatantly theatrical IMO.

The question becomes “What is the motivation for such a deception?�

It’s already been pointed out that the direction the letter seems to be steering us has to do with 20th century sensibilities. Specifically, with homoerotic overtones.

Now suppose for a moment our forger was a repressed and closeted gay man, living in fear of his own secret in the milieu of a conservative 1950’s American environment.

And suppose he basically considered himself Christian while at the same time being told that his own feelings and behavior were at odds with his belief system.

It is not unreasonable to imagine this person wanting, hoping for, believing in, and even finally CREATING his own religious “justification� for his feelings by giving them the ultimate credentials. An “okay� by Jesus Christ.

I believe this could have been an extremely powerful motivation that does not require greed, a quest for fame, or a need to prove one’s prowess as a forger by manufacturing additional works.

In fact, under those circumstances I would find such a deception completely forgivable.

I would like to suggest that if something like I outlined above turned out to be the case, that people not be so apt to castigate the perpetrator so readily. After all, if the belief system to which my imaginary forger adhered wasn’t so homophobic and repressive to begin with, he might not have felt a need to justify his own feelings.

Mind you, I’m not making specific accusations against anyone. I don’t know anything about the personal lives of the people involved and don’t want to know. I am simply suggesting one possibility of getting into the mind of a possible forger and understand what might have made him do it.


dq