Ted Hoffman

Yuri, is there any evidence that the Monks EVER had the ms? If you do, please share it with the skeptics here.

How do we know they had it? Have they admitted that they had it and lost it?

You write:
You omit to mention the fact that the photos Hendrick obtained were (1) not the same as Morton Smiths and (2) that they were not obtained from Bar Saba Monastery but from a former librarian at Jerusalem Patriarchate library.

This is BS and you know it. How dare you repeat this argument here?

Yuri, in the interest of sanity, disqualify yourself from discussions concerning SGMk because you can't see straight on the issue. Everything you state about the issue for over a decade is unbalanced. You cannot be relied upon to provide a balanced and reliable view on the subject.

It is obvious that a demonstration of the inauthenticity of the Gospel would not favour your theories on the Magdalane Gospel, western/peripheral text arguments etc.

Either way, the way events unfolded concerning the SGMk, the shadow of mystery, the questionable disappearance and reckless handling are consistent with forgery, and not authenticity.

Haran

To be fair to Yuri, the MS was always in the keeping of the monks in the Mar Saba monastery.

Smith "found" the MS in the Mar Saba monastery and left it there with the monks. The book eventually found its way to Jerusalem. One of them apparently stated that he had removed the MS from the back of the Voss book, took the color pictures of it (in 1977), and put it away. The one who did this is no longer working there. Today, the claim seems to be that the MS has been misplaced.

Like you, I don't understand exactly why Yuri refers to the color photographs as "new". It is probably because this is the way Hedrick announced them, giving the impression that Secret Mark was recently seen and photographed. In fact, these color pictures of Secret Mark are "old" and were taken in 1977.

Ted Hoffman

Haran, from where did you get the idea that one "of them apparently stated that he had removed the MS from the back of the Voss book, took the color pictures of it (in 1977), and put it away"?
Who did he admit to? Journalists?

That is what I am asking. Was it in Morton Smith's book?
My questions are about sources of information.

Haran

I'm starting a new thread for this topic called "Luke 3:22, Adoptionists, and Bart Ehrman". I think it would be an interesting discussion.

Haran

Umm...all the books and articles start to meld together after a while. I believe it was actually stated by Hedrick in his article in the Jesus Seminar's "The Fourth R" periodical. I think Stroumsa may have said something similar as well. I'm not sure if Smith ever said anything about the color pictures. It was probably stated somewhere else, but I can't remember where without digging through more books, which I don't have time to do at the moment.

Ted Hoffman

I would appreciate it if there is someone who could answer with certainty the source of the information that (1) some monks had it (2) and subsequently (admitted to have) lost it.

Iasion

Greetings Steven,

Thanks for your reply,

I don't know, I couldn't find it listed (?)
But I assumed NA only cited early witnesses?
Perhaps I mis-read the apparatus entirely?

Firstly,
I didn't know, nor do I yet, that 1574 is 14th century.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I thought it was at least misleading, considering :
* he spent many pages discussing non-manuscipt evidence,
* but he mentioned the manuscript evidence in one vague sentence ("virtually the only reading")
* which avoided any specific manuscipt citation,
* and failed to mention the important p75,
* which dis-agrees with him.


I cannot yet read from the apparatus exactly which mss dis-agree which him - I'd be happy for someone to explain it to me, meanwhile I'll read up on it.

I note that P75 is not mentioned here at all - perhaps this is considered some sort of default witness to the text?

Also, it seems that the dating of P75 has firmed from 3rd C. to c.200 (or 175-225) recently?


Iasion

Haran

Iasion, please refer to the following thread where I have already addressed some of the issues. This is an interesting discussion that I would like to participate in some, but it's not really related to Secret Mark...

Luke 3:22, Adoptionists, and Bart Ehrman

Thanks.

Haran

In one of the previous Secret Mark threads that Toto linked to, I believe I gave a link to the issue of "The Fourth R" that contained a lot of this information. I also believe that Yuri mentioned the journal in which some of this information is contained: Journal of Early Christian Studies.

If I have time later, I'll see if I can find more specific references. However, since they've already been covered, it probably wouldn't be too hard to look the information up yourself if there is a decent library near you...

Doctor X

Maybe it is in the Ossary. . . .

I think this is becoming a "dead issue" in that Until Someone Properly Studies the Actual Manuscript it is All Speculation.

Period.

It may be "reasonable" and even "erudite" speculation, but it remains only that.

--J.D.