Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, friends,

I would like to argue now that the Secret Gospel of Mark could not have been a modern forgery. Any sort of a massive SMk conspiracy would have been impossible in these modern times. So, I'm sorry to say, this just seems like a happy hunting grounds for the paranoid mind.

What I'm saying is that, realistically, the chances of Clement's letter, plus SMk fragments being a 20th century forgery are about 1 in a 100... more likely even 1 in 1000.

Indeed, to suppose that this is a 20th century forgery, one must pretty well see Smith as being a party to it, and thus part of a massive conspiracy to forge this document -- a conspiracy that would have involved many other individuals. Such as some of the monks of Mar Saba, and various other members of this Greek Orthodox monastic order, as well.

Because, at present, the monks are obviously concealing the original pages of this manuscript, and preventing their scientific inspection. So then they must also be a part of this hypothetical conspiracy. Otherwise, they would have been a lot more forthcoming with the manuscript, and the forgery would have been exposed long ago. Through the analysis of ink, for example.

Would these monks really want to see speculation about Jesus possibly being a homo being spread around -- the way they are being spread now in various places? Of course not! So then why have they been stalling for so long, and not being forthright about the manuscript?

On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to make a case that this is a 20th century forgery without Smith being involved in it in any way... This would seem to assume that Smith was rather stupid and naive, and that he couldn't detect the hanky panky that was planted there in Mar Saba library so cleverly for him to "discover"... Moreover, this modern-forgery-without-Smith variant scenario must also presuppose a really massive and continuing conspiracy among the monks of the order, possibly involving also some high level biblical as well as Clementine scholars still remaining in the shadows. (How could a bunch of simple non-scholarly monks forge something that would have fooled nearly every professional Clementine scholar in the world, as well as such high calibre NT scholars like Crossan, Koester, and others?)

Thus, if this has been a conspiracy, then Smith must have been a party to it.

Now, how massive should have this conspiracy been?

Let's begin by saying that it would have been absolutely impossible for Smith to accomplish such a forgery on his own. At a minimum, he would have needed at least one accomplice -- the scribe to forge this very specialised 18th century minuscule handwriting. Nobody so far has raised any objections about the handwriting; all the experts say that they see no problems with it. A perfect forgery! Smith could not have written this thing himself.

But in order to find such an expert forger, Smith would have also needed an intermediary, or more likely intermediaries... You know, put the word out in the shadowy antiquity forgeries black market -- are there any expert forgers out there who might be interested in doing this very special job, for good pay, of course?

Yet, before he even gets to this final stage, Smith also needed to create three texts.

-- A rather long excerpt from Clement's letter.
-- The SMk resuscitation and baptism scenes (first SMk fragment).
-- The SMk incident in Jericho (second SMk fragment).

Each of these three texts has stirred quite a debate... At this time, there's hardly any debate about Clement's letter, as such, anymore. The majority view in the field is that it's authentic.

The debates still continue about the other two texts. (Including right here at IIDB...) Let's not forget that the third piece, the SMk incident in Jericho, if authentic, has very large implications for the history of Mark's gospel. Because there's an obvious gap there in the canonical Mk 10:46, and our second SMk fragment fills in this gap...

If we accept SMk incident in Jericho as an authentic ancient text, what this means is that, right away, our canonical Mk becomes a multi-layered document, that went through many stages of editing. That's right, multiple editorial layers -- involving both expansions and deletions. A view that is extremely unfashionable today in NT studies...

The bias of a typical NT scholar today is to see our canonical Mk as a unity -- the earliest gospel from which both Mt and Lk sprang... Is there any wonder that so few professional scholars are interested in examining these SMk fragments honestly, and in considering what their real implications are? For the history of Mark's gospel, they are truly revolutionary. (I'm now working on a detailed study of SMk incident in Jericho, and its implications, which I'm planning to post here soon.)


WHAT SHOULD SUCH A CONSPIRACY HAVE INVOLVED

And so, if Mar Saba manuscript is indeed a modern forgery, then Smith must have been at the centre of this conspiracy. He would have needed to create three separate texts, as listed above. Could have he created them all by himself, not being, himself, a recognised expert either in the Clementine field, or in the gospel of Mark, or in the Synoptic problem more generally? Hardly possible... So he must have also involved some of the specialised scholars in these fields in his conspiracy. The conspiracy keeps growing, folks!

And so, what we have now is this wicked and sinister conspiracy that keeps involving more and more participants... The monks of Mar Saba, plus going all the way up to the very top of this monastic order... The black market for forgeries. Crooked hand writing experts. Unethical Clementine, Markan, and Synoptic experts -- all working furiously behind the scenes in deepest secrecy, putting this amazing forgery together... And of course Morton Smith being at the very hub of this conspiracy -- the wicked Mastermind, he -- co-ordinating everything, and making sure it all goes smoothly...

Hmm... I wonder if we should also start bringing in the Bavarian Illuminati, and the Masons, here as well, at this point... Could have all this really been connected with the New World Order somehow, and Morton Smith's Secret Masterplan for World Domination?

Well, my dear friends, it only needs to be stated now, of course, that, at this point, not a shred of hard evidence has emerged for any conspiracy. Those who're saying that this is a modern forgery should really just try and calm down a bit. Please, once again, try to consider these things rationally... It might just be all in your head, folks, really, I'm sorry to say...

So here's my logic once again.

If SMk is a modern forgery, Smith must have been involved in it. And yet, he could have never done it all by himself. He would have needed assistance. So, in order to create any sort of a realistic scenario for a forgery such as this, one needs to postulate multiple accomplices, who would have been able to render assistance in multiple fields. If one wishes to make such a scenario realistic, the conspiracy would tend to grow until it becomes rather large. But now, after all these years, after Smith's death -- with his archives having been available for public inspection -- not a shred of evidence has emerged for any conspiracy. How a conspiracy such as this could have ever remained concealed in our day and age? Thus, there was no conspiracy. I conclude that SMk could not have been a 20th century forgery.

Best wishes,

Yur

DramaQ

I'm sure I won't be the only one with a comment or two, but here goes...

I agree. To suggest a massive conspiracy theory would seem to indicate a bit of paranoia. This is the first I've heard of a massive conspiracy theory.

1 in 100 is not impossible.

Ah... well keep coming up with the odds. 1 in 1000 is still a long way from impossible.

All such odds (however made up) tell us is that it's an event that happens very (very) rarely. I think we can all agree with that. The Mar Saba document is a very rare event. Whether genuine or forgery, it's not going to happen often. 1 in 100 times, or 1 in 1000. Maybe one in 10,000.

Once in 2,000 years.

Is their direct and original involvement necessary? What if the document was somehow foisted off on them unawares, originally. But having found themselves in the possession of it they decided to eke as much as they could out of it. Like having their own "Shroud of Turin". They may believe or even know it to be fake, and DON'T want an analysis done. Until it is, they have a bit of notoriety. They don't have to have been involved up front to come to this kind of conclusion.

Not saying this is the case, just pointing out that there are other explanations that don't involve "massive conspiracy".

If they thought they could gain something by it. Incidentally, I wonder how Morton Smith, whom you defend quite valiantly, would take to your use of that derogatory word.

Some of the greatest works in the world have started out with one person with a half-baked idea. He shares it with someone else who takes it up and the two wind up running with it. Maybe a third joins. It doesn't start out at a "conspiracy". But a combined effort nevertheless comes about. It only needs to be a few of the right people in the right place at the right time with a common motive. Rare? Sure. Won't happen but 1 in 1000 times.

Gosh, seems like I've read LOTS of scholars both for and against the fragments. It's almost as if many NT scholars are FASCINATED by it - whether it it or turns out to be real or not. I'm sure I've read scholars who have analyzed it "dishonestly" too. But I don't know as that makes up the majority of them.

I've read this before, too. And I completely agree that if it is a forgery (no matter who-dun-it) is is an extraordinary one. If it wasn't, we wouldn't all still be talking about it.

My problem is your persistent use of the word "impossible" as if no human being (or small group of them) on the planet has ever had or ever could have the ability to artificially produce that document.

That's like saying "The pyramids couldn't have been built by ancient people."

I'm sorry, Yuri, but saying it's "impossible" smacks of wishful thinking to me. And trying to claim that it could ONLY be done by way of a massive conspiracy and THEN telling us such a conspiracy could not have gone undetected sounds like a... I think the term I've learned since I've been perusing these pages is "strawman".

Just how I sees it....

dq

Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI:
Would these monks really want to see speculation about Jesus possibly being a homo being spread around?

I consider this as a slander of the Holy Greek Orthodox Church.

You should really apologise, DQ...

____________

YURI:
At a minimum, he would have needed at least one accomplice

So how many do you think were involved in this conspiracy?

Yuri.

moorezw

Is there in existence an actual copy of the document Smith discovered?

I was under the impression that there is not- if that's the case, then it's a fairly simple conspiracy.

DramaQ

I will if they ask me nice.

I would first have to believe there was a conspiracy. Now, if you can show me that there was a second forger on the grassy knoll you may be on to something.

Toto

We are fairly sure that it was in existence: Smith photographed it, and other people saw it. It has now disappeared, but Smith cannot be blamed for that. Unless you think that the conspiracy included monks from the Greek Orthodox Church and a few other people.

Vorkosigan

Yuri, not only is SecMark a forgery, but I would bet money that the Sophocles scholia fragments he brought back are a forgery too. There's just no way that SecMark is some unique forgery and he never did another. The Scholia are the dry run for SecMark.

To sum up, arguments that a forger could not have done X, Y, and Z are irrelevant. "Could not" is not an argument, but an expression of hope. Comments like...

...simply fail to understand how scholars work. Frauds routinely fool scholars because they appeal to ideological biases and because scholars simply do not know how to assess them. See the James Ossuary, which should have been laughed out of the house at first sight as it was obviously forged, but instead NT scholars held their collective breath in secret ideological hope: "At last something to deploy against mythicists!" SecMark works by appealing to the opposite ideology. Haven't you noticed how acceptance of SecMark has fallen out along ideological lines -- confessionally conservative scholars reject it universally, while there is a high level of acceptance among scholars (and layman) who reject the conservative positions on history and religion? Lots of anti-Christian pages accept SecMark -- I was just reading the article on it at Rotten.com the other day, for example, where it was obviously deployed in that role.

You just can't go broke underestimating the gullibility of scholars. Didn't you see the article from BAR I referenced last month where Eric Meyers says up to 40% of artifacts in Israeli Museums are frauds? That's scholars falling down on the job 4 times out of 10. I used to do translation work for a company here in Taiwan that made high-quality videos for detecting porcelain forgeries. The same problem exists in museums here with respect to porcelain forgeries (and others as well). It is not an NT scholar problem, but a worldwide scholar problem.

The fact is that objects must fall into an accepted range of variation, and that this range of variation is always widened by the presence of bogus artifacts, which are widespread. The fact is that you gotta go where the evidence points, and it all points to Morton Smith. Maybe it is a conspiracy (wouldn't surprise me) but I can think of a hundred ways Morton Smith could have gotten someone else to write that Clementine letter in an 18th century hand without giving away the fact that he was intent on duping the world. It's most likely, however, that he did the whole thing himself. Perhaps even as an elaborate joke, which then blew up in his face and spun out of control....

Vorkosigan

moorezw

Do we know the names of these people? Have they come forward to verify the authenticity of the original document?

Yuri Kuchinsky

I see, Vork... So you're willing to accuse without any evidence. I bet you've never even laid your eyes on the Sophocles scholia fragments...

So I guess this can tell us a lot more about your general attitude towards this matter than anything else you've written so far...

In this case, "Could not" merely represents a sober assessment of the evidence.

For example, when I say that the cow could not have jumped over the Moon, this is what I call the sober assessment of the evidence.

This is faulty logic, Vork. Just because some forgeries have been identified, this doesn't mean that all new textual discoveries are forgeries.

By constantly invoking the James Ossuary, or some other known forgeries like the Hitler's Diaries, what you're doing is essentially making an argument like the one above. This is purely an emotional argument, and the only thing it does is increase the level of suspiciousness and paranoia.

Well, I guess it makes you proud to count yourself among the "confessionally conservative scholars" in this case?

I would like to see some of this evidence please. So far, you've presented none.

I'm saying that, at this late stage, this would have to be a conspiracy.

If one believes that Smith was a forger, then the monks would have to be in cahoots. There's no other way to explain their lack of willingness to present the manuscript for public scrutiny, so that it can be subjected to scientific testing. Which, one assumes, would expose the forgery in a couple of days.

For example?

And I guess Morton had to murder him later, as well, to get rid of this crucial witness? <shock!>

So now, at last, we're getting to the real nitty-gritty of this case, after all... <horror!>

No, this is impossible. See above.

All you do here so far, Vork, is spin wild conspiracy theories, one stranger than the other...

Where's the goods, my friend?

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

TOTO:
We are fairly sure that it was in existence: Smith photographed it, and other people saw it. It has now disappeared, but Smith cannot be blamed for that. Unless you think that the conspiracy included monks from the Greek Orthodox Church and a few other people.

Actually, there are now two separate sets of photographs. The second set was taken later by the Librarian of the order, Mr. Kallistos, and it has been published by Charles W. Hedrick. See,

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/S...Mark-News.html

Mr. Kallistos had spoken with Hedrick, and verified the authenticity of this document.

There are also several other named Western scholars who examined the manuscript on yet another occasion in the past.

There's no evidence at all that Smith was involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever.

All the best,

Yuri